Tata Capital Ltd v. Raj Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Tata Capital Limited, by its Associate Legal Remedial, R. Kamalakannan, having its office at 1st Floor, Centennial Square, 6A-Dr.Ambedkar Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024 .... Applicant Vs.
Raj Kumar Respondent Arbitration Application under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules r/w Section 9 (ii) (d) & (e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to appoint a receiver namely Krishna Prasad employed as employee currently designated as Associate Legal Manager in the Applicant company having his office at ground Floor, Jain Tower II, NH 17, near Lulu Mall, Edappally, Cochin 682 024, Kerala, as Receiver to seize and deliver the asset EECO 5 STR AC (0) CNG bearing engine No.G12BN1066397 Chassis No.MA3ERLF1S00A22027, Reg. No.KL16Z7392, situated at Saradha Mandiram Mukkuroad, Kilimanoor PO Pazhayakunnummel, Land Mark Private Bus Stand Kilimanoor, Trivandrum 695 601, Kerala, or wherever it is found more fully described hereunder with police aid or break open the premises from wherever found and handover the same to the applicant. 1/4
For Applicant : Mr. N.K. Vanan *****
ORDER
This application has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for brevity 'the Act'] for appointment of a receiver to seize and deliver the Construction Equipment to the applicant, if required, with police aid.
2. The applicant extended financial facilities to the respondents. Since the respondents committed default, a recall notice dated 17.02.2025 was issued and in spite of receipt of the same, there was no response from respondent. It is under these circumstances, the present petition came to be filed before this Court.
3. When the application came up for hearing on 01.12.2025 this Court issued notice to respondents.
4. Private notice has been served on the respondent and affidavit of service has also been filed. The names of respondent has also been printed in the cause list. However, the respondent is neither present nor represented through counsel. Hence, the apprehension raised on the side 2/4
of the applicant that the respondent is trying to secret the Construction Equipment is prima facie established.
5. In view of the above, Mr. Krishna Prasad, Legal Manager is appointed as the Court receiver and the Court receiver is permitted to seize the Construction Equipment from the respondents or wherever it is found and by breaking open the premises, if required with police assistance.
This application stands disposed of in the above terms. 12.01.2026 msr N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
msr 3/4
12.01.2026 4/4