M/S.Mercedes Benz Financial Services India Pvt., Ltd., v. Baddepudi Sunil Reddy

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J., The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that since the respondent had paid the entire due amount prior to the seizure of vehicle, the subject vehicle was not seized by the learned Advocate Commissioner, however, the applicant had paid the initial and additional remuneration to the Advocate Commissioner as ordered by this Court.

2. In reply, the learned Advocate Commissioner would submit that for the purpose of seizure of subject vehicle, he had visited the respondent's place for 3 times. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, for the 1st and 2nd visit, the initial and additional remunerations were paid to him by the applicant and hence, today, he prays for further additional remuneration of a sum of Rs.30,000/- for his 3rd visit.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant had confirmed the submissions 1/4

made by the learned Advocate Commissioner and requests this Court to fix any reasonable amount as further additional remuneration to the learned Advocate Commissioner.

4. Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, this application is closed by granting liberty to the applicant to file a fresh application if there is any default on the part of the respondent.

5. Considering the efforts made by the learned Advocate Commissioner, this Court is inclined to fix a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards further additional remuneration to the learned Advocate Commissioner.

6. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as further additional remuneration to the learned Advocate Commissioner within a period of 2 weeks from today (20.06.2024).

7. Post this matter on 04.07.2024 for reporting compliance. 2/4

20.06.2024 nsa Note: Issue order copy on 24.06.2024 3/4

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J., nsa 20.06.2024 4/4