ORDER : 1. These applications have been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for brevity 'the Act'] seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to re-possess the respective vehicles from the respondents. 2. When A.No.1045 of 2025 came up for hearing on 01.08.2025, this Court passed the following order: “1. This application has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner by this Court to re-possess the vehicle, morefully described in the schedule to the judges summons from the respondents or wherever available. 2. The respondents are defaulters in re-payment of the loan to the applicant. The respondents have paid only 29 installments and as on date, 7 installments are due and payable by the respondents to the applicant. The applicant has already recalled the loan through a Loan Recall Notice. Under the loan agreement, the applicant is empowered to re-possess the vehicle from the respondents in case the respondents commit default in repayment of the loan. The applicant has expressed its difficulty in re- possessing the vehicle on its own. Only under the said circumstances, the applicant has filed this application seeking for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner by this Court. The arrears of 7 installments due and payable by the respondents to the applicant as on date works out to Rs.3,30,827/-. The applicant has expressed its willingness to go for arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause. 3. Supporting documents have been filed by the applicant in support of this application. The statement of account has been filed, which reveals that a sum of Rs.16,76,790/- is due and payable by the respondents as on date, which includes arrears of installments, future installments, penal interest and other charges payable by the respondents under the loan agreement. 4. This Court is satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out by the applicant for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and the balance of convenience and irreparable hardship have also been established. To enable the respondents to get back the possession of the vehicle from the Advocate Commissioner, they must be put on terms for getting back the vehicle from the applicant after re-possession. To enable the respondents to get back the possession of the vehicle from the Advocate Commissioner, they must be put on terms for getting back the vehicle from the applicant after re-possession. In order to strike a balance, the following order is passed by this Court: a) Ms.C.Pushpavalli, Advocate, having office at Women Lawyers Association, High Court Buildings, Chennai - 600 104 (Mob. No.90031 62793) is appointed as the Advocate Commissioner to re-posses the vehicle, morefully described in the schedule to the Judges Summons from the respondents-premises or wherever available; b) The Advocate Commissioner, after re-possessing the vehicle, shall handover interim custody of the same to the applicant, who shall keep it in their safe custody; c) The Advocate Commissioner, immediately after re-possessing the subject vehicle, shall intimate the respondents either through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due (RPAD) or by hand delivery through a written communication that the arrears of installment works out to Rs.3,30,827/-; d) The respondents, on payment of Rs.3,30,827/- to the applicant within a period of three days from the date when the subject vehicle was re-possessed, are entitled for return of the seized vehicle. On receipt of the sum of Rs.3,30,827/- within the stipulated time as stated supra, the applicant shall re-deliver the subject vehicle back to the respondents with proper acknowledgment and the advocate commissioner shall also render proper assistance for the same; e) The applicant shall initiate arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement contained in the contract within a period of 90 days from today. In case, the applicant fails to initiate arbitration within the stipulated time, the order passed by this Court today shall stand automatically vacated and the re- possessed vehicle shall also be redelivered back to the respondents by the applicant unconditionally; f) In case, the Advocate Commissioner requires Police assistance due to any law and order problem or due to any obstruction caused by the respondents or by any third party, while re-possessing the vehicle, the advocate commissioner is at liberty to seek police assistance from the concerned police station and the police department shall grant police protection accordingly. In case, break open of the premises, where the vehicle is located, is required, the Advocate Commissioner shall break open the premises in the presence of the police and take an inventory and thereafter re-posses the vehicle; g) The Advocate Commissioner shall be paid an initial remuneration of Rs.25,000 /- and on receipt of the same, the advocate commissioner shall proceed to execute this order. All the boarding, lodging and travelling expenses for the Advocate Commissioner shall be borne by the applicant. Notice to the respondents returnable by 08.09.2025.Private Notice is also permitted.” 3. When Application Nos. 1041, 1042, 1043 & 1046 of 2025 came up for hearing on 04.08.2025, this Court passed the following order: “1. These applications have been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to repossess the respective vehicles more fully described in the respective schedule to the respective Judges Summons from the respondent or wherever available. 