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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 3023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice N. ANAND VENKATESH
M/s.Shriram Finance Limited. – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Kumar – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH M/s.Shriram Finance Limited, (Formerly Known as M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited), Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, Mr.Soumakiya Venkatesh K, 3rd Floor, Mookambika Complex, No.4, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1.Suresh Kumar S/o.Seethraman, No.19, Middle Street, Chinna Kalapet, Puducherry - 605014.

2.Perumalraja S/o.Ramalingam, No.17, Middle Street, Chinna Kalapet, Puducherry - 605 014.

3.Anjali Devi W/o.Ramalingam, No.17, Middle Street, Chinna Kalapet, Puducherry - 605 014.

4.Puspakantham W/o.Suresh Kumar, No.19, Middle Street, Chinna Kalapet, Puducherry - 605 014.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Arbitration Original Petition (Commercial Division) filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the differences and disputes between the parties under the said loan cum Hypothecation agreement and 20.03.2019.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.Karthikeyan

ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the differences and disputes between the parties under the said loan cum Hypothecation agreement and 20.03.2019.

2. When this matter came up for admission on 20.11.2025, this Court passed the following order:

“This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the dispute arising out of the Loan cum hypothecation agreement dated

21.05.2018.

2. The agreement provides for referring the dispute for Arbitration under clause 22 and the same is extracted hereunder:-

ARTICLE 22 - Arbitration clause LAW, JURISDICTION, ARBITRATION “22(a) All disputes, differences and/or claim arising out of or in connection with this Agreement whether during its subsistence or thereafter shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or any statutory amendments thereof and shall be referred to sole arbitration of an Arbitrator nominated by the Lender. The award given by such an Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties to this Agreement.

In the event of capacity or resignation or death of the sole arbitrator so appointed, the lender shall be entitled to appoint another arbitrator in place of the earlier arbitrator and the proceedings shall continue from stage at which the predecessor had left. Such a person shall be entitled to proceed with the reference from stage at which it was left by his predecessor.

(b) The venue of arbitration proceedings shall be at puduchery.

The language of e of arbitration shall be English.

(c) The arbitrator so appointed herein above, shall also be entitled to pass an Award on the hypothecated asset and also on any other securities furnished by or on behalf of the Borrower.

3. The trigger notice under Section 21 of the Act was issued on

19.08.2025 and the same has also been received by the respondent. Since there was no response, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

4. Notice to the respondents returnable by 17.12.2025. Private notice is also permitted.

5. Post this case for hearing on 17.12.2025.”

3. Notice was served on the respondents and the affidavit of service was also filed before this Court. The name of the respondents were also printed in the cause list, despite which, there is no representation for the respondents either in person or through counsel.

4. Heard Mr.M.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. It is seen that there is a valid agreement between the parties in line with Section 7 of the Act and it contains an arbitration clause and therefore all the other issues can be raised only before the sole arbitrator which will be considered on its own merits and in accordance with la

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