Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)Manager, Icici Bank Ltd vs Prakash Kaur & Ors on 26 February, 2007
In ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakash Kaur & Ors. (2007) 2 SCC 711, the petitioner purchased a truck getting it financed from ICICI Bank. He having defaulted in payment of the instalments, the possession of the truck was taken by the Bank by use of force. The truck having not been returned to him, a Writ Petition was filed by him, seeking registration of an FIR. Disapproving the course of action adopted by the Bank, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Bank to forthwith release the truck to the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that instead of taking resort to strong arm tactics, the bank should resort to procedure recognized by law to take possession of vehicle in cases where borrower itself defaulted in payment of instalments. During the course of a separate judgment, Hon'ble Dr. Justice A.R. Laxmanan noted that the recovery/collection agents who are contractors hired by the banks, physically and mentally torture them and force them into paying the dues and the self-respect of a man and his stature in society is immaterial to such agents. His Lordship also observed that many a times even notice is not given to the borrowers who purchased the vehicles on hire-purchase basis and the vehicle is seized in public places deliberately in order to cause embarrassment to the borrower. In a subsequent decision CITICORPN.
Citicorp.Maruti Finance Ltd vs S.Vijayalaxmi on 14 November, 2011
Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S. Vijalaxmi IV (2011) CPJ 67 (SC), a Three Judges-Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated as under:
Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. vs Pannalal Baghel on 1 July, 2020
7. Though there is evidence of the petitioner having intimated the concerned police station about the order passed by the concerned court under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, there is no credible evidence to prove that any police official was actually present at the time the vehicle was re-possessed. The re-possession memo. does not bear signatures of any police official. No affidavit of any police official was filed before the District Forum to prove that he was present at the time the vehicle was re-possessed and that the re-possession was peaceful and without any resistance. By re-possessing the vehicle through its field officer instead of re-possessing the same through the court receiver, the petitioner, in my opinion, committed a deficiency in rendering services to the complainants. They were not expected to take law into their own hands and were required to re-possess the vehicle through their field officer, they having already obtained an order for appointment of the court receiver and the said receiver having been appointed not only to re-possess the vehicle herself but also to appoint an agent for this purpose. Taking forcible possession through the field officer of their lender would be sheer high handedness and constitutes a deficiency in the service. A reference in this regard can be made to the decision of this Commission in RP No. 1790 of 2013 SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. Vs. PANNALAL BAGHEL Order dated 01.07.2020 where this Commission inter alia held as under:-
1