ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs. JETESH PRASHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner M/s. ICICI Bank Limited vide the present petition, a CM(M) calling it an appeal seeks the setting aside of an order dated 29.09.2018 of the learned trial Court of the Civil Judge-03 (Central) in Suit No.2882/2018 vide which the prayer made by the petitioner herein as plaintiff of the said suit seeking an ex parte appointment of the receiver under Order 40, Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908 to take over the possession of the vehicle CITY/D-SVMT bearing registration No.DL-1CQ-7304 was declined, observing to the effect that it would amount to injustice to the defendant i.e., the respondent herein if the application was allowed ex parte in as much as there was a default in payment of only four equated monthly instalments till 03.08.2017 and that there could have been certain circumstances that had arisen due to which, the defendant/ respondent herein might not have been able to repay four EMIs and it could only be ascertained once the defendant was served with the notice of the suit in hand and appeared in Court.

(2.) The submission made by the petitioner herein is to the effect that the respondent had approached the petitioner for a car loan for the purchase of the said vehicle in February, 2014 for an amount of Rs.8,74,000/- which was disbursed on 14.02.2014 by the Bank after deducting Rs.3,500/- towards processing fees, stamp and other charges which loan amount was repayable in 60 equated monthly instalments of Rs.18,786/-, of which, the respondent paid a sum of Rs.9,20,728/- i.e. 49 equated monthly instalments but defaulted in payment of a sum of Rs.74,930.00/- i.e. four equated monthly instalments and cheques issued by the defendant/ respondent herein were dishonored and returned unpaid and that Rs.8519/- towards late payment and cheque bouncing charges totalling to Rs.83,449/- apart from future instalment of Rs.1,25,962.30/- was payable as on the date 03.08.2018.

(3.) The petitioner also submitted that a notice recalling the loan was also sent by the petitioner to the respondent on 03.07.2018 but despite that, the respondent had not paid the loan amount. Inter alia the petitioner submitted that the vehicle was hypothecated with the plaintiff Bank. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in view of loan documents having been executed by the petitioner including the deed of hypothecation as per which the vehicle was financed was hypothecated in the name of the petitioner bank with the Bank being entitled to take over the possession of the vehicle in the event of default by the respondent, the Bank being the original owner of the vehicle and the petitioner having been authorized by the Irrevocable Power of Attorney by the respondent to take over the possession of the vehicle and to sell the same to appropriate the dues in the event of default by the petitioner, grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the ex-parte receiver is not appointed as the petitioner has strong apprehensions that the respondent could sell away the vehicle which was the property of the petitioner Bank in as much as the respondent was not paying the instalments nor producing the vehicle for inspection as per the terms and conditions of the documents, which would cause irreparable loss and injury to the respondent.