Ms Smfg India Credit Company Limited Represented by its Authorized Signatory Mr G Sankararaman Vs Chinna Durai S

¶1

OA No. 574 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09-09-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

OA No. 574 of 2025

¶7

M/s SMFG India Credit Company Limited Represented by its Authorized Signatory Mr G Sankararaman Having its Registered Office at Commerzone IT Park Tower B 1st Floor No 111 Mount Poonamallee Road Porur Chennai 600116 Tamil Nadu

Applicant(s)

Vs

Chinna Durai S

No.17, Kumari Nagar, Puzhal Bus Stop, Chennai, Tamilnadu 600 066.

¶12

Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER

¶14

To pass an order of Interim Injunction restraining the Respondent, or his men, agents or anybody acting on his authority to transfer, alienate, encumber or sell the property morefully described in the Schedule hereunder to any third party.

¶15

For Applicant(s): Ms.K.Indhumathi

¶16

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

¶17

OA No. 574 of 2025

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This original application has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity referred to as “the Act”) seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent from in any manner transferring, alienating, encumbering or selling the schedule mentioned property to any third party.

¶20

This Court heard the learned counsel for applicant and carefully perused the materials available on record.

¶21

The respondent availed finance facility from the applicant and entered into a loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 20.07.2022. A total sum of Rs.10,27,806/- was disbursed as loan amount, which was repayable in 36 monthly installments with interest, starting from 04.09.2022 and ending with 04.08.2025.

¶22

The specific case of the applicant is that the respondent paid only 11 installments and thereafter became a chronic defaulter. In view of the same, loan recall notice with the combination of a notice under Section 21 of the Act was issued on 16.11.2024. In spite of the same, the amounts were not settled. The applicant came to know that the respondent is keen on the disposal of the property in collusion with third parties. It also came to the knowledge of the applicant that there is already a first charge created over the schedule property

¶23

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

¶24

OA No. 574 of 2025

¶25

in favour of M/s Shriram Housing Finance Limited. It is under these circumstances, the present application has been filed before this Court to safeguard the interest of the applicant over the schedule property, which has been identified by the applicant.

¶26

In the considered view of this Court, out of 36 installments, the respondent had paid only 11 installments and thereby became a chronic defaulter. Recall notice cum Section 21 notice was issued on 16.11.2024. Till date, no steps have been taken by the applicant to appoint an arbitrator.

¶27

While invoking Section 9, the Court must be satisfied that there is a manifest intention on the part of the applicant to arbitrate. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Ashok Traders (Firm) v. Gurumukh Das Saluja (2004) 3 SCC 155. The dispute between the applicant and the respondent is going on at least from the beginning of 2023 and the trigger notice was issued during November, 2024 and till date, no steps have been taken to appoint any arbitrator. That clearly shows that there is no manifest intention for the applicant to arbitrate. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as sought for by the applicant.

¶28

In the light of the above discussion, liberty is granted to the applicant to take steps to appoint an arbitrator and thereafter, an application can be filed under Section 17 of the Act, which will be considered by the learned Arbitrator

¶29

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

¶30

OA No. 574 of 2025

¶31

on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶32