HDFC BANK LTD Vs. SUDESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 26th April, 2012 the Petitioners have preferred the present petition whereby the learned Trial Court set aside the sale of the vehicle and directed HDFC Bank to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/ - each per day to the Respondent in case of default of order of the Court and permitted the Respondent to recover the cost in accordance with Order 21 CPC.

(2.) A brief exposition of the facts is that a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act') was filed being Petition No.32/2008 titled as HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. Shri Sudesh Kumar etc. wherein the learned Additional District Judge was pleased to appoint Shri Naresh Yadav, Authorized Representative of the HDFC Bank Ltd. as Receiver to take into custody vehicle Tata 4018 bearing registration No.PB - 30D -2489, Engine No.50M62444977, Chasis No.447205MUZ216040 and its body from the possession of the Respondent and keep the same under his charge in safe custody with the same condition of vehicle as taken in possession from the Respondent against receipt and details of the condition of vehicle under intimation to the Court. Notice was issued to the Respondent returnable for 26th March, 2008. On 1st December, 2008 since no process fee was filed, the petition under Section 9 of the Act was dismissed for non -prosecution. In the meantime, on 3rd November, 2008 the vehicle was repossessed and on 4th November, 2008 the goods lying in the vehicle were returned to the owner of the goods. In the arbitration proceedings the award was passed by the learned Arbitrator on 17th January, 2009 which is as under:

(3.) NO objections to the award were filed by the respondent and thus the vehicle was sold on 26th February, 2009 and the proceeds of the sale were accounted to the loan account of the Respondent. On 22nd March, 2011 after more than two years the Respondent filed an application under Order 40 Rule 3 CPC before the learned Additional Sessions Judge wherein notice was issued to the Petitioners as well as Shri Naresh Yadav, Authorized Representative of the Plaintiff Company, the receiver of the Tata 4018 bearing registration No.PB -30D -2489, Engine No.50M62444977, Chasis No.447205MUZ216040 wherein finally the impugned order was passed. The contention of the Respondent in the application before the learned Additional District Judge was that Naresh Yadav, Authorised Representative of the Petitioner was to keep the vehicle in his custody but he breached the order passed by the Court and sold the Vehicle. The learned Additional District Judge having passed no order of sale of the vehicle of the respondent thus Naresh Yadav committed contempt of Court as neither the vehicle was restored to the Respondent nor brought to the Court by the Petitioner or the receiver.