In an interim application regarding a loan default, the High Court appointed the applicant's counsel as a receiver for three weeks to seize a vehicle, ruling that its sale by the respondent would defeat the applicant's rights and cause irreparable injury.
Mr P Saravanan is appointed as receiver to seize the vehicle for three weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Application No.1819 of 2021
Application No.1819 of 2021
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
This application has been filed for interim measure for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to seize and deliver the vehicle. Subsequently, learned counsel for the applicant has filed a Memo for appointing a Receiver instead of appointing an Advocate Commissioner. The said Memo is taken on
record.
4.Taking into consideration that the applicant has made out a prima facie
case and balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant, Mr.P.Saravanan https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
of the applicant company is appointed as a receiver to seize the vehicle covered
Page No.1/2
Application No.1819 of 2021
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
msv
under the contract. This Order shall operate only for a period of three weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and thereafter, this Order shall
stand automatically cancelled.
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
render requisite assistance for this purpose.
applicant before the receiver takes any action on the basis of this Order.
17.08.2021
msv
Application No.1819 of 2021
Page No.2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a receiver should be appointed to seize and sell the vehicle lent by the applicant to protect against irreparable injury due to default.
The court held the applicant made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience favored them.
Applicant Company
Respondent
N.SATHISH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
