Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co. Ltd. Vs The Director… — Arbitration | Madras HC (2025)

Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co. Ltd. Vs The Director… — Arbitration | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Attachment ordered of the property owned by the second respondent, morefully described in the schedule to the Judges Summons; Registry directed to communicate the order to the authorities/Court disclosed in the prayer to effect the encumbrance in their respective records, with the applicant also permitted to communicate the order to those authorities.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to furnish security for a sum of Rs.57,96,513.82/- in respect of their defaulted repayment of loan to the applicant under the loan agreement dated 30.03.2022, pursuant to this application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Since the respondents failed to furnish security within the stipulated time as directed by the Court's order dated 16.06.2025, the consequential order of attachment was necessarily to be passed against the second respondent; accordingly the application is allowed as prayed for, by ordering attachment of the property owned by the second respondent, morefully described in the schedule to the Judges Summons.

Key takeaways

Registry is directed to communicate this order to the authorities/Court disclosed in the prayer to the application to effect the encumbrance in their respective records, and the applicant is also permitted to communicate this order to the very same authorities.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (Abdul Quddhose J., 14.08.2025), Arb.Appln.No.629 of 2025 filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by M/s.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., seeking a direction to the respondents (The Director, IBML Engineering EPC Private Limited & 1 Another) to furnish security of Rs.57,96,513.82/-, the respondents being defaulters in repayment of loan under the loan agreement dated 30.03.2022. Having earlier directed the respondents (order dated 16.06.2025) to furnish security and having recorded service of notice (order dated 04.08.2025), the Court set the un-represented respondents exparte and, as they had failed to furnish security within the stipulated time, allowed the application as prayed for by ordering attachment of the property owned by the second respondent, morefully described in the schedule to the Judges Summons; the Registry was directed (and the applicant permitted) to communicate the order to the authorities/Court disclosed in the prayer to effect the encumbrance in their respective records.

Arb.Appln.No.629 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14.08.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

Arb.Appln.No.629 of 2025

M/s.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. ... Applicant

vs.

The Director,

IBML Engineering EPC Private Limited & 1 Another ... Respondents

For Applicant : Mr.D.Pradeep Kumar For Respondents : Set Exparte

ORDER

This application has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking for a direction to the respondents to furnish security for a sum of Rs.57,96,513.82/-. The respondents are defaulters in

the repayment of loan to the applicant under the loan agreement, dated 30.03.2022.

As directed by this Court, the Registry has printed the name of the second respondent in the cause list today. Both the respondents have already

Page No.1 of 3

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

Arb.Appln.No.629 of 2025

been served with a notice in this application and the same has also been recorded by this Court in its order, dated 04.08.2025. Till date, the respondents have not furnished security as directed by this Court on 16.06.2025 in this application. The respondents remain un-represented. Hence, the respondents are set exparte. Since the respondents have not furnished security within the stipulated time as directed by this Court in its order, dated 16.06.2025, the consequential order of attachment has to be necessarily passed against the second respondent.

Accordingly, this application is allowed as prayed for, by ordering attachment of the property, which is owned by the second respondent, morefully described in the schedule to the Judges Summons. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the authorities/Court disclosed in the prayer to this application to effect the encumbrance in their respective records. The applicant is also permitted to communicate this order to the very same authorities.

14.08.2025

sp

Page No.2 of 3

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

Arb.Appln.No.629 of 2025

ABDUL QUDDHOSE. J.

sp

Arb.Appln.No.629 of 2025

14.08.2025

Page No.3 of 3

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