Disposed¶24

M/s IndusInd Bank Ltd. v. R N Transport and Co.

Madras HC25 Aug 2025Arb Appln/785/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Searchable terms: IndusInd Bank Ltd.; Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act; advocate commissioner; repossession of vehicles/machinery; Judges Summons schedule; notice returned unclaimed; deemed service; respondent set ex parte; nothing survives for adjudication; applications closed; High Court of Judicature at Madras; Justice Abdul Quddhose; Arb.Appln.Nos.785 to 787 of 2025; common order 25.08.2025; respondents R.N. Transport & Co. and Rafique Hamirani @ H Rafique B; counsel Meera Gananasekar.

What did the court decide?

The substantive purpose of the Section 9 applications was achieved: the scheduled vehicles/machinery had been repossessed by the Advocate Commissioner and custody handed over to the applicant bank; the applications were closed as nothing survived for adjudication. ¶24

M/s IndusInd Bank Ltd. Vs R N Transport and Co. — Arbitration | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether advocate commissioners should be appointed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to repossess the vehicles/machinery described in the respective schedules to the respective Judges Summons from the respective respondents or wherever available. +1 more

¶14

Ratio / Principle

As the notices sent to the respective respondents were returned with the endorsement 'unclaimed' (deemed service) and no one entered appearance on their behalf, the respective respondents were set ex parte by this Court.

¶19

Key takeaways

The vehicles which are the subject matter of these applications had already been repossessed by the Advocate Commissioner and their custody had been handed over to the applicant.ratio¶20
Since the vehicles had been repossessed and custody delivered to the applicant, and the respondents stood set ex parte, nothing survived for further adjudication and the applications were accordingly closed.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Abdul Quddhose, J.), Common Order dated 25.08.2025 in Arb.Appln.Nos.785 to 787 of 2025: Applications filed by M/s. IndusInd Bank Ltd. under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking appointment of advocate commissioners to repossess vehicles/machinery listed in the schedules to the respective Judges Summons from R.N. Transport & Co. (Arb.Appln.Nos.785 & 787) and Rafique Hamirani @ H Rafique B (Arb.Appln.No.786). Notices returned with endorsement 'unclaimed' amounted to deemed service; with no appearance by the respondents, they were set ex parte. Counsel reported that the vehicles had already been repossessed by the Advocate Commissioner and custody handed to the applicant; nothing survived for adjudication and the applications were closed.

¶1

Arb.Appln.Nos.785 to 787 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 25.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

Arb.Appln.Nos.785 to 787 of 2025

¶7

M/s.IndusInd Bank Ltd. ... Applicant in all applications

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.R.N.Transport & Co. ... Respondent in

¶10

Arb.Appln.Nos.785 & 787 of 2025

¶11

2.Rafique Hamirani @ H Rafique B ... Respondent in Arb.Appln.No.786 of 2025

¶12

For Applicant : M/s.Meera Gananasekar (in all applications) For Respondent : Set Exparte (in all applications) *****

¶13

COMMON ORDER

¶14

These applications have been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking for appointment of advocate commissioners to repossess the vehicles/machinery more fully described in the respective schedule to the respective Judges Summons from the

¶15

Page No.1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

Arb.Appln.Nos.785 to 787 of 2025

¶18

respective respondent or wherever available.

¶19

On the last hearing date, i.e., on 28.07.2025, since there was no representation on the side of the Advocate Commissioner, this Court had adjourned these matters today. Even today, there is no representation on the side of the Advocate Commissioner. Notice sent to the respective respondent have been returned with an endorsement 'unclaimed', which amounts to deemed service. Till date, no one has entered appearance on behalf of the respective respondent. Hence, the respective respondent are set exparte by this Court.

¶20

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the vehicles, which are the subject matter of these applications have already been repossessed by the Advocate Commissioner and the custody of the same has been handed over to the applicant. Since the vehicles have already been re-possessed by the Advocate Commissioner and the custody of the same has been handed over to the applicant and since the respective respondent have been set exparte, nothing survives for further adjudication in these applications.

¶21

Page No.2 of 4

¶22

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

¶23

Arb.Appln.Nos.785 to 787 of 2025

¶24