Allowed

Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co. Ltd. v. Sarvajit R

Madras HC9 Feb 2026Arb Appln/1695/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court appointed a receiver to seize a vehicle from the respondent to facilitate enforcement of an arbitral award, granting permission to break open premises with police aid. The application was disposed of by making the interim order absolute.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh as receiver to seize the vehicle with police aid and permission to break open premises.

Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co. Ltd. Vs Sarvajit R — Arbitration | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.02.2026

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Arb. Appln. No.1695 of 2025

¶4

M/s.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited 'Chola Crest', C 54 & 55, Super B-4 Thiru Vi ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032 Rep. by its Authorised Signatory .. Applicant Vs. Sarvajit R .. Respondent

¶5

Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules r/w Section 9 (1) (ii) (a) (b) (d) & (e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to appoint employee of the applicant viz., Mr.Rakesh Kumar Singh, Branch Receivables Manager, as receiver to seize and take possession of the vehicle which is morefully described in the schedule to the Judges Summons which is lying in the custody of respondent and respondent's men, agents, servants from respondent premises or wherever found with police aid and break open of premises, if necessary.

¶6

ORDER

¶7

This application has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and

¶8

Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short “the Act”).

¶9

2.When the matter came up for hearing on 16.12.2025, this Court

¶10

passed the following order:

¶11

“This application has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of a receiver to seize and deliver the vehicle from the respondent to the applicant, if necessary, with police protection and by breaking open the premises.

¶12

2.Heard Mr.D.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for applicant and carefully perused the materials available on record.

¶13

1/2

¶14

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

¶15

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶16

gya

¶17

3.It is seen that an award has already been passed on 30.07.2025

¶18

directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.6,74,190/-. The specific case of the applicant is that till date, the award has not been challenged. The applicant is also not able to take possession of the vehicle. It is under these circumstances, the present application has been filed before this Court.

¶19

4.Considering the fact that an award has been passed and the applicant must be able to recover the amount from the respondent, this Court is inclined to appoint a receiver.

¶20

5.Accordingly, Mr.Rakesh Kumar Singh, Branch Receivables Manager, is appointed as the receiver and the receiver is permitted to seize the vehicle from the respondent or wherever it is found and by breaking open the premises, if required with police assistance.

¶21

6.Notice to the respondent returnable by 02.02.2026. Private notice is also permitted. List this application on 02.02.2026.”

¶22

3.It is seen that the private notice sent to the respondent has been

¶23

returned with an endorsement “refused”. Hence, there shall be deemed service of notice on the respondent.

¶24

4.In view of the above, it is quite clear that the respondent is trying to evade the notice and the apprehension on the part of the applicant that the respondent is trying to secret the vehicle is prima facie proved. Hence, the order passed on 16.12.2025 is made absolute.

¶25

Accordingly, this application is disposed of.

¶26

09.02.2026

¶27

gya

¶28

Arb. Appln. No.1695 of 2025

¶29

2/2

¶30

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

Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co. Ltd. v. Sarvajit R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co. Ltd. v. Sarvajit R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Santhosh, presently residing at Flat No.10, Brook House, Vs J.Kishore

Muthusamy Gounder, Vs Saravanan

R.Durairaj and Another Vs Sibi Adhitya Senthil Kumar IAS

Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co. Ltd. Vs Ravikumar a

The Chairman Vs Mr.a. Manicavassoulo

Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co. Ltd. Vs Vaighaa Transport Rep by its Proprietor