J.M. Malik, J. (Chairperson)

1. This appeal pivots round the question whether the receiver appointed under Sub-section (18) of Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act is entitled to seek police aid.

2. Mr. Yatinder Pal Singh, the Respondent availed financial facilities from ICICI Bank Ltd., the Appellant in this case in the sum of Rs. 9,55,000/- for purchase of Honda Civic vehicle. The Respondent also undertook to repay the loan amount in 59 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 21,973/- each. The Respondent could not adhere to the repayment scheme. A legal notice dated 19.7.2010 was also served upon the Respondent but the needful was not done.

3. The Appellant Bank filed an O.A. against the Respondent in August 2008 along with an application seeking appointment of a receiver for taking over the possession of the vehicle bearing No. DL-3C BA-0413. The learned Trial Court appointed the receiver and passed the following order:

Having considered the submissions, the application for appointment of Court Receiver(s) is allowed ex parte with the direction that Court Receivers named above shall take into possession the vehicle HONDA-CIVIC/1.8 SMT BEARING REGISTRATION No. DL-3C-BA-0413 mentioned above and will submit the report before the next date of hearing. However, in case, the Defendant deposits/tenders a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- either by draft or by cash along with an undertaking thereby undertaking to pay future EMIs regularly and to produce the vehicle, if required, by the Tribunal, the vehicle shall be given in Supurdagi to the Defendant.

4. The Court Receiver submitted his report on 30.9.2010. It was explained that due to strong resistance of the customer and his lawyer Mr. M.S. Bammi the vehicle could not be recovered. However, Mr. Yatinder Pal Singh gave an undertaking. The said undertaking runs as follows:

It is to submit that I Yatinder Pal Singh undertake to appear before the D.R.T., New Delhi for the settlement of the loan Account and case pending before D.R.T. regarding car bearing Reg. No. DL-3C-BA-0413.

It is further submitted that my Advocate Sh. M.S. Bammi have discussed the matter with Sh. Himanshu Mahapatra on the spot where he had come to receive delivery.

I undertake to appear before D.R.T. for the settlement within two days from today i.e. 26.9.2010.

Date: 26.9.2010

Y.P. Matta -9871762381

M.S. Bammi -- 9891911118

Sd/- (Y.P. Matta)

5. Despite this undertaking it appears that Respondent did not appear before the learned Trial Court nor did he deposit Rs. 5 lacs as ordered by the learned Trial Court.

6. The impugned order also shows that despite sufficient service the Defendant did not appear before the learned Trial Court. He did not file the written statement. He was proceeded against ex parte.

7. The appeal came up for hearing before me on 7.2.2011. Mr. Yatinder Pal Singh was served in this case but none has appeared on his behalf. Affidavit of service was also filed. He be proceeded against ex parte.

8. On 14.12.2010, the Appellant moved an application for contempt of Court under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act wherein it was prayed that contempt proceedings be initiated against the Respondent or any order which the Court thought it proper to be passed in favour of the applicant and against the Respondent.

9. It is surprising to note that no order was passed on this application. The impugned order reveals that it was passed on an application allegedly filed on behalf of the applicant Bank seeking permission to sell the vehicles. The Appellant Bank has not moved such application before the Tribunal. It appears that there may be some typographical mistake.

10. I have heard the Counsel for the Appellant Bank. He submits that his only purpose is that the vehicle in dispute should be recovered by the Receiver. He further prays that he will not press the application for contempt of Court before the lower Court. He has prayed that Mr. Himanshu Mohapatra, Receiver be directed to seek police aid under the circumstances detailed above.

11. I find considerable force in his argument. The said vehicle be recovered by the Receiver through the police aid and, if necessary, the SHO concern is directed to assist the Receiver. There lies no rub in seeking the police aid if permitted by the DRT or DRAT.

12. The appeal stands disposed of. Parties to appear before the learned DRT on the date already fixed for further proceedings.

13. Copies of this order be furnished to the parties as per law and one copy be sent to the learned DRT forthwith.