Dismissed

M S Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co. Ltd. v. Dls Travels (Borrower)

Madras HC21 Mar 2024Arb Appln/163/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a joint application regarding appointment of an advocate commissioner to seize a vehicle under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, the court held that given the respondent's admission of repaying 17.42 lakh of the 17.92 lakh principal, the case was not fit for interim relief. The application was dismissed, though the applicant was granted liberty to initiate arbitration for the stated outst

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed with liberty to initiate arbitration proceedings; Arbitral Tribunal may order seizure under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act if an application is filed to that effect.

M S Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Arb.Appln.No.163 of 2024

¶2

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶3

This Arbitration Application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Section 9(1)(ii)(d) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying for appointment advocate commissioner to seize the vehicle more particularly described in the schedule hereunder, wherever stationed in the premises of the respondent or wherever it is found and with whomsoever it is found with powers to breakdown the premises and grant permission to the receiver to obtain police aid from the concerned police officer.

¶4

The dispute between the applicant and the respondents are

¶5

arbitrable in terms of Clause 29 of the Loan Agreement dated 30.08.2019. It reads as under:-

¶6

Arbitration : All disputes, differences and/or claims arising out of this agreement whether during its subsistence or there after shall be settled by arbitration ina ccorance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory amendments thereof and shall be referred to the Sole Arbitration of an Arbitrator nominated by the company. The award

¶7

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

¶8

1/4

¶9

given by such Arbitrator shall be final and binding on all parties to this Agreement. In the event of an appointed arbitrator dying or being unable or unwilling to act as arbitrator for any reason, the Company on such death of the arbitrator or his inability or unwillingness to act as arbitrator, shall appoint another person to act as arbitrator. Such person shall be entitled to proceed with the reference from the stage left by his predecessor. The venue of arbitration proceedings shall be at Chennai or such other place/location/city which the Company at its discretion may decide from time to time”.

¶10

Under the loan agreement, the applicant has advanced

¶11

purchase of the second hand vehicle for a sum of Rs.17,92,500/repayable in 47 equated monthly installments of Rs.48,054/- standing from 20.10.2019 and ending with 20.08.2023. It appears that due to the intervening lock down imposed and disruption on account of outbreak Covid-19 Pandemic, the applicant has agreed for the moratorium whereby the repayment period was extended to 64 equated monthly installments with same EMI for 47 months

¶12

The affidavit filed in support of the applicant indicates that

¶13

as against the loan amount of Rs.17,92,500/-, the respondent has paid a sum of Rs.17,42,903.64 and was in arrears of only a sum of Rs.49,596.36

¶14

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

¶15

2/4

¶16

(Rs.17,92,500/- _ Rs.17,42,903.64). The applicant has however quantified the outstanding amount as Rs.11,26,642.41 as on the date and hence has filed this application.

¶17

I have perused the affidavit filed in support of this

¶18

application. In my view, this is not a fit case for granting of interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, since the respondents have admittedly repaid an entire amount of Rs.17,42,903.64 .

¶19

In view of the above, I am inclined to dismiss this

¶20

application. However, liberty is given to the applicant to initiate arbitration proceedings. The Arbitral Tribunal may pass appropriate order under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after notice to the respondent, if an application is filed to that effect.

¶21

With the above liberty, this application stands dismissed.

¶22

21.03.2024

¶23

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

3/4

kkd

C.SARAVANAN,J.

kkd

Arb.Appln.No.163 of 2024

¶29

21.03.2024

¶30

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

¶31

4/4

M S Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co. Ltd. v. Dls Travels (Borrower)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co. Ltd. v. Dls Travels (Borrower)

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

Hdb Financial Services Limited Vs Arunnehru M

M/s Mercedes Benz Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Radharam Marketing Private Limited

M/s Mercedes Benz Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Achal Raina

M.S.Ramasamy Vs T.Ratha

Hdb Financial Services Limited Vs Manogaran a

Adani Ennore Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kamarajar Port Limited