Tata Capital Ltd. Vs sampathkumar — Arbitration | Madras HC (2026)

Tata Capital Ltd. Vs sampathkumar — Arbitration | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer allowed: R. Kamalakkannan (Associate Legal Remedial of Tata Capital Ltd) appointed as Court Receiver, empowered to seize the Motor Car from the respondent or wherever found, breaking open premises if required, with police assistance, and hand it over to the applicant; the application stood disposed of in these terms.

Issue for consideration

Whether, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a receiver should be appointed to seize and deliver the financed Motor Car to the applicant, with police aid if required, pending arbitration.

Court's answer

Despite private service of notice (affidavit of service filed) and the respondent's name appearing in the cause list, the respondent neither appeared nor was represented through counsel; accordingly, the Court held that the applicant's apprehension that the respondent was trying to secret the Motor Car was prima facie established.

Ratio / Principle

R. Kamalakkannan, Associate Legal Remedial of the applicant, is appointed as the Court Receiver.

Key takeaways

The Court Receiver is permitted to seize the Motor Car from the respondent or wherever it is found, and may break open premises if required, with police assistance.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 (interim measures) — Appointment of receiver — Financier-applicant (Tata Capital Ltd), having extended financial facilities to the respondent, issued a recall notice dated 09.01.2025 on the respondent's default; no response followed. Seeking seizure of the financed vehicle (Model TATA HITACHI ZX140 make SWIFT LXI, Regn. No. TN52AA2626), the applicant moved the Madras High Court (N. Anand Venkatesh, J.; Arb.Appln. No. 1610 of 2025, order dated 05-01-2026) under Or.XIV Rule 8 of the O.S. Rules read with Sec.9(II)(b), (d) & (E) for appointment of a receiver with police aid. Though private notice was served (affidavit of service filed) and the respondent was printed in the cause list following notice ordered on the hearing of 28.11.2025, the respondent neither appeared nor was represented; the Court found prima facie established the apprehension that the respondent was trying to secret the Motor Car, appointed R. Kamalakkannan, Associate Legal Remedial, as Court Receiver with power to seize the vehicle from the respondent or wherever found, breaking open premises if required, with police assistance, and disposed of the application accordingly.

Arbitration Application No.1610 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

Arb Appln No. 1610 of 2025

Tata Capital Ltd by its Associate Legal Remedial R. Kamalakkannan, Having its Office at 1^st Floor, Centennial Square, 6A , Dr Ambedkar Salai, Kodambakkam ,

Applicant

Vs

K. Sampath Kumar

Respondent

PRAYER

Application filed Under Or.XIV, Rule 8 of O.S.Rules, r/w.Sec.9(II)(b), (d) & (E) of Arbitration Act, 1996 to pass an order Appointing R.Kamalakkannan, employed as employee currently designated as Associate Legal remedial in the Applicant company having his office at First Floor, Centennil Square Dr.Ambedkar Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 024 as Receiver to seize and deliver the asset MODEL TATA HITACHI ZX140 make SWIFT LXI bearing Engine No. K12NP1132974 Chassis No. MBHCZCB3SML897714 Reg. No. TN52AA2626 situated 1 171 4 TVK Nagar, Sankari TK RK Thirumanamandabam Back Side, Land Mark Amman Koil Gudalur, Salem 637 103 Tamil Nadu. .or wherever it is found morefully describted hereunder, with police aid or break open the premises from wherever found and handover the same to the applicant

1/4

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

Arbitration Application No.1610 of 2025

For Applicant : Mr. N.K. Vanan For Respondent : *****

ORDER

This application has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for brevity 'the Act'] for appointment of a receiver to seize and deliver the Motor Car to the applicant, if required, with police aid.

The applicant extended financial facilities to the respondent.

Since the respondent committed default, a recall notice dated 09.01.2025 was issued and in spite of receipt of the same, there was no response from respondent. It is under these circumstances, the present petition came to be filed before this Court.

When the application came up for hearing on 28.11.2025, this

Court issued notice to respondent.

2/4

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

Arbitration Application No.1610 of 2025

Private notice has been served on the respondent and affidavit of

service has also been filed. The name of respondent has also been printed in the cause list. However, the respondent is neither present nor represented through counsel. Hence, the apprehension raised on the side of the applicant that the respondent is trying to secret the Motor Car is prima facie established.

In view of the above, R.Kamalakkannan, Associate Legal remedial is appointed as the Court receiver and the Court receiver is permitted to seize the Motor Car from the respondent or wherever it is found and by breaking open the premises, if required with police assistance.

This application stands disposed of in the above terms.

05.01.2026

msr

3/4

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

Arbitration Application No.1610 of 2025

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

msr

Arb Appln No. 1610 of 2025

05.01.2026

4/4

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