Disposed

Cognizant Technology Solutions v. Hotel Virudhunagar

Madras HC14 Jul 2016OSA/133/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an interim order restraining the appellant from interfering with the respondent's catering business. Court directed the Single Judge to dispose of the original application on merits, excluding interim observations from consideration.

What did the court decide?

Directed that the observation in interim order need not be considered at the time of disposing the original application.

Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs Hotel… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 14.07.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.SELVAM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN

¶5

O.S.A.No.133 of 2016

¶6

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt.Limited,

¶7

Having Office at Plot No.A-15 to 17, A-33, Phase I & II & Plot No.D2, C10 and C1, MEPZ of Commerce and Industry

¶8

Govt.of India,

¶9

NH-45, Tambaram, Chennai-45 ... Appellant/Respondent Vs

¶10

Hotel Virudhunagar, rep.by its Proprietor H.Ibrahim Sha, Having Registered Office at No.77, G.N.Chetty Road,

¶11

T.Nagar, Chennai-17 ... Respondent/Applicant

¶12

Appeal preferred under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S. Rules r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 19.5.2016 made in O.A.No.398 of 2016.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian,Sr.counsel For Respondent : No appearance

¶14

This Original Side Appeal has been directed against the order, dated 19.5.2016, passed in Original Application No.398 of 2016, by the learned single Judge of this Court.

¶15

The respondent herein, as applicant, has filed O.A.No.398 of 2016, on the file of this Court, wherein, the present appellant has been shown as sole respondent. At the

¶16

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

¶17

time of admitting the Original Application No.398 of 2016, an interim order has been passed so as to restrain the appellant/respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of catering business, which is being run by the respondent/applicant. Against the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present Original Side Appeal has been preferred.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has sparingly contended that the appellant/respondent is ready to conduct O.A.No.398 of 2016 and a specific direction has to be given to the effect that the observation made in the interim order need not be considered at the time of disposing of O.A.No.398 of 2016.

¶19

Considering the nature of the relief sought in O.A.No.398 of 2016, this Court is of the view to give necessary direction to the learned Single Judge to dispose of O.A.No.398 of 2016.

¶20

In fine this Original Side Appeal is disposed of on the basis of the observations made earlier. However, it is directed that at the time of disposing of the Original Application No.398 of 2016, the observation made in the impugned order need not be looked into and O.A.No.398 of 2016 has to be decided on the basis of merits. No costs.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar msk To The Sub Assistant Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Madras.

¶22

+1cc to M/s.Fox Mandel & Associates, Advocate, S.R.No.39248 O.S.A.No.133 of 2016 PUR(CO) CA(05/08/2016)

¶23

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

Cognizant Technology Solutions v. Hotel Virudhunagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cognizant Technology Solutions v. Hotel Virudhunagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Janaki Ammal Vs v.G.Balashanmugam

The Divisional Retail Sales Vs M/S Babu Filling Station

Texteeme Engineering Vs M/S.Tenfield Engineers .

S.R.M. University Vs Dr. Janet Jeyapaul

M/S.Shahi Shipping Ltd., Vs Oil & Natural Gas

The Manging Director Vs T. Piramaayagam