Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 20994
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
M/s.Indus Ind Bank Limited – Appellant
Versus
Mugilan Enterprises – Respondent
Arb A No.1648 of 2025 | Arb A No.1721 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s.Meera Gnanasekar
For the Respondents: No appearance
The court affirms the authority to appoint receivers under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act when a prima facie case is established.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: This judgment concerns applications filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying for the appointment of a receiver for property retrieval. Facts of the Case: The applicant seeks the appointment of receivers to seize vehicles from the respondent, asserting a prima facie case demonstrated.
Findings of Court:
The court finds a prima facie case established for the need of a receiver.
Issues: The primary issue framed involves the appointment of receivers in light of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court holds that given the failure of the respondent to respond adequately and the prima facie case established, the applicants are justified in seeking the appointment of receivers.
Result: These Arbitration applications are disposed of accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. statutory basis for receiver appointment under arbitration act. (Para 1) |
| 2. court's observation on prima facie case and appointment rationale. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. final decision on applications disposing of the requests. (Para 5) |
COMMON ORDER
These applications have been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, [for brevity 'the Act'] for appointment of a receiver to seize and deliver the vehicle from the respondent to the applicant, if necessary, with police protection and by breaking open the premises.
2. Heard M/s.Meera Gnanasekar, learned counsel for applicant and carefully perused the materials available on record.
3. It is seen from records that notice was issued to the respondent and served. The matter was listed for hearing on 16.02.2026. The learned counsel for the respondent undertook to file vakalat and an undertaking affidavit before this Court. However, till date, no vakalat and undertaking affidavit have been filed.
4. In view of the above, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the materials available on record and also considering the fact that a prima facie case has been made out, this Court is inclined to appoint Mr. Lazar Arun, Chief Manager (for Arb A No.1648 of 2025) and Mr.Christoher, Chief Manager (for Arb A No.1721 of 2025) is appointed as the receiver and the receiver is permitted to seize the vehicle from the respondent or wherever it is found and by breaking open the premises, if required with police assistance.
5. These Arbitration applications are disposed of accordingly.
