Disposed¶20

Mercedes Benz Financial Services India Private Limited v. M/s Vdv Pharmaceuticals Private Limited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – S.9 – interim relief – seizure/re-possession of financed vehicle

Madras HC20 Aug 2025Arb Appln/748/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; interim relief; Advocate Commissioner; seizure and re-possession of vehicle; police aid; break open premises; vehicle finance; substituted service by paper publication; respondent set exparte; application closed; additional remuneration Rs.20,000/-; Madras High Court; Abdul Quddhose J.; Arb.Appln.No.748 of 2025; dated 20.08.2025; Mercedes-Benz Financial Services India Pvt Ltd vs VDV Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd.

What did the court decide?

Application closed; applicant directed to pay an additional remuneration of Rs.20,000/- to the Advocate Commissioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. ¶20

Mercedes Benz Financial Services India Private Limited Vs M/s Vdv… — Arbitration | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application closed; applicant directed to pay an additional remuneration of Rs.20,000/- to the Advocate Commissioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether an Advocate Commissioner should be appointed to seize and take possession of the vehicle described in the schedule to the Judges Summons, lying in the custody of the respondent or found elsewhere, with police aid and break open of premises if necessary, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶13

Court's answer

Since the vehicle had already been re-possessed by the Advocate Commissioner, its custody handed over to the applicant, and the respondent set exparte, nothing survived for further adjudication in the application, which was accordingly closed.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The respondent, having been served by substituted service (paper publication) and remaining unrepresented, was set exparte by the Court.

¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – S.9 – interim relief – seizure/re-possession of financed vehicle – Madras High Court (Abdul Quddhose, J.), Arb.Appln.No.748 of 2025, decided 20.08.2025. Mercedes-Benz Financial Services India Pvt Ltd sought appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to seize and take possession of a vehicle lying in the custody of VDV Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd (or wherever found), with police aid and break open of premises if necessary. Service was effected by substituted service (paper publication); the unrepresented respondent was set exparte. Counsel represented that the vehicle had already been re-possessed by the Advocate Commissioner and custody handed to the applicant, who had paid the initial remuneration. Nothing surviving for further adjudication, the application was closed, with the applicant directed to pay an additional remuneration of Rs.20,000/- to the Advocate Commissioner within two weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶1

Arb.Appln.No.748 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

Arb.Appln.No.748 of 2025

¶7

M/s.Mercedes-Benz Financial Services India Private Limited

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

vs.

¶10

M/s.VDV Pharmaceuticals Private Limited ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr.D.Pradeep Kumar For Respondent : Set Exparte *****

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This application has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration

¶13

and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to seize and take possession of the vehicle which is morefully 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

¶14

break open of premises if necessary.

¶15

Page No.1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

Arb.Appln.No.748 of 2025

¶18

As directed by this Court, the applicant had effected substituted service on the respondent by effecting paper publication. The paper publication has been filed along with AOS. The name of the respondent is also printed in the cause list today. The respondent remains unrepresented. Hence, the respondent is set exparte by this Court.

¶19

It is represented by the learned counsel for the applicant that the vehicle has already been re-possessed by the Advocate Commissioner and the custody of the same has been handed over to the applicant and the applicant has also paid the initial remuneration to the Advocate Commissioner. Since the vehicle has been re-possessed by the Advocate Commissioner and the custody of the same has been handed over to the applicant and since the respondent has been set exparte, nothing survives for further adjudication in this application.

¶20