Remanded

M/S.Richardson & Cruddas Ltd., v. Mr.L.Rathina Kumar

Madras HC25 Feb 2015CRP PD/2241/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging an order directing the petitioner to furnish security for suit under CPC Order 38 Rule 5. The Court set aside the order for considering objections regarding lack of privity and BIFR status, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Set aside order dated 21.01.2003 directing security for suit and remanded matter to Trial Court for fresh consideration.

M/S.Richardson & Cruddas Ltd., Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 25.02.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

C.R.P.(PD) NO.2241 OF 2003 AND C.M.P.NO.16960 OF 2003

¶6

M/s.Richardson & Cruddas Ltd.,

¶7

No.69-D, Sidco Industrial Estate, Ambattur,

¶8

Chennai – 600 098. ... Petitioner Vs. L.Rathina Kumar Proprietor M/s.Sigh Smith Shop No.26, No.3, Anna Salai, City Centre Plaza, Chennai – 600 018. ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the learned XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 21.01.2003 passed in I.A.No.9840 of 2002 in O.S.No.3390 of 2002.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Madanagopal

¶11

For Respondent : No appearance

¶12

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 21.01.2003 passed in I.A.No.9840 of 2002 in O.S.No.3390 of 2002 by the learned XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶13

2.The respondent had instituted the suit against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,17,685.90. The respondent also filed an application in I.A.No.9840 of 2002 under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for direction to the defendant / petitioner herein to furnish security for the suit

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

claim, failing which for attachment of movable properties. The application was opposed by the petitioner herein stating that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant and the plaintiff company was already before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). The Trial Court without considering the objections, directed the petitioner to furnish security for the suit claim, vide order dated 21.01.2003. Challenging the order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶16

3.Mr.R.Madanagopal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner company is a Government of India undertaking and when there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, the petitioner cannot be directed to furnish security for the suit claim. It is further submitted that the plaintiff company was already before BIFR and without ascertaining the status, the Trial Court ought not to have issued such direction.

¶17

4.I see considerable force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Trial Court, without considering the objections of the petitioner, directed them to furnish security for the suit claim.

¶18

5.In view of the above finding, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same stands set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.

¶19

6.This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

¶22

The XII Assistant Judge City Civil Court Chennai.

¶23

1 cc to Mr.R. Madanagopal, Advocate, sr. 10608
C.R.P.(PD) NO.2241 OF 2003
and
C.M.P.NO.16960/2003
CTK (CO)
kk 19/3

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S.Richardson & Cruddas Ltd., v. Mr.L.Rathina Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Richardson & Cruddas Ltd., v. Mr.L.Rathina Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sakunthala Vs Radhakrishnan

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. Vs Mr.T.Kamaraj

G. Krishanamurthy Vs M.R. Manoharan Died

A.Vallabadoss Vs Devi(Insane)

G.v.Sudhakar, S/O.G.v.Radha- Vs Audilakshmi, S/O.Radhakrishnan

Vijayakumar Vs T.D. Eswarlal (Deceased)