Allowed

M/S.Shriram City Union Finance v. Mrs.Dhanapackiam and Another

Madras HC3 Feb 2021A/271/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras raised an order of attachment dated 23.07.2018 in an arbitration enforcement application. The attachment was ordered released because the respondents had settled the entire disputed amount with the applicant, making further attachment unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The order of attachment dated 23.07.2018 is raised and the Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Sub-Registrar, Chennai South Joint-I.

M/S.Shriram City Union Finance Vs Mrs.Dhanapackiam… — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

A.No.271 of 2021 in A.No.8792 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.02.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
A.No.271 of 2021
in
A.No.8792 of 2017
M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Limited,
having its Branch Office at
No.12, Ramaswamy Street, T.Nagar,
Chennai, rep. by its Authorised Signatory,
E.Ramya
.. Applicant/ Applicant
-Vs-
1.Dhanapackiam
2.M.Kumar .. Respondents/ Respondents

¶6

Prayer: Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules r/w. Section 9(2)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to raise the order of attachment dated 23.07.2018, passed in Application No.8792 of 2017, and consequently communicate the order to the Sub Registrar, Chennai South Joint-I as to make entries in his records in respect of the property more fully described in the schedule.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Umashankar

¶8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶9

A.No.271 of 2021 in A.No.8792 of 2017

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The above application is filed by the applicant for raising the order

¶12

of attachment dated 23.07.2018 passed in A.No.8792 of 2017 and to communicate the said order to the Sub Registrar, Chennai South Joint-I.

¶13

The applicant Finance Company had initiated Arbitration

¶14

proceeding and an award came to be passed on 20.12.2017. Since the amounts were not paid, the applicant had filed an application in A.No.8792 of 2017, directing the respondent to furnish security to the tune of Rs.4,08,242/- within a stipulated period, failing which to order attachment of

¶15

the property of the second respondent.

¶16

By an order dated 08.06.2018, this court was also pleased to

¶17

direct the respondent to furnish security as claimed on or before 16.07.2018.

¶18

Since the respondent had not complied with the above order, an order of attachment of the immovable property was made by this court dated 23.07.2018.

¶19

But, pursuant to the orders of this court, it appears that the

¶20

respondents have approached the applicant for an amicable settlement of

¶21

the dispute and had agreed to settle the entire amount which they had also

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ settled thereafter. Considering the fact that the amounts due to the

¶23

A.No.271 of 2021 in A.No.8792 of 2017

¶24

applicant has been fully settled. The applicant has come forward with the present application for raising the order of attachment.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel and also perused the records.

¶26

Considering the fact that the entire dues of the applicant has been settled, there is no necessity for continuing the order of attachment with regard to the property of the 2^nd respondent. Consequently the application is ordered as prayed for and the order of attachment dated 23.07.2018 passed in A.No.8792 of 2017 is raised and the Registry is directed to communicate the order to the Sub-Registrar, Chennai South Joint-I, so as to enable him to make necessary entries in his records in respect of the property in question.

¶27

03.02.2021

¶28

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order : Non-speaking order

¶29

dsa

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶31

A.No.271 of 2021 in A.No.8792 of 2017

¶32

P.T.ASHA,J. dsa

¶33

A.No.271 of 2021
in
A.No.8792 of 2017

¶34

03.02.2021

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

M/S.Shriram City Union Finance v. Mrs.Dhanapackiam and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Shriram City Union Finance v. Mrs.Dhanapackiam and Another

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

Mr.T.Francis Nelson Vs Mr.J.Amalraj

India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s.Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited and 2 others

M/s.Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited Vs M/s.Vnr Auto Logistics Rep.by its Proprietor Mr.Nageswara Rao and 2 others

Suresh Kannan, Sole Proprietor, M/s.Vijay Steels Vs M/s Rrb Energy Ltd. and another

M/s Kgs Developers Limited, Represented by its Director Mr.a.Srinivasan, Vs M/s.Inder Chand Kochar

Mr.K.Senthil Kumar, Proprietor, Vs M/s Deeess Engineers India Projects Pvt. Ltd.