Disposed¶23

Shrinithi Capital Private Ltd. v. S.Jayashree

Madras HC18 Aug 2025Arb Appln/774/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; appointment of Advocate Commissioner; seizure of schedule-mentioned vehicles; sale at fair market price; police aid; breaking open locks; repossession of financed vehicles; Hinduja Leyland Finance; Shrinith Capital Private Ltd.; substituted service by paper publication; respondents set exparte; applications closed; Madras High Court 2025.

What did the court decide?

No further adjudication; both applications closed, the scheduled vehicles having already been re-possessed by the Advocate Commissioner and custody handed over to the applicants. ¶23

Shrinithi Capital Private Ltd. Vs S.Jayashree — Arbitration | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Arb.Appln.Nos.774 & 775 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

Arb.Appln.Nos.774 & 775 of 2025

¶7

1.M/s.Shrinith Capital Private Ltd. 2.M/s.Hinduja Leyland Finance ... Applicants in both applications

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.S.Jayashree 2.Dhatchayini 3.Ganapathy ... Respondents in both applications For Applicants : Mr.K.Sendurpandi (in both applications) For Respondents : Set Exparte (in both applications) *****

¶10

COMMON ORDER

¶11

These applications have been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration

¶12

and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner with direction to seize the schedule mentioned vehicles which are lying under the custody of the respondents or their men, agents,

¶13

Page No.1 of 4

¶14

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

¶15

Arb.Appln.Nos.774 & 775 of 2025

¶16

servants or anyone claiming under them from the premises of 1^st respondent

¶17

at No.168, Porur Garden Phase 2, Vanagaram, Ambattur, Thiruvallur – 600 095, or at any other place where the scheduled assets are found, with the police aid and by breaking open locks if necessary and to take the same into his custody and sell the same at fair market price.

¶18

As directed by this Court on 28.07.2025, the applicants have effected substituted service on the 2^nd respondent by effecting paper publication. The paper publications have been filed along with AOS. The 2^nd respondent remains un-represented. Hence, the 2^nd respondent is set exparte by this Court.

¶19

The respondents 1 and 3 have already been set exparte by this Court vide its order dated 28.07.2025. Since all the respondents are set exparte and since the vehicles have already been re-possessed by the Advocate Commissioner and the custody of the same has been handed over to the applicants, nothing survives for further adjudication in these applications.

¶20

Page No.2 of 4

¶21

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

¶22

Arb.Appln.Nos.774 & 775 of 2025

¶23