IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH Arb. Appln . No . 1415 of 2025 HDB Financial Services Limited Having one of its branch office at

4^th Floor, Loyal Towers, No.68 2, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006 Applicant(s)

Vs

1.Fakkiresh Vaddar S/o.Timmappa Nadigatti, Adrahalli Gadag, Gadag 582 117 Karnataka

2.Shettevva Vaddar S/o.Gurappa V Nadigatti, Adrahalli Gadag, Gadag 582 117 Karnataka Respondent(s)

Application filed 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 Mr.Mallanna Hanmataraya, Area Collection Manager of the Applicant to seize and deliver the Asset “JCB 3DX PLUS” Construction Equipment bearing Registration NOo.KA 26 N 5692 and Engine No.H00364115 and Chassis No.HAR3DXS4P03196571 available at the Respondents premises or wherever found and permit the receiver Mr.Mallanna Hanmataraya, area collection manager to obtain police aid and to break open the premises.

For Applicant(s): Mr.M.Arunachalam

O R D E R

This application has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short “the Act”).

2.When the application came up for hearing on 03.11.2025, this Court passed the following order:

“This application has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short “the Act”) for appointment of a receiver to seize and deliver the asset which is in possession of the respondents and if required, with police protection.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and carefully perused the materials available on record.

3.It is seen that already an award has been passed on 06.06.2025 and it is submitted on the side of the applicant that till date, the award has not been put to challenge by filing a petition under Section 34 of the Act. As per the award, the respondents were directed to pay a sum of Rs.28,68,391/- with interest @ 18% p.a. Post award, the present application has been filed seeking for interim protection by means of seizing the asset which is in possession of the respondents.

4.On carefully going through the award passed by the sole Arbitrator, it is seen from paragraph 11 that the applicant filed similar application under section 17 of the Act during the pendency of the proceedings, for the seizure of the vehicle and the applicant was not able to repossess the vehicle. Hence, the apprehension of the applicant that the respondents will secret the vehicle and the applicant will not be able to recover the same.

5.A prima facie case has been made out. Hence, this Court appoints Mr.Mallanna Hanmataraya, Area Collection Manager, as the Court Receiver to seize the asset from the respondents, wherever it is found and if required, with police aid.

6.Notice to the respondents returnable by 01.12.2025. Private notice is also permitted.

Post on 01.12.2025.”

3.Notice has been sent to the respondents. Insofar as the notice that was sent to the 1^st respondent, returned with an endorsement “refused”. Hence, there shall be a deemed service of notice on the 1^st respondent. The notice that was sent to the 2^nd respondent was returned with an endorsement “insufficient address”. The address of the 2^nd respondent is the same as that of the 1^st respondent. Insofar as the 2^nd respondent is concerned, the notice has been returned with an endorsement “insufficient address”. But, in the very same address, the 1^st respondent has been served and the 1^st respondent has refused to receive the notice. Therefore, it is evident that the 2^nd respondent is trying to evade the notice.

4.In view of the above, it is quite clear that the respondents are trying to evade the notice and the apprehension on the part of the applicant that the respondents are trying to secret the vehicle is prima facie proved. Hence, the order passed on 03.11.2025 is made absolute and this application is disposed of in the above terms.

08.12.2025 gya Index:Yes/N