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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more