RENUGADEVI Vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common judgment is passed in these appeals as the challenge in the appeals is to the almost identical orders passed by the court below by which in the applications of the respondent/lender an order has been passed for repossessing the hypothecated vehicles/machines by a receiver on account of non-payment of the loan instalments to the respondent.

(2.) When this appeal came up on the first call, though the counsel for the appellants at that stage ought to have had instructions as to whether the defaulted instalments would be paid by the appellants within a particular period of time, yet as the counsel did not have instructions, the matters were passed over. When the matters came up on the second call, counsel for the appellants states that on account of financial difficulty, appellants will only pay one instalment when approximately at least seven instalments in each of the cases are due. The total amount due for all the cases comes to approximately Rs.60 crores towards instalments to the respondent.

(3.) It is trite that money borrowed is not money earned. A borrower does not favour the lender when instalments are paid. Surely, appellants in cases like these cases have no law, equity or bonafides in their favour because it cannot be that as many as seven instalments will not be paid yet the hypothecated vehicles/machines will not be repossessed and the appellants can keep on using vehicles/machines which they purchased by taking loans and without paying the due loan instalments. Even with respect to future instalments, I may note that counsel for the appellants states that appellants will only pay alternative instalments and not instalments every month. This, in my opinion, is clearly unacceptable especially because counsel for the respondent states that the vehicles have been rendered untraceable.