Disposed¶23

The Official Assignee v. Arjunlal Sunderdas

Madras HC18 Feb 2026A/4882/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Official Assignee High Court Chennai; Arjunlal Sunderdas; M.Karthe; I.P.No.25 of 2014; Application No.170 of 2017; A No.4882 of 2024; decree holder; Judgement Debtor examination; affidavit of assets; Order 21 Rule 41 CPC; Form No.16-A; one-time settlement Rs.8,14,50,000/-; full satisfaction recorded; Memo dated 30.01.2026; SLP dismissed by Supreme Court; application closed; Madras High Court; C.V. Karthikeyan; K. Kumaresh Babu; 18-02-2026.

What did the court decide?

None beyond recording the Memo and full satisfaction of the decree amount; the Application was closed. ¶23

The Official Assignee Vs Arjunlal Sunderdas — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

A No. 4882 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

A No. 4882 of 2024 in

¶7

Application No.170 of 2017 in I.P.No.25 of 2014

¶8

The Official Assignee High Court, Chennai

¶9

..Applicant

¶10

¶11

Mr.Arjunlal Sunderdas 23, Anderson Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006

¶12

Mr.M.Karthe No.1469A, Vinayagampatty, Kondappanaciken Patty, Kannakurichi (PO), Salem - 636 008

¶13

..Respondents

¶14

Leave to the decree holder to seek an Order for attendance and examination of the Judgement Debtor to disclose to this Hon'ble Court the affidavit of assets to be made by the Judgement Debtor under Order 21 Rule 41 as per Form No.16-A of CPC

¶15

For Applicant: Mr.K.V.Ananthakrishnan For R2: Mr.V.Sivaraman for Mr.K.Balu

¶16

Page1 of 3

¶17

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

¶18

A No. 4882 of 2024

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)

¶21

A Memo dated 30.01.2026 has been filed by the learned counsel appearing for the Official Assignee stating that one time settlement of Rs.8,14,50,000/- had been paid in parts and this effectively brings closure to the amount claimed in the decree. It is also seen from the Memo that the SLP filed

¶22

by the second respondent has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶23