Hdfc Bank Ltd. vs Ramesh Chander Suri
2010 Latest Caselaw 1770 Del

                                                       UNREPORTABLE


*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                          FAO No.125/2010


                                    Date of Decision: April 05, 2010


       HDFC BANK LTD.                     ..... Appellant
                    Through Mr. Punit K. Bhalla, Advocate

                     versus


       RAMESH CHANDER SURI                         ..... Respondent
                   Through None


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

1.     Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
       judgment? No
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? No

REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

This appeal has been preferred against the order of an

Additional District Judge, dated March 23, 2010 whereby the learned

Judge has dismissed the application of the appellant under Order 40

Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking appointment of a

Receiver so as to take possession of vehicle, namely HONDA CITY 1.5

GXI bearing registration No.DL-8CJ-8170 for which the respondent

had taken an auto loan from the appellant to the tune of Rs.3,60,000/-

in February, 2008. As per the terms of the agreement, the loan was

repayable in 36 monthly installments of Rs.12,835/- each.

The trial Judge by virtue of the impugned order has declined the

relief prayed for, on the ground that the application was bereft of

material details in as much as it neither disclosed the number of

installments that had already been paid by the respondent, nor the

date from which the default was committed.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the

relevant details with regard to the loan are contained in the suit filed

before the trial Judge in which the application under Order 40 Rule 1

of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed and besides that, the

appellant had also filed a statement of account before the trial Judge

which clearly indicated the period up to which the installments had

been paid and the month from which the default in making the

payment was committed. It is further submitted that the respondent

has so far paid only 11 out of 36 installments and as on March, 2010

he was in default of as many as 10 installments resulting in the recall

of the loan on March 11, 2010. It is also submitted that in terms of

the loan agreement, in case of default of installments the appellant is

entitled to take possession of the vehicle from the respondent.

Having regard to what has been noticed above, I am of the view

that the facts and circumstances of the case warrant that the

appellant be allowed to take possession of the vehicle. Accordingly, I

appoint Mr. Sandeep L. Sharma/Amit Banerjee/Sanjay Sharma,

representatives of the appellant-bank to take custody of the vehicle,

namely HONDA CITY 1.5 GXI bearing registration No.DL-8CJ-8170

under their charge. The Officer/Officers on taking possession of the

vehicle will issue an appropriate receipt to the person from whose

custody the vehicle has been taken and will also indicate therein the

condition of the vehicle. The Officer/Officers shall ensure that the

vehicle is kept in safe custody. In case there is any resistance from

the respondent, the appellant shall be at liberty to take police

assistance.

With these directions, the appeal is disposed of. Dasti.

REKHA SHARMA, J.

APRIL 05, 2010 ka