Dismissed¶23

John Deere Financial India Pvt. Ltd. v. Sai Waste Management Co.

Madras HC11 Jun 2025Arb Appln/609/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, single judge (Abdul Quddhose J.), order dated 11.06.2025 in Arbitration Application No.609 of 2025 — M/s.John Deere Financial India Pvt Ltd v. Sai Waste Management Co and Mrs.Anjali Pramod Pathak. Section 9 Arbitration Act 1996 interim measure: appointment of Advocate Commissioner to seize Kleemann Classifier Unit MSC 952 EVO at Okhla Landfill, New Delhi. Dismissed as infructuous since the equipment had already been seized and returned to respondents on payment of Rs.33,51,694/- to the applicant; Advocate Commissioner awarded additional remuneration of Rs.25,000/- payable within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as infructuous; no seizure relief granted. Applicant directed to pay additional remuneration of Rs.25,000/- to the Advocate Commissioner within two weeks. ¶23

John Deere Financial India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sai Waste Management Co. — Arbitration | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Arb.Appln.No.609 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.06.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

Arbitration Application No.609 of 2025

¶7

M/s.John Deere Financial India Pvt Ltd

¶8

By its Area Credit Manager Mr.Anotony Joseph R., S/o. Mr.S.Raju

¶9

Having registered office at Tower XIV, Cuber City, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar Pune 411 013 and its Area Office at Prestige Cyber Tower, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (Old Mahabalipuram Road), Karapakkam Village, Chennai - 600097

¶10

... Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.Sai Waste Management Co

¶13

Rep.by its Proprietor Pramod Murlidhar Pathak, A1/110, Diamond Ested Motali Bharuch, Gujarat Ankleshwar 393 002.

¶14

2.Mrs.Anjali Pramod Pathak

¶15

No.11, Sargam Residency, Near Kum Kum Bungalkow, Kosamdi, Ankeshwar, Gujarat 393 001. ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Petition filed under Order XIV rule 8 of O.S. Rules r/w Section 9 (II) (b),(d) and (e) of Arbitration act, 1996, to pass an order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to seize and deliver Kleemann Classifier Unit of

¶17

1/4

¶18

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

¶19

Arb.Appln.No.609 of 2025

¶20

Model MSC 952 EVO bearing Asset No.OKL8654352, Engine No.12509357, Serial No.K085.0151 and External Power Supply Asset No.OKL8654343, Serial No.231017, Product No.2392570, HSN No.84799010 together with all accessories fitted to the equipment lying at the premises Muncipal Corporation dumping yard of Okhla Landffill in New Delhi or wherever it is found morefully with police aid or break open the premises from wherever found and handover the same to the applicant

¶21

For Applicant : Mr.N.K.Vanan

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Advocate Commissioner earlier seized the vehicle from the respondents. But upon payment of the amount specified in the order, the vehicle was returned back to the respondents. The Advocate Commissioner has also filed a report before this Court confirming that the vehicle was earlier seized and returned back to the respondents on receipt of the sum of Rs.33,51,694/- by the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant would therefore submit that this application has now become infructuous. The said statement is recorded. Accordingly, this application is dismissed as infructuous.

¶24

2/4

¶25

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

¶26

Arb.Appln.No.609 of 2025

¶27

The Advocate Commissioner was initially paid a remuneration of

¶28

Rs.25,000/-. The Advocate Commissioner seeks for payment of additional remuneration. The applicant is directed to pay the additional remuneration of Rs.25,000/- to the Advocate Commissioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶29

11.06.2025

¶30

Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes / No Neutral Citation Case: Yes / No

¶31

¶32

3/4

¶33

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

¶34

Arb.Appln.No.609 of 2025

¶35