Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 32646 (MAD)

TATA CAPITAL LTD v. Siva N

Arb Appln/208/2026 · 2026-06-11

K Kumaresh Babu

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Arb Appln No. 208 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU Arb Appln No. 208 of 2026 Tata Capital Ltd 1st Floor Centennial Square 6A Dr Ambedkar Salai Kodambakkam Chennai 600 024 ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Siva N No.58 30 VC Garden, 2nd Floor, 1st Street, Land Mark, Near SBI ATM, Mandeveli, Chennai 600 028 Tamil Nadu. Siva N EMP.No.2538125 in M/s.Tata Consultancy Services, No.124, DLF Cyber City, near L.T, Mount Poonamallee Road, Manapakkam, Chennai 600 057, Tamilnadu 2. Authorised Officer Pay Roll Department M/s.Tata Consultancy Services, No.124, DLF Cyber City, Near L.T., Mount Poonamallee Road, Manapakkam, Chennai 600 057, Tamilnadu. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER:- Arbitration Application filed to direct the Respondent to furnish security for a sum of Rs.14,01,471/- within the time stipulated by this Honble Court failing which directing the Garnishee to withhold an amount of Rs.14,01,471/- from and out of the salary payable to the Respondent who being employed vide Employee code No.2538135 and deposit the same to the credit __________ Page1 of 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb Appln No. 208 of 2026 of this application and deposit the same to the credit of this application. For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.K.Vanan ORDER The present Arbitration Application has been filed to direct the Respondent to furnish security for a sum of Rs.14,01,471/- within the time stipulated by this Honble Court failing which directing the Garnishee to withhold an amount of Rs.14,01,471/- from and out of the salary payable to the Respondent who being employed vide Employee code No.2538135 and deposit the same to the credit of this application. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. 3. The private notice which was attempted to be served on the first respondent had been returned with an endorsement “refused to receive the notice”. Such refusal amounts to notice having been served on the first respondent. 4. The refusal of the notice itself would be suffice to infer prima facie case as claimed by the applicant and the first respondent had also failed to produce any security. Accordingly, the application stands ordered as prayed for. 11-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GBA __________ Page2 of 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb Appln No. 208 of 2026 K.KUMARESH BABU, J. GBA Arb Appln No. 208 of 2026 11-06-2026 __________ Page3 of 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis