IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 984 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 3573 OF 2006 State Bank of India..... ...... ......Plaintiff. V/s Anand Omkarnath Pandey & Ors. ...... ...Defendants. Ms.Heena Mody, Adv. for the plaintiff. Mr.Santosh Narwade, Adv. for the defendant No.3. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 16/6/08 PC: The plaintiff-State Bank of India has taken out this notice of motion with a view to seek appointment of Court Receiver for taking possession of the car hypothetcated in favour of the plaintiff and for its consequential sale. It is the case of the plaintiff that the principal borrower defendant No.1 agreed to purchase the car owned by defendant No.3. The 3rd defendant had taken a loan from HSBC bank for purchase of the said car. HSBC had agreed for one time settlement on the 3rd defendant paying sum of Rs.4 lacs. Defendant No.1 had requested the State Bank to advance loan and the demand draft was disbursed from the account of defendant No.1 by plaintiff- bank to the 3rd defendant in the name of HSBC bank. It is undisputed that the demand draft issued by the plaintiff has been encashed by 1 payment of the outstanding loan by defendant No.3 to HSBC bank. Strangely enough the car in question continues to be in possession of the defendant No.3. According to the plaintiff defendants 1 and 2 are in collusion with defendant No.3 and have cheated the plaintiff-bank. Reply to the notice of motion is filed only by defendant No.3. It is stated in the reply that the husband of defendant No.3 had business transaction with one Mr.Santosh Singh. It is then stated that as defendant No.3 had to clear of the loan of HSBC bank under one time settlement she was in need of sum of Rs.4 lacs. It is further stated that husband of defendant No.3 demanded the money from Santosh Singh and Santosh Singh arranged the said amount by way of demand draft of the plaintiff-bank. It is obvious that the demand draft was paid for repayment of loan of HSBC bank and demand draft issued by the plaintiff has been used for repayment of the outstanding loan by defendant No.3. The car is hypothecated in favoaur of the plaintiff. Originally the new car was purchased in the year 2002 and the plaintiff advanced loan to defendant No.3 in the year 2003. Defendants have failed to repay the loan amount. By passage of time value of the vehicle is bound to depreciate. I have no iota of doubt that the plea raised by 3rd defendant is prima facie a dishonest plea. Having regard to the attending circumstances I am inclined to allow the notice of motion on the following terms: Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay is appointed for taking possession of the hypothecated car described in Ex.E, C-3 and C-5 2 with all powers under Order 40 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is granted liberty to move for appropriate directions in regard to sale after Receiver takes possession of the car. At this stage learned counsel for the defendant No.3 seeks stay of this order. Prayer is rejected. Notice of motion stands disposed of accordingly. 16.6.08 3