Allowed

Tata Capital Ltd. v. Siva N

Madras HC11 Jun 2026Arb Appln/208/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Arbitration application seeking a garnishee direction to withhold Rs.14,01,471 from the first respondent's salary unless security was furnished. Notice was refused by the first respondent; the court treated refusal as service and sufficient to infer a prima facie case, and ordered the application as prayed.

What did the court decide?

Application ordered as prayed: security of Rs.14,01,471 to be furnished, failing which garnishee to withhold that amount from salary and deposit it.

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

¶1

Arb Appln No. 208 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU Arb Appln No. 208 of 2026

¶6

Tata Capital Ltd 1st Floor Centennial Square 6A Dr Ambedkar Salai Kodambakkam Chennai 600 024

¶7

..Petitioner(s)

¶8

¶9

Siva N No.58 30 VC Garden, 2nd Floor, 1st Street, Land Mark, Near SBI ATM, Mandeveli, Chennai 600 028 Tamil Nadu. Siva N EMP.No.2538125 in M/s.Tata Consultancy Services, No.124, DLF Cyber City, near L.T, Mount Poonamallee Road, Manapakkam, Chennai 600 057, Tamilnadu

¶10

Authorised Officer Pay Roll Department M/s.Tata Consultancy Services, No.124, DLF Cyber City, Near L.T., Mount Poonamallee Road, Manapakkam, Chennai 600 057, Tamilnadu.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER:- Arbitration Application filed to direct the Respondent to furnish security for a sum of Rs.14,01,471/- within the time stipulated by this Honble Court failing which directing the Garnishee to withhold an amount of Rs.14,01,471/- from and out of the salary payable to the Respondent who being employed vide Employee code No.2538135 and deposit the same to the credit

¶13

Page1 of 3

¶14

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

¶15

Arb Appln No. 208 of 2026

¶16

of this application and deposit the same to the credit of this application.

¶17

For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.K.Vanan

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The present Arbitration Application has been filed to direct the Respondent to furnish security for a sum of Rs.14,01,471/- within the time stipulated by this Honble Court failing which directing the Garnishee to withhold an amount of Rs.14,01,471/- from and out of the salary payable to the Respondent who being employed vide Employee code No.2538135 and deposit the same to the credit of this application.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶21

The private notice which was attempted to be served on the first respondent had been returned with an endorsement “refused to receive the notice” . Such refusal amounts to notice having been served on the first respondent.

¶22

The refusal of the notice itself would be suffice to infer prima facie case as claimed by the applicant and the first respondent had also failed to produce any security. Accordingly, the application stands ordered as prayed for.

¶23

11-06-2026

¶24

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GBA

¶25

Page2 of 3

¶26

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

¶27

Arb Appln No. 208 of 2026

¶28

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶29

GBA

¶30

Arb Appln No. 208 of 2026

¶31

11-06-2026

¶32

__________ Page3 of 3

¶33

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

Tata Capital Ltd. v. Siva N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata Capital Ltd. v. Siva N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Capital Limited Vs Horizon Vetures

Thilaka Vs M/s.Bhoomi and Buildings Private Limited

Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co. Ltd. Vs Amresh Kushwaha

Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co. Ltd. Vs Hafeej B

Tata Capital Ltd. Vs Mohd Ibrahim Khan

Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co. Ltd. Vs Mod Sadek