Disposed¶11

Shrinithi Capital Private Ltd. v. D.Sathishkumar

Madras HC8 Jul 2025Arb Appln/459/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Arbitration applications Arb. Appln. Nos.459 and 460 of 2025, Madras High Court, Abdul Quddhose J., 08.07.2025; M/s.Shrinithi Capital Pvt. Ltd. v. D. Sathishkumar and Another; repossession of vehicles through Advocate Commissioner; warrant of commission; respondents set exparte after service and non-appearance; applications closed; liberty to file fresh application when unlocated vehicle found; same Advocate Commissioner to be considered as initial remuneration paid.

What did the court decide?

Both Arb. Appln. Nos.459 and 460 of 2025 closed; liberty granted to the applicant to file a fresh application once the vehicle which is the subject matter of Arb. Appln. No.459 of 2025 is located, with the Court to consider the very same Advocate Commissioner whose initial remuneration has already been paid. ¶11

Shrinithi Capital Private Ltd. Vs D.Sathishkumar — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the vehicles sought to be recovered by the applicant through the Advocate Commissioners appointed in Arb. Appln. Nos.459 and 460 of 2025 could be repossessed, and how the two applications should be disposed of in consequence.

¶5

Court's answer

Arb. Appln. No.460 of 2025 is closed, since the vehicle has already been repossessed and its custody handed over to the applicant, and the respondents are set exparte.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Since the respondents were duly served with notice in both applications and no one entered appearance on their behalf, they are set exparte by the Court.

¶6

Key takeaways

Arb. Appln. No.459 of 2025 is closed because the Advocate Commissioner appointed therein was unable to repossess the vehicle as it could not be located; liberty is granted to the applicant to file a fresh application once the vehicle is located, and while considering the fresh application the Court shall consider the very same Advocate Commissioner, since the applicant has already paid his initial remuneration.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Abdul Quddhose, J.) — Arb. Appln. Nos.459 and 460 of 2025 (M/s.Shrinithi Capital Pvt. Ltd. v. D. Sathishkumar and Another), decided 08.07.2025: In two arbitration applications in which Advocate Commissioners had been appointed to repossess vehicles, the respondents, though duly served with notice (affidavit of service with delivery reports filed), did not enter appearance and were set exparte. Arb. Appln. No.460 of 2025 was closed as the Advocate Commissioner had already repossessed the vehicle and handed over its custody to the applicant. Arb. Appln. No.459 of 2025 was closed as the vehicle could not be located despite sufficient time given to the Advocate Commissioner to execute the warrant of commission; the applicant was granted liberty to file a fresh application once the vehicle is located, and the Court indicated it would consider the very same Advocate Commissioner in the fresh application since the initial remuneration had already been paid.

¶1

Arb. Appln. Nos.459 and 460 of 2025

¶2

M/s.Shrinithi Capital Pvt. Ltd. ... Applicant

¶3

Vs. D. Sathishkumar and Another ... Respondents

¶4

ABDUL QUDDHOSE.J.,

¶5

The Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court in Arb. Appln. No.460 of 2025 has repossessed the vehicle and handed over the custody of the same to the applicant. The Advocate Commissioner appointed in Arb. Appln. No.459 of 2025 has not been able to repossess the vehicle since the said vehicle could not be located. Sufficient time has already been granted for the advocate commissioner to execute the warrant of commission in Arb. Appln. No.459 of 2025. No useful purpose will be served, if Arb. Appln. No.459 of 2025 is allowed to be kept pending.

¶6

The respondents have been duly served with the notice in these applications, the affidavit of service enclosing the delivery reports have also been filed. Till date, no one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents. Hence, the respondents are set exparte by this Court.

¶7

1/3

¶8

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

¶9

In view of the above observations made by this Court, Arb. Appln.

¶10

No.460 of 2025 is closed since the vehicle has already been repossessed and the custody of the same has been handed over to the applicant and the respondents are also set exparte.

¶11

Similarly, Arb. Appln. No.459 of 2025 is closed, since the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the said application has been unable to repossess the vehicle since the vehicle is not located. However, liberty is granted to the applicant to file a fresh application once the vehicle, which is the subject matter of Arb. Appln. No.459 of 2025 is located and while considering the fresh application, this Court shall consider the very same Advocate Commissioner, who was appointed in Arb. Appln. No.459 of 2025 since the applicant has already paid the initial remuneration to the Advocate Commissioner in the said application.

08.07.2025

2/3

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

¶16

ABDUL QUDDHOSE.J.,

¶17

¶18

Arb. Appln. Nos.459 and 460 of 2025