Arb Appln No. 1522 of 2025 __________ Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU Arb Appln No. 1522 of 2025 M/s.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Chola Crest, C54-55 & Super B – 4, Thiru-vi-ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032, Represented by its Authorised Signatory. ..Applicant(s) Vs 1.Geetha S. 2.Shobiya S. 3.Kannammal K. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: To appoint an Advocate Commissioner to seize and deliver the construction equipment to applicant which is more fully described in the schedule to the judges summons which is lying in the custody of respondent or respondent’s men, agents, servants from respondent premises or wherever found with police aid and break open of premises if necessary? For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Pradeep Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Srinivasa Dayaprakash (u/f/v) O R D E R This application has been filed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to seize and deliver the construction equipment to the applicant, which is more fully described in the schedule to the judges summons, which is lying in the custody of respondents or respondents’ men, agents, servants from respondents https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb Appln No. 1522 of 2025 __________ Page2 of 5 premises or wherever found with police aid and break open of premises if necessary. 2. By orders of this Court dated 21.11.2024, this Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner in a post award scenario. 3. It is the claim of the first respondent that the original borrower had died and the first respondent is only a co-borrower. No notice of arbitration had been served and the applicant had invoked the provisions of the Arbitration Act and unilaterally appointed an arbitrator without notice to the first respondent and the arbitrator had proceeded to pass an ex parte award holding that the first respondent is liable to pay a sum of Rs.12,16,127/- together with 18% interest from 27.11.2024 till the date of realization. He further reiterated that the copy of the award had not been served upon the first respondent and in any event, the award would be a nullity as the same had been made by unilaterally appointing the Arbitrator. Hence, he would submit that the present application under Section 9 is non est and the award should not be entertained by this Court. 4. It is the further claim of the first respondent that even in the present application he had not been benefited with the typed-set of papers that had been filed along with the application to act on the award and challenge the same in the manner known to law. Hence, he prays this Court to reject the application as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb Appln No. 1522 of 2025 __________ Page3 of 5 such application cannot also be entertained to grant any protective rights to the applicant in view of the fact that the dispute had to be adjudicated in a proper manner. 5. To consider the application and submission on the side of the respondent, in a post award Section 9 application seeking for repossession of the vehicle by the award holder, the respondent had entered appearance as early as on 19.01.2026 and had filed a detailed counter objecting appointing of an Advocate Commissioner. 6. The first respondent was a co-borrower along with her husband for the purchase of the vehicle, which has been hypothecated with the applicant. From the award that had been passed by the arbitrator and the minutes recorded on 24.01.2026 indicate that the first respondent had appeared before the arbitrator through Zoom video and thereafter, she had also appeared through Zoom video call on 16.02.2022 and 02.02.2023 and thereafter, she remained absent before the Arbitrator. Hence, the first respondent is well aware of the proceedings of the arbitration and had come up with a counter affidavit stating that the first respondent was not aware of the arbitration proceedings that had been unilaterally initiated. Having appeared before the arbitrator this Court is of the view that the first respondent has not come with clean hands to assail the present application. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb Appln No. 1522 of 2025 __________ Page4 of 5 7. In such view of the matter, the objections raised by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent stands rejected and the order made on 20.11.2025 is made absolute. 8. This application stands disposed of accordingly. 9. It is further noted from the subsequent orders that the Advocate Commissioner appointed was not able to execute the warrant, in view the fact that the vehicle has not been able to be traced in spite of efforts made by the applicant. 10. In such view of the matter, the first respondent, who admits to be in possession, is directed to hand over the vehicle to the applicant within a period of one(1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Maya https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb Appln No. 1522 of 2025 __________ Page5 of 5 K.KUMARESH BABU, J. Maya Arb Appln No. 1522 of 2025 Dated : 15-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis