Madras High CourtA/8273/2017closed

M/S.Cholamandalam Investment v. Savitri Devi Sao

2018-12-05Honourable Mr Justice M. Govindaraj3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ A. No.8273 of 2017 In the matter of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and In the matter of disputes between M/s.Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd and Savitri Devi Sao arising under the Loan Agreement No:XOCEBLA00001963724.

Dated : 19.04.2017.

M/s.Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co Ltd Represented by its Authorised Signatory "Parry House", No:2, N.S.C.Bose Road Parrys, Chennai -1.

: Applicant Vs.

1.Savitri Devi Sao No.252, Ward No.6 Suplea Bhilai Chattisgarh - 490 023.

:Respondents

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to appoint the employee of the Applicant viz. Mr.Ritesh Thakur, Area Branch Manager More to seize and take possession of the vehicle which is morefully described in the schedule to the Judes Summons which is lying in the custody of respondents, men, servants, agents, from his premises at No.252, Ward No:6, Suplea, Bhilai, Chattisgarh - 490 023 or wherever found with the police aid and break open of premises.

This Application coming on this day before this court for hearing the court made the following order: By order, dated 14.12.2017, this Court appointed Mr.Ritesh Thakur, Area Branch Manager of the applicant company as Receiver to seize and possess the vehicle in question.

2. Pursuant to the warrant of commission issued by this Court to seize the vehicle, it is today represented by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the asset has been seized and handed over to the applicant company by the Receiver. He would also confirm that proceedings for arbitration in connection with the transaction relating to the aforesaid asset have been concluded and an award has

been passed favouring the applicant on 26.3.2018, which has, till date, not been challenged by the respondent. The statement is recorded.

3. Though the respondent has been served and his name appears in the cause list, none appears on his behalf.

4. In view of the above, nothing further survives in this application and the same stands closed. The parties are free to take such action, as they may desire hereafter, in accordance with law.

Sd/- M.G.R.J.

05.12.2018 //Certified to be a true copy// Dated this the day of 2019. DL/05.02.2019 COURT OFFICER From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.