Quashed

Mr. P. Vairamani v. Sundaram Finance Limited

Madras HC5 Feb 2021A/312/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application to quash an attachment order dated 17.04.2015. The court found that the parties had subsequently settled, the applicant paid the dues, and the respondent finance company cancelled the hypothecation.

What did the court decide?

The order of attachment dated 17.04.2015 in A.No.804 of 2015 was quashed, and the Registrar was directed to notify the Sub Registrar to update entries. No costs.

Mr. P. Vairamani Vs Sundaram Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

A.No.312 of 2021 in A.No.804 of 2015

¶2

P.T.ASHA, J.

¶3

The above application is filed seeking orders of raising the

¶4

attachment made in A.No.804 of 2015 by order dated 17.04.2015.

¶5

The respondent/applicant had filed A.No.804 of 2015 under

¶6

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for furnishing security to the tune of Rs.9,21,862/- within the time stipulated by this Court, failing

¶7

which, to order attachment of the property.

¶8

It appears that by order dated 17.04.2015, the attachment was

¶9

ordered in A.No.804 of 2015 and the same was entered in the books of

¶10

Registering officer namely the Sub-Registrar,Tharangampatti within the

¶11

registration district of Karur.

¶12

1/5

¶13

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

¶14

The applicant herein would submit that subsequent to the order of

¶15

attachment, they had approached the respondent finance company and arrived at a settlement, in and by which, the entire amounts due to the applicant/respondent has been fully paid. Therefore, there was no necessity

¶16

to continue the order of attachment on file. Under these circumstances the

¶17

application came to be filed.

¶18

Heard the counsel and perused the papers.

¶19

It appears that after the orders of attachment, the parties have

¶20

entered into a settlement, in and by which, the applicant had undertaken to pay the dues of the respondent company. The amounts have also been paid and the respondent finance company had cancelled the hypothecation held

¶21

by them in respect of the said property.

¶22

Under these circumstances, the order of attachment dated

¶23

17.04.2015 in A.No.804 of 2015 is raised and the Registrar shall send

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

necessary intimation to the Sub Registrar, Tharangampatti within the registration District of Karur so as to enable them to update the entries. No

costs.

05.02.2021
mrn

3/5

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

¶31

P.T.ASHA, J.

¶32

mrn

¶33

A.No.312 of 2021
in
A.No.804 of 2015
05.02.2021

¶34

4/5

¶35

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

¶36

5/5

¶37

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

Mr. P. Vairamani v. Sundaram Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. P. Vairamani v. Sundaram Finance Limited

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

M/S.P.v.K.Investments Vs C.Prabhakaran and another

B.Rajkumar (Deceased) 1.H.Shoba Kapoor and 4 others Vs Kalpana Inderson and 3 others

M/s Fullerton India Credit Co., Ltd. (Ficcl) Vs Mr.Senthilkumar Ganesan

M/s Urc Construction Pvt. Ltd, Represented by its Managing Director C.Devarajan, Vs M/s Rites Ltd, Rep.by its Managing Director

M/s Urc Construction Pvt. Ltd, Represented by its Managing Director C.Devarajan, Vs M/s Rites Ltd, Rep.by its Managing Director

Vs