$-8 t IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI cRL.M.C. 1320t2010 HDFC BANK LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Punil Kumar Bhalla, Advocate VCTSUS STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, APP for State Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA ORDER % '11.'11.2010 The vehicle in question was financed by the petitioner. lt was found to have been purchased by Shaukat Hussain through Mr. Samuel Manul Bendish, a front man of him out of the proceeds of criminal activities. The vehicle was confiscated and seized by the police under MCOCA. lt was released on superdari initially in favour of the petitioner. Later on, the trial court directed that the vehicle be handed over to the State. The petitioner has approached this Court against the order of learned trial court directing him to hand over the vehicle to the State. It is not in dispute that quite a few installments of this vehicle have been received by the petitioner and the petitioner has a right to receive the balance amount payable to the petitioner under the agreement. lt is directed that the vehicle shall be handed over by the petitioner to the State. The State shall sell the vehicle as per law only by way of public auction and out of the proceeds of sale of vehicle the amount payable to the petitioner shall be paid and rest shall be confiscated by the State. However, the petitioner shall handover the vehicle to the State within one week and the State shall make endeveaur to dispose of the vehicle within six weeks thereafter in accordance with orocedure under MCOCA. With above directions, this petition stands disposed of. Dasf. SHIV NOVEMBER rd 1',|,2010 a ,l a RA,J 4o"fl.rri*s g{. oH / ttfuf>nl, -Frefl\ Crnlt, q llb/ >-tl- r:ffi Signing Date:06.08.2024 17:06:00 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified -/ \\ $-8 4, II\ THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + , CRL.M.C. 132012010 HDFC BANK LTD. ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Pranav Proothi, proxy counsel. VETSUS STATE ..... Respondent Through ll4r. Navin Shanna, APP for State. CORAM: HONIBLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR ORDER , 28.02.2013 Crl. M.A. No.9116/20LL By this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks compliance ofthe order dated 1 1.11.2010. In response to the present application, the State has filed the status report. As per the status report filed by the State the stand taken is that after having undertaken various procedures and formalities the auction of the vehicle in question was enhusted to the Disf,ict Nazir, Divisional Conrnissioner's Office, GNCT of Delhi and vide letter no. F.1(5)/Aucfion/DN/DCA{A/2011/05 dated 13.2.2013 the OIC A I' ./ w A (Nazarat)/SDM-IV(HQ) intimated the police that the highest bid quoted by the bidder was Rs. 4.50 lacs during the public auction which was much lower than the reserved price detennined by the T.O.(TPT). It is stated that the vehicle in questio., "orrld not be auctioned in these circurnstances and another attempt can be made to auction the vehicle. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the police has already taken lnole than two years to auction the said vehicle and the delay on the part of the police would finther deprecate the value of the said vehicle.- Counsel also subrnits that the custody of the vehicle in question should be given to the petitioner so that the petitioner , who becarne the owner of the said hypothecated vehicle, can sell the same by public auction so that the arnount received frorn the auction of the said vehicle can be adjusted against the outstanding loan arnount of the bank. Heard. This court passed the following order vide order dated 11.11.2010. "The vehicle in question was financed by the petitioner. It was found to have been purchased by Shaukat Hussain through Mr. Samuel Manul Bendish, a front man of him out of the proceeds of criminal activities. The vehicle was confiscated and seized by the police under MCOCA. It was released on superdari initially in favour of the petitioner. Later on, the trial court directed that the vehicle be handed over to the State. The petitioner has approached this Court against the order of leamed trial court directing him to hand over the u i vehicle to the State. It is not in dispute that quite a few installments of this vehicle have been received by the petitioner and the petitioner has a right to receive the balance amount payable to the petitioner under the agreement. It is directed that the vehicle shall be handed over by the petitioner to the State. The State shall sell the vehicle as per law only by way of public auction and out of the proceeds of sale of vehicle the amount payable to the petitioner shall be paid and rest shall be confiscated by the State. However, the petitioner shall handover the vehicle to the State within one week and the State shall make endevour to dispose of the vehicle within six weeks thereafter in accordance with procedure under MCOCA. With above directions, this petition stands disposed of." The police has taken more than two years to auction the said vehicle from the date of the passing of the said order and the court cannot be oblivious of the fact that any further delay in auctioning the vehicle will further lead to depreciation of the value of the vehicle in question. At the same time the interest in the loan amount of the borrower with the petitioner bank will also be mounting up and therefore in the interest of justice, order dated 11.11.2010 requires modification. The police is accordingly directed to hand over the custody and possession of the vehicle in question to the petitioner bank within a period of two weeks from the date of this order and after taking possession of the said vehicle, the petitioner shall be at liberty to sell the vehicle by public auction and then adjust the loan amount from the sale proceeds of the said vehicle. \\ With the above direction, the present application stands disposed of. DASTI. /)//lv4 KAILASH GAMBHIRO J FEBRUARY 28,20l3lmg .L ',/ F