2. The respondent is a defaulter in the repayment of the loan to the applicant. The respondent availed loan for the purchase of vehicles. The vehicles hypothecated to the applicant are more fully described in the respective schedule to the respective Judges Summons in these applications. Under the respective loan agreements, the applicant is empowered to repossess the vehicles from the respondent, in case the respondent commits default in the repayment of the loan to the applicant. There exists an arbitration clause in the loan contracts, which are the subject matter of these applications. The applicant has expressed its willingness to go for arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause contained in the respective agreements. The applicant has already recalled the loan from the respondent through its loan recall notices. 3. Since the applicant has been unable to re-possess the vehicles on their own, they have filed these applications seeking for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner by this Court to repossess the vehicles from the respondent or wherever available. The details of the amounts due and payable by the respondent to the applicant are furnished below: 4. 3. Since the applicant has been unable to re-possess the vehicles on their own, they have filed these applications seeking for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner by this Court to repossess the vehicles from the respondent or wherever available. The details of the amounts due and payable by the respondent to the applicant are furnished below: 4. This Court, after giving due consideration to the contents of the affidavit filed in support of these applications as well as the documents filed along with these applications, is of the considered view that a prima facie case has been made out by the applicant for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner by this Court to re-possess the vehicles from the respondent or wherever available. However, in order to strike a balance to enable the respondent to get back possession of the vehicles, once they are re-possessed by the Advocate Commissioner, this Court deems it fit to put the respondent on terms by directing the respondent to pay the arrears of installments due as on date under the respective contracts within a period of three days from the date when the Advocate Commissioner re-possess the vehicles from the respondent or wherever available. 5. The details of the amounts payable by the respondent within a period of three days from the date of the respective communication from the Advocate Commissioner under each of the loan agreements to enable them to get back the vehicles from the applicant after they are re-possessed by the Advocate Commissioner are as follows: 6. Accordingly, the following directions are issued by this Court: a) Mr.S.Karthick, Advocate, having address at No.1/76, 1st Block, 5th Street, Mogappair East, Chennai - 600 037 (Mob. Accordingly, the following directions are issued by this Court: a) Mr.S.Karthick, Advocate, having address at No.1/76, 1st Block, 5th Street, Mogappair East, Chennai - 600 037 (Mob. No.99418 19944) is appointed as the Advocate Commissioner to re-posses the vehicles morefully described in the respective schedule to the respective Judges Summons from the respondent or from the respondent's premises or wherever available; b) The Advocate Commissioner, after re-possessing the respective vehicles, shall handover interim custody of the same to the applicant, who shall keep it in their safe custody; c) The Advocate Commissioner, immediately after re-possessing the respective vehicle, shall intimate the respondent either through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due (RPAD) or by hand delivery through a written communication, that the respondent is in arrears of installments payable to the applicant; d) The respondent, on payment of the respective arrears of installments, as disclosed in paragraph No.5 of this order to the applicant within a period of three days from the date when the respective vehicles were re-possessed, is entitled for return of the seized respective vehicles, provided an undertaking is given by the respondent that the respondent shall pay the future installments on the due dates, without any default. On receipt of the arrears of installments within the stipulated time as stated supra, the applicant shall re-deliver the respective vehicles back to the respondent with proper acknowledgment and the Advocate Commissioner shall also render proper assistance for the same; e) The applicant shall initiate arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement contained in the respective contracts within a period of 90 days from today. In case, the applicant fails to initiate arbitration within the stipulated time, the order passed by this Court today shall stand automatically vacated and the re- possessed vehicles shall also be redelivered back to the respondent by the applicant unconditionally; f) In case, the Advocate Commissioner requires Police assistance due to any law and order problem or due to any obstruction caused by the respondent or by any third party, while re-possessing the respective vehicles, the Advocate Commissioner is at liberty to seek police assistance from the concerned police station and the police department shall grant police protection accordingly. In case, break open of the premises, where the respective vehicles are located, if required, the Advocate Commissioner shall break open the premises in the presence of the police and take an inventory and thereafter re-posses the respective vehicles; g) The Advocate Commissioner shall be paid an initial remuneration of Rs.50,000/-, which is payable by the applicant, who shall pay the same before the execution of the warrant of commission and on receipt of the same, the Advocate Commissioner shall proceed to execute this order. All the boarding, lodging and travelling expenses for the Advocate Commissioner shall be borne by the applicant. Notice to the respondent returnable by 02.09.2025. Private Notice is also permitted.” 4. Pursuant to the above order, the Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court attempted to re-possess the vehicle. Police protection was also sought. However, the Advocate Commissioner was obstructed in the execution of the warrant by the second respondent and his son. This was brought to the notice of this Court when the application came up for hearing on 03.09.2025. Hence, this Court issued a non- bailable warrant against the second respondent and directed the Inspector of Police, S10, Pallikaranai Police Station, Medavakkam, Chennai, to execute the non-bailable warrant and produce the second respondent before the Court. 5. The non-bailable warrant was not able to be executed since the whereabouts of second respondent and his son was not known. When Application Nos.1041, 1042, 1043 & 1046 of 2025 came up for hearing on 22.10.2025, the second respondent and his son were present before the Court with their counsel and this Court passed the following order: “1. Pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court on 14.10.2025, these applications were listed for hearing today. 2. Mr.G.Murugesan, Inspector of Police, Pallikaranai Police station and Mr.M.Mohammed Buhari, Inspector of Police, Thiruvanmiyur Police Station, were present before this Court at the time of hearing. 3. The learned Government Advocate submitted that a special team was formed to nab the 2 nd respondent and his son and their whereabouts were not known. However, both of them are present before the Court today along with their counsel. 4. Mr.V.Govindaraj, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the 2 nd respondent and his son. 3. The learned Government Advocate submitted that a special team was formed to nab the 2 nd respondent and his son and their whereabouts were not known. However, both of them are present before the Court today along with their counsel. 4. Mr.V.Govindaraj, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the 2 nd respondent and his son. The 2 nd respondent and his son tendered unconditional apology for the incident that took place on 21.08.2025, when the Advocate Commissioner was threatened and he was prevented from executing the warrant. 5. The 2 nd respondent's son viz., Rajithkumar Manimaran stated that all the five vehicles are available and it has been rented out. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2 nd respondent and his son submitted that individual affidavit will be filed by the 2 nd respondent and his son tendering their unconditional apology. 6. There shall be a direction to the 2 nd respondent to make available all the five vehicles which is the subject matter in all these applications. The learned counsel for the Advocate Commissioner shall go over to the office of the 2 nd respondent on 25.10.2025 and formally seize those vehicles. Those vehicles shall be kept in the office of the 2 nd respondent, until further orders are passed by this Court. 7. A report shall be filed before this Court by the learned Advocate commissioner during the next date of hearing. The 2 nd respondent and his son shall also be present before the Court during the next date of hearing and they shall also file individual affidavits by tendering unconditional apology. They shall also give an undertaking affidavit before this Court as to when the loan amount taken from the applicant will be cleared. The five vehicles that are seized by the learned Advocate Commissioner and kept in the office of the 2 nd respondent shall not be removed from the office until further orders are passed by this Court. 8. In the light of the above order, the non-bailable warrant issued against the 2 nd respondent is kept in abeyance. 9. Post these applications for passing further orders on 29.10.2025.” 6. Pursuant to the above order, the applications were listed on 29.10.2025 and the following order came to be passed by this Court: “1. 8. In the light of the above order, the non-bailable warrant issued against the 2 nd respondent is kept in abeyance. 9. Post these applications for passing further orders on 29.10.2025.” 6. Pursuant to the above order, the applications were listed on 29.10.2025 and the following order came to be passed by this Court: “1. Pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court on 22.10.2025, these applications have been listed for hearing today. The learned Advocate Commissioners, who were appointed in these applications, submitted that all the five vehicles were seized in the office belonging to the second respondent. Since this Court directed the vehicles to be kept in the office of the second respondent, they were parked in that office and the keys of the vehicles were retained by the second respondent. 2. The second respondent was present before the Court and he has filed affidavits in each application tendering unconditional apology and he has also undertaken that he will not repeat such conduct in future. The second respondent has also filed an affidavit of undertaking to the effect that he is willing to settle the dispute with the applicant company. In view of the same, the non bailable warrant that was issued by this Court against the second respondent is hereby recalled. 3. Post these applications for hearing on 07.11.2025. In the meantime, the second respondent is directed to meet the officials of the applicant company and the offer made by him to settle the amount shall be considered and reported before this Court.” 7. After the above order was passed, the applications were listed for hearing on 24.11.2025 and this Court was informed that the offer made by the applicant company was not accepted by the respondents and hence, there was no scope for settlement. Accordingly, these applications were directed to be listed for hearing today. 8. