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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appointment of Mr. Abish DJ (Legal Manager of the applicant) as Court receiver, permitted to seize and deliver the Construction Equipment (Innova Crysta, Reg. No. TN41AR1626) to the applicant from the respondent or wherever found, breaking open premises if required, with police assistance.

Issue for consideration

Whether, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules, a receiver should be appointed to seize and deliver the Construction Equipment (Innova Crysta vehicle, Reg. No. TN41AR1626) to the applicant, with police aid if required.

Ratio / Principle

Since the respondent, though served by private notice and listed in the cause list, was neither present nor represented through counsel, the apprehension that the respondent was attempting to secrete the Construction Equipment was prima facie established.

Key takeaways

Mr. Abish DJ, employed as Legal Manager in the applicant company, is appointed as Court receiver and is permitted to seize the Construction Equipment from the respondent or wherever it is found, by breaking open the premises if required, with police assistance.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 read with Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules — appointment of receiver — Madras High Court (N. Anand Venkatesh, J.) appointed Mr. Abish DJ, Legal Manager of the applicant company, as Court receiver to seize a financed vehicle (Innova Crysta, Reg. No. TN41AR1626) from a defaulting borrower and deliver it to the applicant, with police assistance and liberty to break open premises if required — respondent, though served by private notice with affidavit of service filed and name printed in the cause list, neither appeared nor was represented through counsel — Court held the apprehension that the respondent was attempting to secrete the Construction Equipment was prima facie established — application disposed of on 12.01.2026.

Arbitration Application No.1625 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

Arbitration Application No.1625 of 2025

Tata Capital Limited, by its Associate Legal Remedial, R. Kamalakannan, having its office at 1^st Floor, Centennial Square, 6A-Dr.Ambedkar Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024

.... Applicant

Vs.

Sundaram Easwari, D No.32 32-1, Kg Sengam Park Vijayapuram, Tirupur, Land Mark – Perumal Kovil Near, Coimbatore 642 110, Tamil Nadu

..... Respondent

Arbitration Application under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules r/w Section 9 (ii) (d) & (e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to appoint a receiver namely Mr.Abish DJ, employed as Legal Manager in the Applicant company having his office First Floor, Centennial Square, Dr. Ambedkar Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 024 as Receiver to seize and deliver the asset INNOVA CRYSTA 2 4Z BS IV, bearing Engine No.2GDA071498, Chassis No.MBJAB3MX025104140217, Reg.No.TN41AR1626, situated at

1/4

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

Arbitration Application No.1625 of 2025

D.No.32 32-1, Kg Sengam Park, Vijayapuram, Tirupur, Land Mark, Perumal Kovil near Coimbatore 642110, Tamil Nadu, or wherever it is found more fully described in the judges summons with police aid or break open the premises from wherever found and handover the same to the applicant.

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 Construction Equipment to the applicant, if required, with police aid.

The applicant extended financial facilities to the

respondents. Since the respondents committed default, a recall notice dated 11.09.2023 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 01.12.2025 this Court issued notice to respondent.

Private notice has been served on the respondent and

2/4

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

Arbitration Application No.1625 of 2025

affidavit of service has also been filed. The names 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 Construction Equipment is prima facie established.

In view of the above, Mr.Abish DJ, employed as Legal Manager is appointed as the Court receiver and the Court receiver is permitted to seize the Construction Equipment from the respondents 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.

12.01.2026

msr

3/4

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

Arbitration Application No.1625 of 2025

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

msr

Arbitration Application No.1625 of 2025

12.01.2026

4/4

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