Madras High Court
M/S.Hdb Financial Services Limited vs Suresh Ganesan on 4 June, 2025
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
Original Application No. 349 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
Original Application Nos. 349 to 351 and 356 of 2025
Original Application No. 349 of 2025:-
M/s.HDB Financial Services Limited
Having one of its branch office at
4th Floor, Loyal Towers
No.68/2, Greams Road, Chennai-600006
Represented by its Authorised Signatory
Mr.P.Saravanan … Petitioner
Vs.
1. Suresh Ganesan
2. Ganesan Arunachalam … Respondents
PRAYER: Original Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 Original
Side Rules read with Section 9(ii)(d)&(e) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to pass an order of interim injunction
restraining second respondent by himself, his servants, assigns, agents,
representatives, officers, trustees, beneficiaries, administrator/s or any
other person claiming through or under them and under any instrument,
whatsoever, from in any manner selling, alienating, transferring, parting
Page 1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:05 pm )
Original Application No. 349 of 2025
with the possession of, dealing with, disposing of, inducting anyone into
or developing or creating any third party right or interest of whatsoever
nature and in any manner whatsoever in respect of their property more
fully described in the schedule hereunder.
For Applicant : Mr.Arunachalam Meyyappan
For Respondents : Set exparte
Original Application No. 350 of 2025:-
M/s.HDB Financial Services Limited
Having one of its branch office at
4th Floor, Loyal Towers
No.68/2, Greams Road, Chennai-600006
Represented by its Authorised Signatory
Mr.P.Saravanan … Petitioner
Vs.
1. Ramesh Muttineni
2. Muthineni Sindhu … Respondents
PRAYER: Original Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 Original
Side Rules read with Section 9(ii)(d)&(e) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to pass an order of interim injunction
restraining second respondent by himself, his servants, assigns, agents,
representatives, officers, trustees, beneficiaries, administrator/s or any
other person claiming through or under them and under any instrument,
whatsoever, from in any manner selling, alienating, transferring, parting
Page 2 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:05 pm )
Original Application No. 349 of 2025
with the possession of, dealing with, disposing of, inducting anyone into
or developing or creating any third party right or interest of whatsoever
nature and in any manner whatsoever in respect of their property more
fully described in the schedule hereunder.
For Applicant : Mr.Arunachalam Meyyappan
For Respondents : Set exparte
Original Application No. 351 of 2025:-
M/s.HDB Financial Services Limited
Having one of its branch office at
4th Floor, Loyal Towers
No.68/2, Greams Road, Chennai-600006
Represented by its Authorised Signatory
Mr.P.Saravanan … Petitioner
Vs.
1. P.Sathiyaraj, S/o.Perumal.M
2. Perumal
3. Selvarasu.M … Respondents
PRAYER: Original Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 Original
Side Rules read with Section 9(ii)(d)&(e) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to pass an order of interim injunction
restraining first respondent by himself, his servants, assigns, agents,
representatives, officers, trustees, beneficiaries, administrator/s or any
other person claiming through or under them and under any instrument,
whatsoever, from in any manner selling, alienating, transferring, parting
Page 3 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:05 pm )
Original Application No. 349 of 2025
with the possession of, dealing with, disposing of, inducting anyone into
or developing or creating any third party right or interest of whatsoever
nature and in any manner whatsoever in respect of their property more
fully described in the schedule hereunder.
For Applicant : Mr.Arunachalam Meyyappan
For Respondents : Set exparte
Original Application No. 356 of 2025:-
M/s.HDB Financial Services Limited
Having one of its branch office at
4th Floor, Loyal Towers
No.68/2, Greams Road, Chennai-600006
Represented by its Authorised Signatory
Mr.P.Saravanan … Petitioner
Vs.
1. M.Sivakannan
2. M.Irisammal … Respondents
PRAYER: Original Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 Original
Side Rules read with Section 9(ii)(d)&(e) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to pass an order of interim injunction
restraining second respondent by himself, his servants, assigns, agents,
representatives, officers, trustees, beneficiaries, administrator/s or any
other person claiming through or under them and under any instrument,
whatsoever, from in any manner selling, alienating, transferring, parting
with the possession of, dealing with, disposing of, inducting anyone into
Page 4 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:05 pm )
Original Application No. 349 of 2025
or developing or creating any third party right or interest of whatsoever
nature and in any manner whatsoever in respect of their property more
fully described in the schedule hereunder.
For Applicant : Mr.Arunachalam Meyyappan
For Respondents : Set exparte
COMMONORDER
These applications have been filed under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking for an order of interim
injunction to restrain the respective respondents from alienating
/encumbering the respective properties more fully described in the
schedule to the judges summons of the respective applications.
