Disposed¶56

Rajagopal v. Ms Cholamandalam Investment and Finance company Ltd.

Madras HC1 Sept 2025Arb Appln/713/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Raise attachment; order of attachment in A.No.1412 of 2018 dated 07.08.2019; Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; scope of Section 9 interim relief; dispute as to identity of attached property; survey number mistake 486/7 vs 486/2; settlement deed dated 18.07.2013 rectification; sale deed dated 07.11.2005; vehicle loan default recovery; Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd; notice affixed S.No.486/2; liberty to approach competent civil court; Madras High Court; N. Anand Venkatesh; Arb Appln 713 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of without raising the attachment; liberty granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law, including seeking rectification of the settlement deed or approaching the competent civil Court. ¶56

Rajagopal Vs Ms Cholamandalam Investment and Finance company Ltd. — Arbitration | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of attachment passed in A.No.1412 of 2018 dated 07.08.2019 should be raised, on the applicant's contention that the settlement deed dated 18.07.2013 recorded the survey number as 486/7 by oversight instead of 486/2, and that the applicant is the owner of S.No.486/7 and unable to deal with the property. +1 more

¶39

Court's answer

If the property has been wrongly described in the settlement deed, the concerned parties must seek rectification, or it will be left open to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court and seek the appropriate remedy.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

It is not appropriate for this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act, to deal with the dispute with respect to the identity of the property.

¶50

Key takeaways

The order of attachment was passed based on the documents relied upon by the third respondent; apart from those documents, nothing else can be considered by this Court, and liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Anand Venkatesh, J.), Arb Appln No.713 of 2025 in A.No.1412 of 2018, decided 01-09-2025: Application to raise the order of attachment dated 07.08.2019 passed in A.No.1412 of 2018, an application filed by the first respondent under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for recovery of a vehicle loan due from the second and third respondents. The applicant claimed ownership of S.No.486/7 under a registered sale deed dated 07.11.2005 and contended that the registered deed of settlement dated 18.07.2013 executed in favour of his son (the third respondent) mistakenly recorded S.No.486/7 instead of 486/2, preventing him from dealing with the property. Held: it is not appropriate for a Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 9 to deal with a dispute as to the identity of the property; the attachment was passed based on the documents relied upon by the third respondent and nothing beyond those documents could be considered; if the property was wrongly described in the settlement deed, the concerned parties must seek rectification or the petitioner may approach the competent civil Court for the appropriate remedy. Liberty granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy; application disposed of in the above terms.

¶1

Arb Appln No. 713 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01-09-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Arb Appln No.713 of 2025 in

¶7

A.No.1412 of 2018

¶8

1. Rajagopal,

¶9

S/o.Markandeyan, No.6/122, Mela Street, Krishnapuram Musiri, Mavilpatti Post, Trichy District.

¶10

Applicant(s)

¶11

¶12

Ms Cholamandalam Investment and

¶13

Finance Company Ltd, Dare House, No.2, N.S.C.Bose Road, Parrys, Chennai 600 001. rep. by its Authorised Signatory.

¶14

2.Kavitha.K,

¶15

No.6/124, Melatheru, Krishnapuram, Mavilupatti, Musiri, Near Angalamman Kovil, Trichy.

¶16

3.Kumar,

¶17

No.6/124, Melatheru, Krishnapuram,

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

Arb Appln No. 713 of 2025

¶21

Mavilupatti, Musiri, Near Angalamman Kovil, Trichy.

¶22

Respondent(s)

¶23

PRAYER

¶24

This application has been filed to raise the order of attachment passed in A.No.1412 of 2018 dated 07/08/2019.

¶25

For Appellant(s): Mr.M.Sudhan

¶26

For Respondent(s): Mr.Santhosh Nagarajan for R1

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This application has been filed to raise the order of attachment passed in

¶29

A.No.1412 of 2018 dated 07.08.2019.

¶30

Heard Mr.Santhosh Nagarajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

¶31

the first respondent. The second and third respondents have been served with

¶32

notice but there is no appearance either in person or through their counsel.

¶33

3.The main ground that was raised by the learned counsel for the

¶34

¶35

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

¶36

Arb Appln No. 713 of 2025

¶37

petitioner is that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property in S.No.486/7. The vendor of the petitioner had executed a registered deed of settlement dated 18.07.2013 in favour of his son, who is the third respondent

¶38

and instead of mentioning the survey number as 486/2, by oversight, it was mentioned as 486/7. The applicant had purchased the property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 07.11.2005. In fact, after the order of attachment was passed by this Court, notice was affixed only in S.No.486/2. Therefore, it is contended that there is a mistake in the identity of the property and as a result,

¶39

the petitioner, who is the owner of the property in S.No.486/7 is not able to deal with his property.

¶40

4.The second and third respondents had taken a vehicle loan from the first respondent and it was not repaid back. Hence, the first respondent had initiated proceedings for recovery of the amount and in the said process, the first respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and pursuant to the same, the property was attached.

¶41

¶42

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

¶43

Arb Appln No. 713 of 2025

¶44

5.The order of attachment was passed by this Court based on the

¶45

settlement deed that was executed on 18.07.2013, wherein, the Survey number

¶46

has been mentioned as 486/7. What has been purchased by the petitioner in the year 2005 is old S.No.390/5 measuring an extent of 875 sq.feet for which the

¶47

new survey number is traced by the petitioner as S.No.486/7. If the property has been wrongly described in the settlement deed, either the concerned parties must seek for rectification or it will always be left open to the petitioner to

¶48

approach the competent civil Court and seek for the appropriate remedy.

¶49

6.It is not be appropriate for this Court while exercising its jurisdiction

¶50

under Section 9 of the Act to deal with the dispute with respect to the identity of

¶51

the property. The order of attachment was passed based on the documents relied upon by the third respondent. Therefore, apart from those documents, nothing else can be considered by this Court. Liberty is granted to the petitioner

¶52

to work out his remedy in the manner known to law.

¶53

¶54

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

¶55

Arb Appln No. 713 of 2025

¶56

7.This Application is disposed of, in the above terms.

¶57

01-09-2025

¶58