Disposed

Cholamandalam investment v. Mr.Siddeek P

Madras HC25 Oct 2017A/4261/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court closed an application requesting the appointment of a receiver to seize a vehicle. The vehicle had already been seized and handed over by the court-appointed receiver. A direction was issued preventing the applicant from alienating or encumbering the vehicle during pending arbitration proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Application closed; vehicle not to be alienated or encumbered by applicant during arbitration pendency.

Cholamandalam investment Vs Mr.Siddeek P — Madras HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

¶4

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶5

A. No.4261 of 2017

¶6

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.Siddeek P Arising under Loan Agreement No. XVFPAPY000009 23761 Dated 05.03.2013.

¶7

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,

¶8

Mr. Siddeek P, S/o. Pookuntu Valiyaparambil, Eruva PO, Kayamkulam, Alappuzha, Near Muhyudeen Pally, Karthikappally, Kerala 690 502. : Respondent

¶9

: Respondent

¶10

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to appoint employee of the Applicant viz., Mr. Prasanna B T, Legal Executive, as Receiver to seize and take possession of the vehicle which is more fully described in the schedule to the judges summons which is lying in the custody of respondent or his men, agents, servants from his premises or wherever found with Police aid and break open of premises if necessary.

¶11

This Application coming on this day before this court for hearing the court made the following order:

¶12

¶13

By order, dated 02.08.2017, this Court appointed Mr.Prasanna, BT, Legal Executive of the applicant company, as a Receiver, to seize and possess the vehicle in question.

¶14

Pursuant to the warrant of commission issued by this Court to seize the vehicle, it is today represented by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the subject asset has been seized and handed over to the applicant company by the Receiver. He would also point out that arbitration proceedings have been initiated and are pending. The said statement is recorded.

¶15

Though the respondent has been served and his name appears in the cause list, none appears on his behalf.

¶16

In the above circumstances, nothing further survives in this application and the same stands closed. However, the vehicle shall not be alienated/altered/encumbered by the applicant during the pendency of the proceedings for arbitration without obtaining suitable directions in this regard from the Arbitrator. Needless to say, as and when an award is passed, the parties shall be at liberty to proceed as per law.

¶17

//Certified to be a true copy//

¶18

Dated this the th day of 2017.

¶19

EM/30.10.2017 COURT OFFICER

¶20

From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.

Cholamandalam investment v. Mr.Siddeek P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cholamandalam investment v. Mr.Siddeek P

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

Cholamandalam investment Vs M/s.Karmavir Pratishthan

Mycon Construction Ltd., Vs Mecon Limited

M.Harikumar Vs M/s.Akshaya Private Ltd.

M/S.Abb India L Vs M/S.Kvk Nilachal Power P L

Cholamandalam Investment Vs Mr.Inamul hachan

Cholamandalam investment Vs Mr.Sagar Bhardwaj