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that the applicant had made a very reasonable offer to the respondents and directed the respondents to pay the outstanding principal amount and the overdue installments and all the other payments were waived. 9. The Advocate Commissioner, who was present before the Court, submitted that pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court, five vehicles were seized and they are now lying in the office of the first respondent. 10. 9. The Advocate Commissioner, who was present before the Court, submitted that pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court, five vehicles were seized and they are now lying in the office of the first respondent. 10. In the considered view of this Court, in spite of the conduct of the second respondent and his son, this Court gave a very long rope for the respondents to resolve the dispute. However, the respondents have not taken advantage of the leniency shown by this Court. This Court restrained itself from proceeding further against the second respondent and his son for contempt of Court only with the fond hope that the second respondent and his son will amicably settle the dispute with the applicant company. However, in spite of a reasonable offer made, the second respondent and his son have not settled the dispute. Under normal circumstances, this Court would have insisted for an undertaking affidavit to the effect that the respondents will not alienate the vehicle and directed the applicant to proceed further with the arbitration proceedings. However, in the case in hand, considering the conduct of the second respondent and his son, this Court is inclined to direct the second respondent and his son to hand over the vehicles to the applicant forth with. The vehicles shall be retained by the applicant till 31.12.2025. In N. ANAND VENKATESH, J. the mean time, it will be left open to the respondents to settle the outstanding principal amount and the over due installments. If the same is done, the vehicle shall be released by the applicant. If the same is not complied with, it is left open to the applicant to proceed further with the arbitration proceedings and take action in accordance with law. 11. A memo has been filed seeking additional remuneration to the learned Advocate Commissioner. There shall be a direction to the applicant to pay an additional remuneration of a consolidated sum of Rs.30,000/- [Rupees Thirty Thousand only] to the learned Advocate Commissioner. All these applications are disposed of in the above terms. ORDER: Today, the matter was listed under the caption “for being mentioned”, since some inadvertent mistakes had crept in the order. Therefore, paragraph No.5 of the order dated 26.11.2025, shall be replaced as follows: 5. All these applications are disposed of in the above terms. ORDER: Today, the matter was listed under the caption “for being mentioned”, since some inadvertent mistakes had crept in the order. Therefore, paragraph No.5 of the order dated 26.11.2025, shall be replaced as follows: 5. The non-bailable warrant was not able to be executed since the whereabouts of second respondent and his son was not known. When Application Nos.1041, 1042, 1043 & 1046 of 2025 came up for hearing on 22.10.2025, the second respondent and his son were present before the Court with their counsel and this Court passed the following order: “1. Pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court on 14.10.2025, these applications were listed for hearing today. 2. Mr.G.Murugesan, Inspector of Police, Pallikaranai Police station and Mr.M.Mohammed Buhari, Inspector of Police, Thiruvanmiyur Police Station, were present before this Court at the time of hearing. 3. The learned Government Advocate submitted that a special team was formed to nab the 2nd respondent and his son and their whereabouts were not known. However, both of them are present before the Court today along with their counsel. 4. Mr.V.Govindaraj, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the 2nd respondent and his son. The 2nd respondent and his son tendered unconditional apology for the incident that took place on 21.08.2025, when the Advocate Commissioner was threatened and he was prevented from executing the warrant. 5. The 2nd respondent's son viz., Ranjithkumar Manimaran stated that all the five vehicles are available and it has been rented out. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent and his son submitted that individual affidavit will be filed by the 2nd respondent and his son tendering their unconditional apology. 6. There shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to make available all the five vehicles which is the subject matter in all these applications. The learned counsel for the Advocate Commissioner shall go over to the office of the 2nd respondent on 25.10.2025 and formally seize those vehicles. Those vehicles shall be kept in the office of the 2nd respondent, until further orders are passed by this Court. 7. A report shall be filed before this Court by the learned Advocate commissioner during the next date of hearing. Those vehicles shall be kept in the office of the 2nd respondent, until further orders are passed by this Court. 7. A report shall be filed before this Court by the learned Advocate commissioner during the next date of hearing. The 2nd respondent and his son shall also be present before the Court during the next date of hearing and they shall also file individual affidavits by tendering unconditional apology. They shall also give an undertaking affidavit before this Court as to when the loan amount taken from the applicant will be cleared. The five vehicles that are seized by the learned Advocate Commissioner and kept in the office of the 2nd respondent shall not be removed from the office until further orders are passed by this Court. 8. In the light of the above order, the non-bailable warrant issued against the 2nd respondent is kept in abeyance.