Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co Ltd Rep By Its Authorised Signatory D Arjun v. Saravana Sastha Steels Pvt Ltd
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE M/s.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited Registered office at :
'Chola Crest', C54 & 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate Guindy, Chennai-600032, Represented by its Authorised Signatory Mr.D.Arjun ..
Applicant vs.
1. M/s.Saravana Sastha Steels Pvt Ltd No.36 B Phase I SIPCOT Industrial Complex Hosur, Krishnagiri - 635 126.
2. M/s.Umashankar Alloys Private Limited No.39 Phase II SIPCOT Industrial Complex Hosur, Krishnagiri - 635 109.
3. M/s.Yees Vee Press Components No.2 529 Lakshmi Narashimma Nagar Railway Station Road, Dinnur Hosur Krishnagiri - 635 109.
4. M/s.Sasta Traders No.A19, 4th Cross TVS Nagar Cattle Farm Hosur Krishnagiri 635 109.
5. M.NandhaKumar
6. V.Muthukrishnan 1/5
7. M.Senthilkumar
8. M.Kannikavathi
...Respondents
PRAYER: Arbitration Applications filed under Order XIV Rule 8 Original Side Rules read with Section 9(ii)(d) & (e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to appoint Advocate Commissioner to seize and deliver the assets as detailed in schedule of the judges summons of this application available at respondent's premises or wherever found and permit the advocate commissioner to obtain police aid and to break open the premises and hand over the same to the applicant and pass such other orders and thus render justice. For Applicant : Ms.K.Indumathi For Respondents : No appearance - - - - - -
O R D E R
Till date the Advocate Commissioner has not repossessed the machinery /equipment of the respondents.
2. It is represented by the learned Advocate Commissioner that an attempt was made by the Advocate Commissioner to repossess the machinery /equipment. According to her, the date when the attempt was made, the respondents undertook to pay two EMIs to the applicant and 2/5
the applicant has also agreed for the same.
3. According to the Advocate Commissioner, as assured by the respondents, the respondents had also paid two EMIs to the applicant subsequently. According to the Advocate Commissioner, the applicant once again directed the Advocate Commissioner to repossess the machinery /equipment from the respondents. However, on the request made by the applicant, at the time when the Advocate Commissioner attempted to repossess the machinery /equipment, the Advocate Commissioner did not proceed with the execution of the Warrant of Commission.
4. On the last hearing date, the learned counsel for the first respondent sought further time to settle the claim of the applicant. Only on the representation made by the learned counsel for the first respondent on 02.06.2025, the matter is listed under the caption for settlement today.
5. However, till date the respondents have not settled the claim of the applicant and the Advocate Commissioner has not repossessed the machinery /equipment. During the pendency of this application, part payments have also been made by the first respondent to the applicant, which is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant on instructions.
3/5
6. However in view of the fact that till date the machinery /equipment has not been repossessed and since sufficient time has been granted, no useful purpose would be served, if this application is allowed to be kept pending.
7. Accordingly, this application is closed. However, liberty is granted to the applicant to file a fresh application in case the respondents fails to settle the claim of the applicant as per the undertakings given by them to the applicant during the pendency of this application. No costs.
8. The applicant is directed to pay additional remuneration of Rs.10,000/- to the Advocate Commissioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 30.06.2025 Maya 4/5
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Maya Dated 30.06.2025 5/5