Skip to main content

Bank can sell vehicle seized due to default through public auction with prior written notice to the debtor

In ICICI BANK vs AMIT KURI, appeal was filed before the Delhi High Court by the Petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court in simplicitor adjourning the proceedings and not granting permission under Order XXXIX Rule 6 CPC for sale of the vehicle which has been taken into custody by the receiver appointed by the Court.

The Petitioner contended that the respondent defaulted in making the payment of the instalments and accordingly the subject suit for recovery was filed against the respondent and application was moved to the concerned Trial Court for appointment of a receiver to take over possession of the subject vehicle. The possession of the vehicle was taken over on 02.04.2018. Application under Order XXXIX Rule 6 CPC was filed on 14.08.2018 seeking permission to sell the vehicle. The application is stated to be pending and no order on the application has been passed despite passage of substantial period.

Order XXXIX Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with interim sale of movable property and states that the Court may, on the application of any party to a suit, order the sale, by any person named in such order, and in such manner and on such terms as it thinks fit, of any movable property, being the subject-matter of such suit, on attached before judgment in such suit, which is subject to speedy and natural decay, or which for any other just and sufficient cause it may be desirable to have sold at once.

The Petitioner referred to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd vs. Kamal Kumar Garewal, which had laid down the process for interim sale on application under Order XXXIX Rule 6  of the Code of Civil Procedure and also contended that delay in sale of the repossessed vehicle substantially diminishes the realisable market value of the vehicle causing loss to the bank.

The Delhi High Court accepted the argument of the Petitioner and allowed the appeal.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more