Ms Mercedes Benz Fianancial Services India Pvt Ltd v. Madhuri Raut

Arb.Appln.No.281 of 2024 Arb.Appln.No.281 of 2024 KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

In the present case, vide order dated 18.06.2024, this Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to seize and deliver the subject vehicle to the applicant.

2. Today, the learned counsel for the applicant would submit that subsequent to the aforesaid order, the vehicle was seized by the applicantCompany on their own. Hence, she requests this Court to close this application by granting liberty for the sale of vehicle. Further, she would submit that the initial remuneration of a sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid to the learned Advocate Commissioner.

3. Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, this application is closed. However, it is made clear that once the application is filed and the Advocate Commissioner is appointed by this Court, the seizure of subject vehicle has to be made only through the Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court and not by the applicant on their own.

Page No.1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arb.Appln.No.281 of 2024 KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

nsa

4. As far as the request made by the applicant for liberty is concerned, this Court is not inclined to express anything with regard to the same and it is for the applicant to take action to sell the subject vehicle and realize the dues from the respondent in accordance with the provisions loan agreement entered between them.

5. Further, this Court directs the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as additional remuneration to the learned Advocate Commissioner on or before 01.08.2024.

6. Post this matter on 01.08.2024 for reporting compliance. 22.07.2024 nsa Arb.Appln.No.281 of 2024 Page No.2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis