logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 MHC 6860 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : Arb. Appln. No. 1018 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Parties : M/s. Veritas Finance Limited, Chennai Versus Hajresab Riyaz Ahmed Lakshemshwar, Dharwad, Karnataka & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Meera Gnanasekar, Advocate. For the Respondents: No Appearance.
Date of Judgment : 01-12-2025
Head Note :-
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: To pass an order directing the 1st to 3rd Respondents to furnish security for the total outstanding amount of Rs.10,04,628/- in loan account bearing Loan Agreement No.LAHLUBL0223750 dated 31/05/2024 against the Respondent, within such time as this Honble Court may stipulate and in case of default to order Attachment before Judgment of the Immovable Properties of the 3rd Respondent which is morefully described in the Schedule to the Judges Summons and the copy of the order to be sent to the Honble Principal District Judge, Hubbali.)

1. This application has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short “the Act”), for a direction to the respondents to furnish security for the total outstanding amount of Rs.10,04,628/- in loan agreement dated 31.05.2024 and on default, attach the property morefully described in the schedule to the Judges summons.

2. The case of the applicant is that the 1st respondent approached for availing home loan and loan against property in the year 2024. The respondents entered into a loan agreement for home loan and loan against property. A loan agreement dated 31.05.2024 was entered into and a sum of Rs.8,30,000/- was sanctioned and was paid by way of a cheque. As per the agreement, the amount has to be repaid in 132 monthly instalments. The 2nd respondent is the co-borrower and the 3rd respondent is the guarantor.

3. The specific case of the applicant is that the 1st respondent has committed default in repayment and there was an outstanding of Rs.10,04,628/-.

4. The loan recall notice dated 10.06.2025 was issued to the respondents, calling upon them to regularise the loan account and to pay the total outstanding amount. However, there was no response and the loan amount was also not settled.

5. In the loan agreement, Clause 20 provides for referring the dispute before the sole Arbitrator. It is under these circumstances, the present application came to be filed before this Court.

6. This Court ordered notice and private notice to the respondents. Notices sent to the respondents were returned ‘unclaimed’. In view of the same, this Court directed the learned counsel for the applicant to effect service on the respondents through paper publication, by order dated 15.10.2025.

7. Pursuant to the above order, paper publication has been effected and proof of service has been filed and the names of the respondents have been printed in the cause list. There is no appearance either in person or through counsel.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that during the pendency of this application, trigger notice under Section 21 of the Act was also issued to the respondents on 15.09.2025.

9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and considering the fact that the respondents have not even bothered to appear before the Court and the applicant necessarily must have some security to recover the loan amount, this Court is inclined to pass an order attaching the immovable property morefully described in the Judges summons along with the application, pending disposal of the arbitration proceedings.

10. The order of interim attachment passed by this Court shall be communicated to the Sub Registrar Office concerned, in order to make necessary entry in the Encumbrance Certificate.

This application is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

 
  CDJLawJournal