The court allows the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for repossessing a vehicle due to loan default, ensuring balance in rights between the parties.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-07-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE Arb. Appln. No.719 of 2025 M/s.Shrinithi Capital Private Ltd., Represented by its Chief manager Mr.R.Selvam, at 2^nd Floor, 2A Mookambika Complex, No.4, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

Applicant Vs

1 M.Mohan

2 Eshwar Respondents Prayer: Arbitration Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w. Section 9 (ii) (b) and (e) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner with direction to seize the Schedule mentioned Vehicle which is lying under the custody of the Respondent or his men, agent, Servants or anyone claiming under them from the premises of 1^st Respondent at C202 Raheja Regency, No.147, Santhome High Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028, or at any other place where the scheduled asset is found, with the police aid and by breaking open locks if necessary and to take the same into his custody and sell the same at fair market price.

For Applicant:

Mr.K Sendurpandi

ORDER

As directed by this Court, the applicant has effected Substituted Service on the Respondents by effecting paper publication. The paper publication has been enclosed along with the Affidavit of service. Hence, the Respondents are set exparte by this Court.

2. The respondents are defaulters in repayment of the loan to the applicant. The loan agreement dated 24.08.2022 empowers the applicant to repossess the vehicle from the respondents in case the respondents commit default in repayment of the loan. As on 22.04.2025, a sum of Rs.18,27,082/- is due and payable by the respondents to the applicant, as is seen from the statement of account filed along with this application. As on the date of filing of the application, the respondents are in arrears of Rs.20,92,821/- as is seen from the affidavit filed in support of the petition.

3. The applicant has expressed their difficulty to appoint the Advocate Commissioner on its own. They have also expressed their willingness to go for arbitration in accordance with arbitration clause contained in the loan agreement, dated 24.08.2022. The applicant has already recalled the loan of the respondents. This Court after giving due consideration to the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the application, is of the considered view, a prima facie case has been made out by the applicant for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner by this Court to repossess the vehicle from the respondents or wherever available. To enable the respondents to take back possession of the vehicle from the Advocate Commissioner, they must be put on terms for getting back the vehicle from the applicants after re-possession. In order to strike a balance, the following order is passed by this Court:

a)Mr.A.Ramesh, Advocate, having office at No.110, Law Chamber, High Court Buildings, Chennai - 600 104 (Mob. No.9884621629) is appointed as the Advocate Commissioner to re-posses the vehicle, morefully described in the schedule to the Judges Summons from the respondent from their premises or wherever available;

b)The Advocate Commissioner, after re-possessing the vehicle, shall handover interim custody of the same to the applicant, who shall keep it in their safe custody;

c)The Advocate Commissioner, immediately after re-possessing the subject vehicle, shall intimate the respondents either through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due (RPAD) or by hand delivery through a written communication that the arrears of installments work out to Rs.18,27,082/-;

d)The respondent, on payment of Rs.18,27,082/- to the applicant within a period of three days from the date when the subject vehicle was re- possessed, is entitled for return of the seized vehicle. On receipt of the sum of Rs.18,27,082/- within the stipulated time as stated supra, the applicant