ICICI BANK LTD Vs. NANDINI ACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the present appeal FAO 401/2018, the appellant assails the impugned order dated 07.06.2018 and 09.08.2018 of the Trial Court of the learned ADJ-03 (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi whereby it was observed by the learned Trial Court to the effect that before passing an appropriate order under Order XL Rule 1 CPC, it was considered expedient to issue summons of the suit to the defendant on filing of PF and by way of registered post with acknowledgement due and all other modes of service as approved. The appellant thus seeks the appointment of an ex-parte receiver to take over the possession of the vehicle MARUTI BALENO / DELTA CVT bearing registration no. HR-26CW-3610 from the possession of the respondent.

(2.) The grievance of the appellant is to the effect that the ex-parte receiver as prayed by the appellant for seizure of the vehicle referred hereinabove was not appointed. It has been averred by the appellant that the respondent in April, 2016 had requested the appellant for grant of loan to the tune of Rs. 6,50,000/- for purchase of the vehicle MARUTI BALENO / DELTA CVT bearing registration no. HR26CW-3610 and entered into a loan agreement under the loan cum hypothecation scheme of the appellant bank and executed the credit facility application along with standard terms and conditions for said facility, deed of hypothecation and irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the appellant bank and that the respondent had agreed to repay the said loan in 60 equated monthly instalments with interest as per the repayment schedule and that the respondent had secured the loan by way of hypothecating the vehicle and that the appellant bank had sanctioned a loan of Rs. 6,50,000/- and disbursed an amount of Rs. 6,49,000.00 on 30.11.2016 to the dealer under loan account no. LAGUR00034389267 as per the request of the respondent under the loan cum hypothecation scheme of the appellant bank after deducting the amount towards the processing fees as per request of the respondent under the personal loan cum hypothecation scheme.

(3.) The appellant bank contended that the respondent had also stated to have agreed to repay the said loan amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- along with interest @9.45% in 60 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 13,636/- in terms of loan account no. LAGUR00034389267 and that the respondent had also agreed that in case any instalments is delayed the respondent would pay a penal interest @24% per annum as per the loan documents executed by him on the outstanding equated monthly instalments amount and that it had also been agreed by the respondent that in the event of default in making the payment of the instalments, the appellant bank would be entitled to recall the entire loan and to take further steps for recovery and enforcement of security.