Disposed

M/s. Cholamandalam Invesment v. Mr. Vidyadharan N

Madras HC4 Aug 2015A/3693/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of an application appointing an Advocate Commissioner to seize a vehicle. The court noted the warrant had been executed and handed over the vehicle, leaving the application open only to be closed formally.

What did the court decide?

Formalized closure of the application as the appointed Advocate Commissioner had already executed the warrant and delivered the vehicle.

M/s. Cholamandalam Invesment Vs Mr. Vidyadharan N — Madras HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU A. No.3693 of 2015

¶3

In the matter of
Arbitration & Conciliation
Act, 1996
And
In the matter of Disputes
between M/s.
Cholamandalam Investment and
Finance Company Ltd. and
Mr.Vidyadharan N., Arising
under Loan Agreement No.
XSHUKTP00000957972 Dated
26/04/2013.
M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited,
‘Dare House’, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road,
Parrys,
Chennai – 600 001.
Represented by its Authorised Signatory : Applicant
Vs.
Mr.Vidyadharan N.
S/o.Narayanan
Nedumangattu House,
Kattappana South PO, Kanchiyar,
Idukki, Udumbanchola,
Kerala – 685 515. : Respondent
Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased
to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to seize and deliver
the vehicle to applicant, which is more fully described in

¶4

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶5

¶6

the schedule to the Judges Summons which is lying in the custody of respondent or his men, agents, servants from his premises at Nedumangattu House, Kattappana South PO, Kanchiyar, Idukki, Udumbanchola, Kerala – 685 515 or wherever found with Police aid and break open of premises if necessary.

¶7

This application coming on this day before this court

¶8

for hearing the Court made the following order:-

¶9

This application was filed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to seize and deliver the vehicle to the applicant. By order dated 15.06.2015, this Court appointed

¶10

the Advocate Commissioner who in turn executed the warrant and seized the vehicle and handed over the same to the applicant as per the report filed by him.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since

¶12

the prayer sought for in the this application has been granted and also complied with by the Advocate Commissioner, nothing survies in this matter to be further adjudicated upon. The respondent was served with private notice. He has not chosen to appear either in person or counsel. His name is printed in the cause list.

¶13

Considering the above stated facts and circumstances

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

¶16

and consider the fact that the prayer sought for in this application has been granted and the warrant was also executed by the Advocate Commissioner, nothing survies in this matter to be further adjudicated upon. Accordingly, this application is closed.

¶17

sd/.R.M.D.J
04.08.2015
//Certified to be a true copy//
Dated this the day of 2015.
R.s/27.08.2015 COURT OFFICER
From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of
the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s. Cholamandalam Invesment v. Mr. Vidyadharan N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Cholamandalam Invesment v. Mr. Vidyadharan N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Securities of K.Aravamudhan Vs

M.Sudha Vs a.Gnanasekaran IAS

G.Subramanian @ Kovi Vs T.Rangaraj

Mr. R. Ravinder Kumar Vs Mr S Thiagarajan

Andriyaa(Minor) Vs

M/s. Magic Rays Vs M/s. Nic Arts