Allowed

M/S Cholamandalam Investment v. Dhayalan.K

Madras HC18 Aug 2021A/1325/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Appeal No. 1325 of 2019, the Madras High Court granted interim relief by appointing the applicant's legal manager as a receiver to seize a vehicle held by the respondent under a loan agreement, following a prima facie case and balance of convenience.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. Sudheer P.T. as receiver to take possession of the vehicle; valid for six weeks; police aid permitted.

M/S Cholamandalam Investment Vs Dhayalan.K — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.08.2020

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

Application No.1325 of 2019 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 versus Mr.Anilkumar P.M., S/o.Rarichakutty, Ponmanikkott Meethal, Kakkodi P.O., Kozhikode, Kerala – 673 611. ... Respondent

¶7

Prayer : Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Section 9(ii) (a) (d) (b) & (e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint employee of the applicant viz., Mr.Sudheer P.T., Jr. Manager-Legal, 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 the respondent or respondent's men, agents, servants from respondent premises or wherever found with Police aid and break open of premises if necessary.

¶8

For Applicant : Mr.D.Pradeep Kumar For Respondent : No Appearance

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

This application has been filed for interim measure for appointing a

¶11

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶12

receiver to seize the vehicle.

¶13

¶14

It is the case of the applicant that as per the loan agreement dated

¶15

30.10.2015, the respondent has availed a sum of Rs.2,44,145/-. As the respondent committed default, it is the contention of the respondent that unless a receiver is appointed to take charge of the vehicle, there will be irreparable injury and the vehicle will be sold by the other side. Hence, it is prayed for appointment

¶16

of a receiver.

¶17

In such view of the matter, if the vehicle is allowed to be sold by the respondent, the very right of the applicant will be defeated.

¶18

Taking into consideration that the applicant has made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant, Mr.Sudheer P.T., Jr. Manager-Legal, the employee of the applicant company is appointed as a receiver

¶19

to seize the vehicle covered under the contract. This Order shall operate only for a

¶20

period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶21

The receiver will be entitled to take possession of the vehicle from the

¶22

respondent or his agents or any one in possession thereof. If necessary, the Receiver shall get police assistance and the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station, within whose jurisdiction the vehicle is found, will

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

render requisite assistance for this purpose.

¶25

¶26

This Order of appointment shall be served on the respondent by the

¶27

applicant before the receiver takes any action on the basis of this Order.

¶28

Accordingly, this application is closed.

¶29

ggs

¶30

05.08.2020

¶31

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶32

¶33

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

ggs

A.No.1325 of 2019

05.08.2020

http://www.judis.nic.in

M/S Cholamandalam Investment v. Dhayalan.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Cholamandalam Investment v. Dhayalan.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.W.H.Ghyaz Ahmed (P-in-P) Vs Dr.Lakshmanan Saravanan

S Abubacker Siddiq and another Vs Central Bank of India, Rep.by its Manager, Nungambakkam Branch

The General Manager, Southern Railway Park Town, Vs v.Subbarami Reddy, Jayampu

Mr.M.Kumaran Vs Dr.Kamalabai Sampoornam

S Abubacker Siddiq and another Vs Central Bank of India, Rep.by its Manager, Nungambakkam Branch

G.Ravindra Vs M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.