Disposed¶19

Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co. Ltd. v. Akbar Shifan K

Madras HC24 Mar 2026Arb Appln/109/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 9 interim measures; Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; appointment of receiver; vehicle seizure; NBFC vehicle finance default; Cholamandalam Investment and Finance; receiver empowered to seek police protection and break open premises; sale of seized vehicle only with arbitral tribunal's orders; ex parte appointment on respondent's non-appearance; Madras High Court; Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J.; Arb. Application No.109 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. Sabu K., Area Legal Manager (employee of the applicant), as receiver to seize and take possession of the scheduled vehicle, with liberty to seek police protection including breaking open the respondent's premises if necessary, subject to the condition that any sale of the vehicle requires orders from the arbitral tribunal. ¶19

Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co. Ltd. Vs Akbar Shifan K — Arbitration | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether, upon the respondent's default in servicing loan obligations for a vehicle-financing arrangement, an employee of the applicant should be appointed as receiver to seize and take possession of the vehicle as an interim measure under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶17

Court's answer

Mr. Sabu K., Area Legal Manager (an employee of the applicant), is appointed as receiver to seize and take possession of the vehicle described in the schedule to the Judge's summons.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

If necessary, the receiver may seek and obtain police protection, including in relation to breaking open the premises of the respondent.

¶18

Key takeaways

Any further action for sale of the vehicle shall be taken only after obtaining necessary orders from the arbitral tribunal.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.) — Arb. Application No.109 of 2026, decided 24-03-2026. Interim measure application under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Section 9(1)(ii)(a)(b)(d) & (e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The applicant, a non-banking financial company, had extended credit facilities to the respondent for purchasing a vehicle; upon default in servicing loan obligations it sought appointment of its employee, Mr. Sabu K., Area Legal Manager, as receiver. Though notice under Section 21 of the Act was served, the respondent did not enter appearance. The Court appointed Mr. Sabu K. as receiver to seize and take possession of the vehicle described in the schedule to the Judge's summons, permitted him to obtain police protection including breaking open the respondent's premises if necessary, and directed that any further action for sale of the vehicle be taken only after obtaining orders from the arbitral tribunal. Application disposed of on these terms.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24-03-2026

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶4

Arb. Application No.109 of 2026

¶5

M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd., Chola Crest, C 54 & 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-32 Represented by its Authorised Signatory.

¶6

..Applicant

¶7

¶8

Mr.Akbar Shifan K. S/o.Kunheethu Kongadan, Kongadan Veedu, Pulivetty Panga PO Masjid, Perintalmanna, Malappuram, Kerala 679 338.

¶9

..Respondent

¶10

Prayer : Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules Read With Section 9(1)(ii)(a)(b)(d) & (e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint employee of the applicant viz. Mr. Sabu K, Area Legal Manager, as Receiver to seize and take possession of the vehicle which is more fully described in the schedule to the Judge’s summons which is lying in the custody of respondent or respondent’s men, agents, servants from respondent premises or wherever found with Police aid and break open of premises if necessary.

¶11

For Applicant: Mr.D.Pradeep Kumar

¶12

Page1 of 2

¶13

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

¶14

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The applicant is a non-banking financial company, which had extended credit facilities to the respondent for purposes of purchasing a vehicle. Upon default in servicing loan obligations, the applicant has applied to this Court for interim relief by way of appointment of an employee of the applicant as receiver to seize and take possession of the vehicle. The applicant has also issued notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶18

In spite of notice being served on the respondent, the respondent has failed to enter appearance and contest the matter. Therefore, Mr. Sabu K., Area Legal Manager, is appointed as receiver to seize and take possession of the vehicle described in the schedule to the Judge’s summons. If necessary, it is open to the receiver to seek and obtain police protection, including in relation to breaking open the premises of the respondent. Any further action for sale of the vehicle should be taken only after obtaining necessary orders from the arbitral tribunal.

¶19