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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 60446

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
M/s.Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited – Appellant
Versus
Muralidharan.S – Respondent
Arbitration Application Nos.923 & 924 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.A.Rajavel
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Indrajith

Court upheld the appointment of Advocate Commissioners for vehicle repossession under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, affirming enforcement of loan agreements and obligations for repayment by defaulting respondents.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Appointment of Advocate Commissioner for repossession of vehicles - Applicants sought appointment due to respondents' default on loan repayments, asserting rights under the loan agreement - Court validated the issuance of an Advocate Commissioner to seize vehicles and allowed payment arrangements for the return of vehicles upon satisfying due amounts. (Paras 1-10)

(B) Jurisdiction of Court - Court reiterated that notice requirements and the necessity for police assistance were upheld to ensure lawful execution of re-possession - The applicants justified the need for police intervention due to respondents' threatening conduct towards the Advocate Commissioner. (Paras 3-4)

Facts of the case:
The applicants filed applications under Section 9 of the Act to re-possess hydraulic mobile cranes due to default in loan repayments totaling Rs.11,37,018/- for Application No.923 and Rs.7,26,291/- for Application No.924. The initial agreements permitted repossession, and arbitration proceedings were initiated.

Findings of Court:
Court appointed Advocate Commissioners for both applications, detailing procedures for vehicle seizure and requiring the respondents to remit outstanding loans. Respondents later expressed willingness to settle and apologized for prior conduct.

Issues: The main issues included the legal grounds for appointing an Advocate Commissioner and the obligations of respondents concerning outstanding amounts.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the appointment of Advocate Commissioners was justified given the circumstances and affirmed the enforceability of the undertaking regarding loan repayments provided by the respondents.

Result: Applications disposed of as per the court's directions.

Table of Content
1. appointment of advocate commissioner under arbitration. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. requirement of police assistance for repossession. (Para 3)

COMMON ORDER

These applications have been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , [for brevity 'the Act'] for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to repossess the vehicle from the respondents.

2. These applications came up for hearing on 16.07.2025 and two individual orders were passed by this Court and the same is extracted hereunder:

"Arbitration Application No.923 of 2025 This application has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner by this Court to repossess the vehicle, morefully described in the schedule to the judges summon from the respondent or wherever available.

2.The respondents are defaulters in re-payment of the loan to the applicant. The period of the loan agreement dated 09.10.2023 has already come to an end. The applicant has already recalled the loan by issuing notice to the respondents. Under the loan agreement, the applicant is empowered to re-possess the vehicle on their own. The applicant has expressed its difficulty to re-possess the vehicle on their own. There exists an arbitration clause on the loan agreement dated 09.10.2023. The applicant has already initiated arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause by issuing notice to the respondents to comply with the requirements of Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 . As on 30.06.2025, a sum of Rs.11,37,018/- is due and payable by the respondents to the applicant as seen from the statement of accounts. Only under the said circumstances, the applicant has filed this application seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner by this Court.

3. Supporting documents have been filed by the applicant in support of this application. Since a prima facie case has been made out by the applicant for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, this Court is inclined to appoint an Advocate Commissioner as prayed for in this application. 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 applicant after re-possession. In order to strike a balance, the following order is passed by this Court:

a) Mr.R.Kamesh Kumar, Advocate having address at No.10, 3rd floor Catholic Centre, Armenian street, Chennai 600 104 e-mail kameshwar29@gmail.com Mobile No.98403 25371 is appointed as the Advocate Commissioner to re-posses the vehicle, morefully described in the schedule to the Judges Summons from the respondents 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.11,37,018/-;

d) The respondents, on payment of Rs.11,37,018/- to the applicant within a period of three days from the date when the subject vehicle was re-possessed, are entitled for return of the seized vehicle. On receipt of the sum of Rs.11,37,018/- within the stipulated time as stated supra, the applicant shall re-deliver the subject vehicle back to the respondents with proper acknowledgment and the advocate commissioner shall also render proper assistance for the same;

e) In case, the Advocate Commissioner requires Police assistance due to any law and order problem or due to any obstruction caused by the respondents or by any third party, while re-possessing the vehicle, the advocate commissioner is at liberty to seek police assistance from the concerned police station and the police department shal

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 Back to top