ICICI BANK LTD Vs. SHAKTI SINGH AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the present appeal FAO 405/2018, 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 HYUNDAI I-20/ASTA bearing registration no. UP-16BL0023 from the possession of the respondents.

(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 respondents in December, 2016 had requested the appellant for grant of loan to the tune of Rs. 6,36,000/- for purchase of the vehicle HYUNDAI I-20/ASTA bearing registration no. UP-16BL0023 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 respondents had agreed to repay the said loan in 47 equated monthly instalments with interest as per the repayment schedule and that the respondents had secured the loan by way of hypothecating the vehicle and that the appellant bank had sanctioned a loan of Rs. 6,36,000/- and disbursed an amount of Rs. 6,33,350.00 on 28.12016 to the dealer under loan account no. LANOD00035161392 as per the request of the respondents under the loan cum hypothecation scheme of the appellant bank after deducting the amount towards the processing fees as per request of the respondents under the personal loan cum hypothecation scheme.

(3.) The appellant bank contended that the respondents had also stated to have agreed to repay the said loan amount of Rs. 6,36,000/- along with interest @10.02% in 47 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 16,415/- in terms of loan account no. LANOD00035161392 and that the respondents had also agreed that in case any instalments is delayed the respondents would pay a penal interest @24% per annum as per the loan documents executed by them on the outstanding equated monthly instalments amount and that it had also been agreed by the respondents 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.