Madras High Court
Arbitration and MediationProperty and Real Estate Law

A lender’s employee may be appointed as party receiver to repossess a hypothecated vehicle.

Tata Capital Ltd vs Noushad Areekan

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: October 06, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
A lender’s employee may be appointed as party receiver to repossess a hypothecated vehicle.. Tata Capital Ltd vs Noushad Areekan. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

Tata Capital Limited applied under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of its employee as Party Receiver to repossess a Ford Figo Aspire hypothecated by borrower Noushad Areekan.

Source reference: p.1

The Court recorded that the loan agreement, dated 25 November 2022, contained an arbitration clause; the lender claimed ₹1,94,615 was due and alleged the borrower was not clearing the dues or permitting peaceful repossession.

Source reference: pp.2–3

Despite service of private notice, the respondent did not appear.

Source reference: p.3
02

Issues

Whether, in the circumstances presented, a Party Receiver should be appointed under Section 9 to repossess the hypothecated vehicle.

Source reference: pp.1, 3

Whether the Receiver could be authorised to seek police assistance and, where necessary, open locked premises or arrange access to the vehicle for repossession.

Source reference: pp.4–5
03

Law Applied

The Court acted under Section 9(1)(ii)(b), (d) and (e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers a court to grant interim measures, including securing the amount in dispute, appointing a receiver, and granting other measures it considers just and convenient.

Source reference: p.1

The application also invoked Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules. The order cites no precedent.

Source reference: p.1
04

Reasoning

The Court recorded the loan agreement’s arbitration clause, the claimed default and the lender’s apprehension that the vehicle could not be repossessed peacefully; it considered that apprehension reasonable.

Source reference: pp.2–3

In light of those circumstances and the respondent’s non-appearance, the Court found it just and necessary to appoint the lender’s employee as Party Receiver.

Source reference: p.3

To facilitate repossession, it authorised the Receiver to seek police assistance if faced with resistance and to open locked premises or arrange towing or mechanical assistance where required.

Source reference: pp.4–5
05

Holding

The Court appointed Mr. Pranoy as Party Receiver to repossess the identified vehicle, verify and document its particulars, and report on the repossession.

The order also provided for police assistance, access to locked premises, and an opportunity for the parties to settle.

Source reference: pp.4–5

The application was disposed of on those terms, with the Receiver’s mandate continuing until further orders.

Source reference: p.6
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961

Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

Tata Capital LtdvsNoushad Areekan

Madras High Court · October 06, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment