Madras High Court
CRP/4744/2026 of Shriram Finance Limited Vs Annammal on 11 August 2026
CRP No. 4744 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-08-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 4744 of 2026
1. Shriram Finance Limited
Rep. by its Branch Manager cum Authority Signatory, R.Selvakumar, New No.27, Old No.42/1, Ram Prabha Tower, 1st Floor, Opp. to Dhanam Store, Denkanikottai Main Road, Shanthi Nagar, Hosur, Krishnagiri 635 109.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Annammal
S/o. Loganathan, D.No.177/3, Anthivadi,
Mathigiri (PO) Hosur, Tamil Nadu 635 110.
2.Nagesh Reddy
S/o. Rajappa Reddy, No.1.97.1,
Kasuvagatta, Kumudepalli, Krishnagiri 635
109.
Respondent(s)
Revision filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the return endorsement dated 07.04.2026 in EP SR No.3483 of 2026 in Arbitration Case No.MAT
02/2022 on the file of Hon’ble Additional District Court,Hosur and direct the Executing Court to number the Execution Petition.
For Petitioner(s):
Ms. R.Nirmala
CRP No. 4744 of 2026
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
In view of the limited relief sought for in the revision petition, I am inclined to dispense with notice to the respondents. Further, the executing Court has returned the Execution Petition even at the numbering stage and hence no prejudice is being caused to the respondents, in and by this order.
2. The execution petition was filed in order to execute the order of the Arbitrator. The executing Court has returned the said execution petition on the ground that appointment of Arbitrator was unilateral. Admittedly, it is not the case of the petitioner or the judgment debtors that as against the Award, there is a Section 34 challenge at the instance of the judgment debtors. The executing Court is not expected to step into the shoes of the judgment debtors and putforth the objections that may be open or available to the judgment debtors even at the stage of numbering.
3. This Court in K. Selvaraj and others vs Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant Indian Ltd reported in 2021 4 CTC 539 has issued specific guidelines for Courts to follow, especially at the stage of numbering applications, suits etc. There is a clear violation of the ratio laid down by this Court in K.Selvaraj’s case. The Court ought to
CRP No. 4744 of 2026 have numbered the execution petition, without putting the unilateral appointment of Arbitrator which has not been challenged by way of an Application under Section Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, despite compliance of the return dated 07.04.2026 to this effect.
4. In the light of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The Executing Court is directed to number the Execution Petition if it is otherwise in order without putting unilateral appointment as a ground for not numbering the execution petition and issue notice and proceed with the execution petition in accordance with law. No costs. 11.08.2026 sr Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order To The Additional District Court, Hosur.
CRP No. 4744 of 2026 P.B.BALAJI.,J sr CRP No. 4744 of 2026 11.08.2026