Cholamandalam Investment v. Mr.Nagaraj S
Application No.1723 of 2016 RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
This application is filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking a direction qua the respondent to furnish security for a sum of Rs.3,48,923/-, failing which, to order attachment of the property morefully described in the judges summons. 2.2. In this application, notice was issued to the respondent, despite which, the respondent has not entered appearance. Further more, by order dated 16.08.2016, the respondent was directed to furnish security within a period of four weeks.
2.1. This Court directed the Registry to communicate the said order, i.e. order dated 16.08.2016, to the respondent. That apart, the applicant was also permitted to communicate the said order privately. 2.2. I am informed by the Registry that the service of the said order, i.e. order dated 16.08.2016, has been effected on the respondent. Likewise, the applicant has filed affidavit of service. Despite service, the respondent has chosen not to appear.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for attachment of the immovable property described in the schedule appended to the judges summons.
4. It may be noted that it is the case of the applicant that the respondent has availed loan in the sum of Rs.3,91,450/- under the Loan Hypothecation Agreement dated 30.09.2013, qua the purchase of the vehicle described as Tata LCV 1109. The said amount was to be paid in 47 Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs). The first instalment was to commence from 01.11.2013, while the last instalment was payable on 01.09.2017. The applicant submits that under the aforementioned Loan Agreement, the respondent has undertaken to repay the total loan amount along with finance charges of Rs.6,08,180/-.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant says that the respondent has not adhered to the obligations undertaken under the aforementioned loan agreement. It is the case of the applicant that the respondent is liable to pay a total sum of Rs.3,48,923/- as on 18.03.2016.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further states that arbitration proceeding has been initiated and, consequent thereto, an award has been
passed in the matter concerning the parties.
7. It is clear that the respondent is moving towards a situation where the award shall become a paper decree. In this circumstance, there shall be an order of attachment qua the property described in the judges summons to the extent of the claimed amount, i.e. Rs.3,48,923/-. For the sake of convenience, the particulars of the said property are noted hereunder below: SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY Item No.1 Land situated in Chinee Goundana Halli Village, bearing Survey No.40/1A, measuring Punjai Hectare 0.20.5 equivalent Acre 0.52 cents fully within SRO Rayakottai.
Estimated value of property Rs.65,000/-.
Item No.2 Land situated in Chinee Goundana Halli Village, bearing Survey No.40/1B, measuring Punjai Hectare 0.35.0 equivalent Acre 0.87 cents fully within SRO Rayakottai.
Estimated value of property Rs.1,08,750/-.
Item No.4 Land situated in Chinee Goundana Halli Village, bearing Survey No.40/1D, measuring Punjai Hectare 0.73.0 equivalent Acre 1.81 cents fully within SRO Rayakottai.
Estimated value of property Rs.2,26,250/-.
The order of attachment may be transmitted to the District Court, Krishnagiri.
8. Since the award has already been passed, the parties are given liberty to take necessary steps hereafter, albeit, in accordance with law.
9. Accordingly, this application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 24.10.2016 gya
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
gya Application No.1723 of 2016 24.10.2016 http://www.judis.nic.in