Mahindra And Mahindra Financial Services Limited Vs Manickaraja K — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mahindra And Mahindra Financial Services Limited Vs Manickaraja K — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The arbitration application is closed (not adjudicated on merits); liberty is reserved to the applicant to file a fresh application for repossession when the vehicle becomes available, with the Court indicating it will consider appointing the same Advocate Commissioner and adjusting the initial remuneration already paid to him.

Issue for consideration

Whether the arbitration application should continue to be kept pending when the Advocate Commissioner appointed to repossess the vehicle is unable to execute the Warrant because the vehicle cannot be located. +1 more

Court's answer

Since no useful purpose would be served in keeping the application pending when the Advocate Commissioner is unable to repossess the vehicle despite the Court's order of 21.06.2024, the application is closed.

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is granted to the applicant to file a fresh application as and when it is possible for the Advocate Commissioner to repossess the vehicle from the respondent's premises or wherever it is available.

Key takeaways

While considering the fresh application, this Court will consider appointing the very same Advocate Commissioner who was appointed earlier in this application.ratio¶22
This Court shall also consider adjusting the initial remuneration paid to the Advocate Commissioner in this application when deciding the payment of remuneration upon the fresh application.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Abdul Quddhose, J.), Arb. Appln. No.289 of 2024, decided 05.03.2025: An application by Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. for repossession of a vehicle through an Advocate Commissioner appointed by order dated 21.06.2024 was closed. The Advocate Commissioner had been unable to execute the Warrant because the vehicle could not be located, and had filed an interim report saying so. Observing that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the application pending, the Court closed it but granted the applicant liberty to file a fresh application as and when the vehicle could be repossessed from the respondents' premises or wherever available, indicating that it would consider appointing the very same Advocate Commissioner and adjusting the initial remuneration already paid to him when deciding the fresh application.

Arb. Appln. No.289 of 2024

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05.03.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

Arb. Appln. No.289 of 2024

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Rep. by its Authorised Signatory G. Srinivasan

Applicant

Vs

K. Manickaraja and two others Respondents

For Applicant : Mr.M. Arunachalam

- - - - -

Even though this Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to

repossess the vehicle as early as on 21.06.2024 itself, till date, the

Advocate Commissioner has been unable to execute the Warrant, since the vehicle could not be located. An interim report has also been filed by

the Advocate Commissioner stating that the vehicle could not be located.

2. No useful would be served, if this application is allowed to be

kept pending when the Advocate Commissioner is unable to repossess the vehicle, despite this Court having passed an order as early as on

21.06.2024 itself. Accordingly, this application is closed. However, 1/3

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

Arb. Appln. No.289 of 2024

liberty is granted to the applicant to file a fresh application as and when it is possible for the Advocate Commissioner to repossess the vehicle from the respondent's premises or wherever it is available. While considering the fresh application, this Court will consider appointing the very same Advocate Commissioner, who was appointed earlier by this Court in this application. This Court shall also consider adjusting the initial remuneration paid to the Advocate Commissioner in this application, while considering the payment of remuneration to the Advocate Commissioner, when this Court decides the fresh application.

05.03.2025

vsi2

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

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

2/3

Arb. Appln. No.289 of 2024

vsi2

Arb. Appln. No.289 of 2024

05.03.2025

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

3/3