SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Mad) 1554

VINOD K.SHARMA
Citicorp finance (India) Ltd Rep By Its Manager Chennai – Appellant
Versus
Padmanabhan Nair – Respondent


Judgment :-

Vinod K. Sharma, J.

1. This application under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with sec.9(ii) (e) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by M/s.Citicorp Finance India Ltd. to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to seize and deliver the subject property from the premises of the respondent with police aid and break open of premises if necessary.

2. The question to be determined in this case is "whether the provision of section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, can be invoked to use the High Court as a Recovery Agent by Finance Companies/Banks to seize the vehicle ex-parte, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent/ borrower, by seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner, to seize the vehicle even without serving notice of petition along with the documents, so as to enable the borrower to know the reason for passing this extreme order of seizure."

3. Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 reads as under:

9.Interim measures etc. by Court.-

(a) the preservation, interim custody or sale of any goods which are the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement;

(b) securing the amount in dispute in the arbitration;

























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top