K. Kannan, J. - (1.) (Oral) - The financier is in revision against the order passed by the appellate Court dismissing the appeal filed against an interim order issuing a direction to the defendant to re-deliver the vehicle seized by the financier for non-payment of dues. The trial Court relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur and others, AIR 2007 SC 1349 to say that the financier could not enforce the claim without resorting an appropriate legal remedy. In my view, the point was missed. There is no judicial interdict against a financier for enforcing the rights secured through a contract. The Supreme Court was only cautioning the financier's interference in some cases where the collection agents employed by the Banks were exceeding their briefs and they were using questionable practices of violating the business norms and causing terror to the borrowers. The judgment ought not to be understood as a complete embargo against a financier from applying the relevant provisions under the contract for enforcement which would include a power to seize a vehicle operated on hire-purchase basis when the hirer did not pay the hire charges regularly. In this case, the financier institution was also relying on a clause in the contract that provided for settlement of disputes before the Arbitrator. The trial Court restrained the Bank from seizing or selling the vehicle. When the Bank filed the appeal, the appellate Court has observed that the appeal itself was not maintainable since the trial Court had not after all disposed of the matter finally and the case was still pending. I have seen through the order dated 09.04.2008. There is a clear direction for release of the vehicle to the plaintiff subject to the payment of due installments upto date. The interim direction given in an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 must be taken as appealable and even if it were to be considered or otherwise, will hold that the order passed by the trial Court was erroneous. There could be no such direction when the respondent was contending that the vehicle had actually been sold after seizure and the direction given could not have been worked out in view of the details given by the financier about the sale to a third party. The order passed by the Courts below are set aside.
(2.) If the defendant has not filed the statement already, the same be filed within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The counsel states that there is a petition filed under Section 8 for reference to Arbitration. Even, the direction for statement need not to be complied with, if there is a petition already pending before the trial Court. The Court shall pass an appropriate order in the petition within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The time given shall not be extended and no party shall seek for time before the Court to be ready to argue the application. The trial Court is directed to fix a date peremptorily for a disposal of the application for reference to arbitration and pass an order and communicate the same to this Court.
(3.) The impugned orders are set aside and the revision is disposed of with the above directions.;