Madras High Court
CRP/4179/2026 of Hanudev Info Park Pvt.Ltd Vs Andal Dorairaj on 7 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.09.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No.4179 of 2026
& CMP.No.18215 of 2026
1.M/s.Hanudev Info Park Private Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory Mr.R.Neelakandan, R.R.Towers III – Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
2.M/s.Rithwik Infrastructure Private Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory Mr.R.Rajasekhar R.R.Towers III – Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
3.M/s.Rithwik Info Park Private Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory Mrs.R.Priya Rajasekhar R.R.Towers III – Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
..Petitioners
Vs
1.Andal Dorairaj
2.Vidhyasharathram
3.D.Sarathram
..Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 07.07.2026 made in E.P.No.2 of 2026 on the file of the learned Commercial District Judge, Coimbatore.
( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:10:25 pm )
For Petitioners:
For Respondents:
Mr.R.Bharath Kumar
Mr.M.S.Krishnan
Senior Counsel
& Mr.Sathish Parasaran
Senior Counsel for Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja
& Mr.M.Sundarakandeeswaran
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The revision petitioners are award sufferers, who have challenged the order passed in the execution proceedings, namely attachment of the properties of the petitioners, in furtherance of an award in favour of the respondents- decree holders.
2. I have heard Mr.R.Bharath Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.M.S.Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja and Mr.M.Sundarakandeeswaran, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The above revision petition, right from the date on which it was listed for admission, was repeatedly adjourned on the assurance of the revision petitioners that they would settle the matter amicably. In fact, proposals were even mooted by the respondents-decree holders, the same have not been acceptable to the revision petitioners. The award passed by the Arbitrator on 27.10.2021 has
( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:10:25 pm )
admittedly become final, despite a challenge laid under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the District Court, besides also Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed before this Court under Section 37 of the Act. A special leave petition filed by the revision petitioners also came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, thereby giving a seal of approval and finally to the award. In order to execute the award, the respondents filed E.P.No.2 of 2026, seeking to attach and sell the properties belonging to the revision petitioners.
4. The Executing Court, dealing with the objections of the petitioners, found that the objections were only with regard to the valuation of the property, which can always be agitated at the time of fixing of the upset price and therefore, found no impediment for the attachment to be effected as a first step, to enable the respondents to satisfy the award in their favour. The other objection with regard to the property being mortgaged with ICICI Bank and that it is a secured debt, was also appropriately dealt with by referring to Section 73 of the CPC. In short, the Executing Court found that the objections were, in fact, premature. I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the findings arrived at by the Executing Court, warranting interference in revision.
5. It is also brought to my notice by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that the EP is now posted to 21.09.2026 and therefore, the
( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:10:25 pm )
petitioners can always take advantage of the next couple of weeks for arranging funds to settle the claims of the decree holders.
6. However, even today, the learned counsel for the petitioner only stated that the petitioners have approached third-party financial institutions for loan, in order to settle the claims of the respondents and if sufficient time is granted, then the mater would be settled.
7. Admittedly, today, the Executing Court has only ordered attachment of the properties belonging to the petitioners. The process of sale would take a couple of months and therefore, if really the petitioners are bonafide and the petitioners intend to settle the claim of the decree holders, they can always avail of the time that may be consumed before the property is brought for sale and thereby, avoid sale of the property. However, it cannot be a ground to deny the fruits of the award to the decree holders and cause further delay in execution of the award in their favour. In the light of the above, I do not find any merit in the revision petition.
8. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The Executing Court shall dispose of E.P.No.2 of 2026, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It shall be open to the petitioners, in the interregnum period, to settle the claims of the decree holders, if really they
( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:10:25 pm )
intend to bonafie do so and retain the immovable properties, which are sought to be sold. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 07.09.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA To The Commercial District Judge, Coimbatore.
( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:10:25 pm )
P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA CRP No.4179 of 2026 07.09.2026
( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:10:25 pm )