Allowed

V Jayaseelan v. Pradeep Swaminthan

Madras HC18 Mar 2024Arb Appln/142/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to vacate an interim injunction restraining alienation of property in an arbitration matter was allowed after counsel reported that parties had arrived at a settlement dated 19.02.2024. Registry directed to inform the Sub-Registrar of the vacatur.

What did the court decide?

Interim injunction dated 10.11.2021 vacated; Registry directed to send communications to the Sub-Registrar through the Jurisdictional Court.

V Jayaseelan Vs Pradeep Swaminthan — Arbitration | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Arb.Appln.No.142 of 2024 in

¶2

O.A.No.75 of 2021

¶3

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶4

This application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to pass an order to vacate the interim injunction passed in O.A.No.75 of 2021 on 10.11.2021 restraining the first to seventh applicants from executing the Sale Deed or Agreements or otherwise alienate the schedule property.

¶5

Mr.S.Suresh, learned counsel for the respondent appears and

¶6

submits that he has instruction to report that the respondent/applicant has no objection for allowing this application as the parties had arrived at a Settlement on 19.02.2024.

¶7

Relevant portion of the Settlement Agreement dated 19.02.2024 reads as under:-

¶8

“5. The Judgment Debtors initially paid Rs.2,00,000/on 30.01.2024 and balance dues had availed loan from Shriram Housing Finance and the copy of the Sanction Letter dated 15.02.2024, furnished to the Decree Holder shows Rs.20,00,000/- is sanctioned to Mrs.Nirmala

¶9

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

¶10

Sathyaseelan wife of 5^th J.D herein. In order to release the loan amount, the J.D's should deposit the original title deeds of the said property with Shriram Housing Finance that is given as security to the Decree Holder. Since the Decree Holder has to release the original title deeds that was deposited with him as security, even before receiving the loan amount, he was constrained to impose the following terms and conditions and the Judgment Debtors agreed to the said terms and conditions.”

¶11

In view of the above, I see no impediment in allowing this

¶12

application filed to vacate the interim injunction granted on 10.11.2021. Hence, this Arbitration Application stands allowed.

¶13

Registry is directed to send suitable communications to the concerned Sub-Registrar through the Jurisdictional Court, vacating the interim injunction passed in O.A.No.75 of 2021 on 10.11.2021.

18.03.2024

arb

C.SARAVANAN, J.

arb

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

¶19

Arb.Appln.No.142 of 2024 in O.A.No.75 of 2021

¶20

18.03.2024

¶21

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

V Jayaseelan v. Pradeep Swaminthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Jayaseelan v. Pradeep Swaminthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Official Liquidator, High Court, madras as the Liquidator Vs The City Union Bank Ltd., Represented by its authorized Officer/Branch Manager

The Official Assignee Vs a.Gowherjan

The Official Liquidator Vs Kumar Raichand Madan

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Vs Baiju D and another

Bharath Kumar Huf Vs Kjr Studios

Goldmines Telefilms Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bharath Kumar Huf