2. In all these applications, the applicant is having the benefit of
the arbitral awards passed in their favour. The details of the arbitral
award passed in their favour pertaining to the applications are as
follows:-
Sl. No. Application Applicant Name Arbitral Arbitral Award
No Award date Amount
1. O.A. No. 349 M/s.HDB Financial 15.11.2021 Rs.22,11,348/-
of 2025 Services Limited
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:05 pm )
Original Application No. 349 of 2025
Sl. No. Application Applicant Name Arbitral Arbitral Award
No Award date Amount
2. O.A. No. 350 M/s.HDB Financial 23.06.2023 Rs.11,99,775/-
of 2025 Services Limited
3. O.A. No. 351 M/s.HDB Financial 27.07.2022 Rs.8,11,587/-
of 2025 Services Limited
4. O.A. No. 356 M/s.HDB Financial 15.02.2023 Rs.19,37,089/-
of 2025 Services Limited
As per the arbitral awards, certain sums of money are due and payable by
the respective respondents to the applicant. The applicant has chosen to
file these applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 instead of filing execution petitions to execute
the arbitral awards. The applicant claims that only recently they have
been able to trace the ownership details of the properties, for which
injunction is sought for and they have come to know that the said
properties are owned by the second respondent in respect of O.A. Nos.
349, 350 and 356 of 2025 and the first respondent in respect of O.A. No.
351 of 2025. The second respondent/first respondent is the guarantor to
the loan transaction. Notice has been duly served in these applications on
the respondents. The names of the respondents are also printed in the
cause-list today. Despite having received the notice, the respondents
have chosen not to enter appearance in these applications.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:05 pm )
Original Application No. 349 of 2025
3. At the outset, this Court questioned the maintainability of these
applications since these applications have been filed for an interim
injunction pertaining to the aforementioned arbitral awards. The
applicant instead of filing execution petitions to execute the said arbitral
awards has chosen to file these applications under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking for an interim injunction
as prayed in these applications even though the same relief could have
been sought for by the applicant before the Executing Court.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant drew the attention of this
Court to a decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court on
28.04.2023 in the case of K.Punniyamoorthy -vs- Ondraga
Entertainment reported in 2023 (4) CTC 619 and would submit that the
learned Single Judge has considered the Hon'ble Division Bench
decision dated 15.02.2021 passed by this Court in O.S.A. No. 53 of 2021
in the case of M/s.Gopuram Enterprises Ltd -vs- M/s.Integrated
Finance Company Ltd., wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench refused to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:05 pm )
Original Application No. 349 of 2025
entertain an application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, post the passing of an arbitral award. He would
submit that the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid decision in
K.Punniyamoorthy's case has held that the Division Bench of this Court
in M/s.Gopuram Enterprises Ltd case referred to supra did not consider
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan
Construction Company Ltd -vs- Union of India reported in 2020 (17)
SCC 324. According to the learned Single Judge, there is no prohibition
for this Court to entertain an application under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 post the passing of the arbitral
award as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Construction
Company Ltd case referred to supra.
5. In M/s.Gopuram Enterprises Ltd case a decision rendered by
the Division Bench of this Court on 15.02.2021 in O.S.A. No. 53 of
2021 referred to supra in paragraph 4 of the said decision, it has been
made clear that once the arbitral award ripens for implementation, it has
per force to be executed only in accordance with the Code of Civil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:05 pm )
Original Application No. 349 of 2025
Procedure by filing an Execution Petition. The Division Bench has held
in paragraph No.4 as follows:-
“ 4. There are at least four possibilities that
immediately come to mind. For one, an arbitral award
may not have been challenged within the time permitted
or, if challenged, no stay of the operation thereof has
been obtained. In such a scenario, the award would be
enforceable. Section 36(1) of the Act uses the expression
“award shall enforced in accordance with the provisions
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in the
same manner as if it were a decree of the Court.” The
word “shall” in Section 36(1) of the Act does not mandate
that the arbitral award must be enforced. Such mandatory
“shall” only implies that if the award were to be
enforced, it may be so done only in accordance with the
provisions of the Code. To the extent that a post-award
application for interim measures may be regarded as
something in aid of the award by way of its enforcement,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:05 pm )
Original Application No. 349 of 2025
the doors of a Court under Section 9 of the Act will be
open to an award-holder till such time that the award
becomes enforceable. Once the award ripens for
implementation, it has per force to be executed in
accordance with the Code.”
