Allowed

Dr P Balabasker v. M/s Sundaram Finance Limited

Madras HC17 Dec 2024Arb Appln/888/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, applicants sought permission to deal with schedule properties and register documents. With parties' settlement of dues, court recalled earlier undertaking and allowed execution and registration.

What did the court decide?

Permission to execute and register documents related to schedule properties is allowed, and the Sub-Registrar of Chennai is directed to register them.

Dr P Balabasker Vs M/s Sundaram Finance Limited — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Arb Appln NO. 888 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-12-2024

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

¶4

Arb Appln NO. 888 of 2024

¶5

AND

¶6

ARB APPLN NO. 889 OF 2024,OA NO. 985 OF 2018

¶7

Dr P Balabasker S/o.Dr.R.Padmanabhan, No 15 A Rathinammal Street Rangarajapuram Kodambakkam Chennai 600024No 15 A Rathinammal Street Rangarajapuram Kodambakkam Chennai 600024 and another Vs M/s Sundaram Finance Limited rep.by its Senior Manager - Legal No.21, Patulous Road, Chennai 600 002.No 15 A Rathinammal Street Rangarajapuram Kodambakkam Chennai 600024

¶8

Appellant(s)

¶9

Respondent(s) Arb Appln NO. 889 of 2024 Dr P Balabasker No 15 A Rathinammal Street Rangarajapuram Kodambakkam Chennai 600024 Applicant(s) Vs M/s Sundaram Finance Limited No 15 A Rathinammal Street Rangarajapuram Kodambakkam Chennai 600024 Respondent(s) OA NO. 985 of 2018

¶10

Sundaram Finance Limited Rep.by its Senior Manager(Legal), No.21, Pattulos Road, Chennai600 002. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶11

¶12

Dr.P.Balabasker Rep.by its Senior Manager(Legal), No.21, Pattulos Road, Chennai600 002. and another

¶13

Applicant(s)

¶14

Respondent(s)

¶15

Arb Appln NO. 888 of 2024

¶16

For Appellant(s): M/S.M Akshayaa M Akshayaa

¶17

For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Uma Shankar for M/s.Sri & Shankar Associates.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard Ms.M.Akshaya, learned counsel for the Applicant and Mr.R.Uma Shankar, learned counsel for the respondent, M/s.Sundaram Finance Limited.

¶20

These Applications have been filed to permit the Applicants to deal with schedule mentioned properties and consequently, direct the Sub Registrar, Joint Sub Registrar No.2, Central, Chennai to register the documents executed by the second Applicant, or by any person on behalf of the applicants. The specific contention of the leaned counsel for the Applicant is that on 31.07.2024, the Applicant has settled the entire dues of the respondent and the same is also evidenced by a letter dated 31.07.2024.

¶21

3.Mr.R.Uma Shankar, learned counsel for the respondent also fairly submits that the loan amount has been settled and they have no objection for the Applications being ordered as prayed for.

¶22

It is seen that an undertaking was given by the Applicant before this Court and the same has also been communicated to the Sub Registrar Central, Chennai. Therefore, in view of the settlement, the said undertaking of the Applicant is recalled and consequently, the Applicant is permitted to execute and register documents.

¶23

In view of the disputes settled between the parties, there is no impediment for registration of documents by the Applicant. Accordingly, this Application is ordered.

¶24

Registry is directed to communicate the order to the Sub Registrar, Joint Sub https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

Registrar No.2, Central, Chennai

¶26

at the cost of the Applicant.

¶27

17-12-2024

¶28

Note: Issue order copy on 20.12.2024.

¶29

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

Dr P Balabasker v. M/s Sundaram Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr P Balabasker v. M/s Sundaram Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Shimato Enterprises Private Limited Vs S Subburam

M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs Mr.v. Chandrasekar

M/s.SelvaMadhu Infras Llp, Vs K.Nalliappan

Tata Capital Ltd. Vs Cee Pee Service

Lss Ocean Transport Dmcc Vs K I International Limited

Viskan Logistics Services Private Limited Vs The General Manager Southern Railway