Disposed¶24

Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co. Ltd. v. Satish Dnyaneshwar More

Madras HC1 Jul 2025Arb Appln/661/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 9 interim measures, Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; Order XIV Rule 8 Original Side Rules; Advocate Commissioner appointment; seizure and repossession of financed vehicle; delivery of custody to NBFC applicant (Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited v. Satish Dnyaneshwar More); respondent set exparte despite service of notice; nothing survives for adjudication; application closed, no costs; Madras High Court, single judge (Abdul Quddhose, J.); order dated 01.07.2025; Arbitration Application No. 661 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

No further relief adjudicated; the application was closed without costs, the vehicle having already been repossessed by the Advocate Commissioner and custody delivered to the applicant. ¶24

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

¶1

Arbitration Application No. 661 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.07.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

Arbitration Application No. 661 of 2025

¶7

M/s.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited 'Chola Crest' C54 & 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi.Ka. Industrial Estate Guindy, Chennai-600032

¶8

Represented by its Authorized Signatory … Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Mr.Satish Dnyaneshwar More S/o.Dnyaneshwar … Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Arbitration Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 Original Side Rules read with Section 9(1)(ii)(a)(b)(d) & (e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to pass an order of appointment of Advocate Commissioner to seize and deliver the vehicle to applicant which is more fully described in the schedule to the Judges Summons which is lying in the custody of the respondent or respondent's men, agents, servants from respondent premises or wherever found with police aid and break open of premises if necessary.

¶12

For Applicant : Mr.D.Pradeep Kumar

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

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

¶15

Arbitration Application No. 661 of 2025

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

As directed by this Court on 26.06.2025, Registry has printed the

¶18

name of the respondent in the cause-list today.

¶19

2. Despite service of notice, the respondent remains unrepresented.

¶20

Hence, the respondent is set exparte by this Court.

¶21

3. The Advocate Commissioner appointed in this application has repossessed the vehicle and has handed over custody of the same to the applicant.

¶22

4. Since the respondent has been set exparte and since the vehicle has already been repossessed by the Advocate Commissioner and the custody of the same has been handed over to the applicant, nothing

¶23

survives for further adjudication in this application.

¶24

5. Accordingly, this application is closed. No costs.

¶25

01.07.2025

¶26

Index: Yes/ No Speaking order / Non speaking order Neutral citation : Yes / No

¶27

Maya

¶28

Page 2 of 3