6. In the case on hand, arbitral awards passed in O.A. Nos. 349,
350, 351 and 356 of 2025 in favour of the applicant are dated
15.11.2021, 23.06.2023, 27.07.2022 and 15.02.2023 respectively. More
than 4 years has elapsed in respect of O.A. No. 349 of 2025, 1 ½ years in
respect of O.A. No. 350 of 2025, 3 years in respect of O.A. No. 351 of
2025, and 2 years in respect of O.A. No. 356 of 2025, since the passing
of the respective arbitral awards.
7. At this stage before filing the execution petitions, the applicant
has filed these applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking for an order of interim injunction to
restrain the respective respondents from alienating / encumbering the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:05 pm )
Original Application No. 349 of 2025
properties more fully described in the schedule to the respective judges
summons. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court in
M/s.Gopuram Enterprises Ltd case has made it clear that a post-award
application for interim measures may be regarded as something in aid of
the award by way of its enforcement, the doors of a Court under Section
9 of the Act will be open to an award-holder till such time that the award
becomes enforceable. Once the award ripens for implementation, it has
per force to be executed in accordance with the Code.
8. In the case on hand, the arbitral award passed in favour of the
applicant has attained finality. Admittedly, the respondents have also not
challenged the arbitral award by filing an application under Section 34 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The applicant has waited for
more than 1 ½ to 4 long years to file these applications under Section 9
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking for an interim
protection. The very same relief that has been sought for in these
applications can very well be sought for by the applicant before the
Executing Court once the execution petitions are filed by the applicant to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:05 pm )
Original Application No. 349 of 2025
execute arbitral awards passed in their favour. The relief to be granted by
this Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
is a discretionary relief. The applicant will have to satisfy (a) prima facie
case (b) balance of convenience and (c) irreparable hardship to enable
this Court to grant an order of interim injunction as prayed in these
applications.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the decision
rendered by a learned Single of this Court in the case of
K.Punniyamoorthy -vs- Ondraga Entertainment reported in 2023 (4)
CTC 619 and in the said decision, the learned Single Judge has
considered the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in
M/s.Gopuram Enterprises Ltd case referred to supra and has held that
the Division Bench of this Court in the M/s.Gopuram Enterprises Ltd
case did not consider the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Hindustan Construction Company case referred to supra. According to
the learned Single Judge, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan
Construction Company case has held that an application under Section 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:05 pm )
Original Application No. 349 of 2025
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 post the passing of the
arbitral award is maintainable. While coming to such a conclusion, the
learned Single Judge has observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Hindustan Construction Company case entertained an application under
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 post the passing
of the arbitral award by granting interim protection in order to safeguard
the fruit of the proceedings until the enforcement of the award and it was
held that the interim protection is a step in aid of enforcement and
intended to ensure the enforcement of the award results in a realizable
claim and that the award is not rendered illusory by dealings that would
put the subject of the award beyond the pale of enforcement.
10. In the case on hand, the award has not become illusory. The
very same relief that has sought for in these applications under Section 9
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can very well be sought for
by the applicant in the execution petitions, which are to be filed to
execute the arbitral awards passed in the application's favour. The very
same relief that has been sought for in these applications before this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:05 pm )
Original Application No. 349 of 2025
Court can very well be granted by the Executing Court. The applicant has
also chosen to approach this Court after a lapse of more than 1 ½ to 4
years since the arbitral awards were passed in their favour. This Court is
bound by the Hon'ble Division Bench decision dated 15.02.2021
rendered in M/s.Gopuram Enterprises Ltd in O.S.A. No. 53 of 2021,
wherein it has been held that the doors of a Court under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will be open to an award-holder
only till such time that the award becomes enforceable. In the case on
hand, the award is ripe for execution. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in M/s.Gopuram Enterprises Ltd case has held that once the
award ripens for implementation, it has per force to be executed in
accordance with the Code. Since the award which is the subject matter of
these applications filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 are ripe for implementation by filing execution
petitions before the Executing Court as per the Code of Civil Procedure,
the question of entertaining these applications, that too after a lapse of
more than 1 ½ to 4 years from the date of the passing of the respective
arbitral awards is not maintainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:05 pm )
Original Application No. 349 of 2025
11. In the result, these applications are not maintainable and
they are dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the applicant to file
Execution Petitions to execute the arbitral awards dated 15.11.2021,
23.06.2023, 27.07.2022 and 15.02.2023 before the Executing Court. It is
made clear that these applications are dismissed only on the ground of
maintainability and this Court has not gone into the merits of these
matters. No costs.
04.06.2025
Index: Yes/ No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
Neutral citation : Yes / No
Maya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:05 pm )
Original Application No. 349 of 2025
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Maya
Original Application Nos. 349, 350, 351 and 356 of 2025
Dated : 04.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:05 pm )
