Dismissed

M/s.B.a.Continuum India v. D.Mahendra Kumar Jain

Madras HC30 Jan 2018A/5947/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application by a garnishee asking permission to remove abandoned materials stored at its premises. The court held that abandoned goods belonging to a defendant cannot be dumped on the plaintiff or the Court and must be disposed of by the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; applicant left open to dispose of goods in a manner it chooses.

M/s.B.a.Continuum India Vs D.Mahendra Kumar Jain — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶3

A.No.5947 of 2017 IN A.No.653 of 2012 IN C.S.NO.76 OF 2012 D.Mahendra Kumar Jain, Proprietor, M/s. Sri Venkateshwara Enterpirses, No.56, Strotten Muthia Mudali St., Sowcarpet, Chennai 600 079. .. Plaintiff Vs. 1. R.Damodaran, Proprietor, M/s.Lakshmi Electricals, 26, II Cross St., CIT Nagar West, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.

¶4

G.Sethu Madhavan, Asst. Vice President, JLL, P&D.S Level-8, Tower II, TVH Belisca Tower, Block No.94, MRC Nagar, Chennai 600 028. .. Defendants

¶5

A.No. 653 of 2012

¶6

D.Mahendra Kumar Jain, Proprietor, M/s. Sri Venkateshwara Enterpirses, No.56, Strotten Muthia Mudali St., Sowcarpet, Chennai 600 079.

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

.. Applicant/Plaintiff

¶10

Vs.

¶11

R.Damodaran, Proprietor, M/s.Lakshmi Electricals, 26, II Cross St., CIT Nagar West, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035. 2. G.Sethu Madhavan, Asst. Vice President, JLL, P&D.S Level-8, Tower II, TVH Belisca Tower, Block No.94, MRC Nagar, Chennai 600 028. .. Respondents/Defendants 3. M/s. B.A.continum Private Limited, 9th Floor, Crest Building Phase II, Ascendas IT Park, Taramani High Road, Taramani, Chennai 600 113. ...Respondent /(Garnishee) A.No.5947 of 2017 1. M/s. B.A.continum Private Limited, 9th Floor, Crest Building Phase II, Ascendas IT Park, Taramani High Road, Taramani, Chennai 600 113. ...Applicant/Respondent No.3 VS 2. D.Mahendra Kumar Jain, Proprietor, M/s. Sri Venkateshwara Enterpirses, No.56, Strotten Muthia Mudali St., Sowcarpet, Chennai 600 079. .. Respondent No.1 Applicant/Plaintiff 3. R.Damodaran, Proprietor, M/s.Lakshmi Electricals, 26, II Cross St., CIT Nagar West, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035. ...Respondent No.2/ Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1 4. G.Sethu Madhavan, Asst. Vice President,

¶12

A.No.5947 of 2017

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

JLL, P&D.S Level-8, Tower II, TVH Belisca Tower, Block No.94, MRC Nagar, Chennai 600 028.

¶16

.. Respondent No.3/Respondent No.2/Defendant No.2

¶17

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass appropriate directions to permit the Applicant to remove the lock and inventorize and remove the materials stored by the Respondent No.2 on the 8th Floor of Ascendas IT Park, Phase II, Crest Building, Taramani High Road, Taramani, Chennai 600 113.

¶18

A.No.6145 of 2018

¶19

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order to setaside the exparte order dated 03.04.2018 in C.S.No.128 of 2018 on the file of this Hon'ble Court.

¶20

These Applications coming on this day before this court for hearing, the court made the following order:

¶21

This Application has been filed by the Applicant who is a Garnishee, against whom a garnishee order was passed directing to deposit certain amount which was due and payable to the defendants in the suit.

¶22

Admittedly that Application has been ordered and the Applicant has also deposited a sum of Rs.17,67,621/to the credit of the suit. This Application is now filed seeking permission to remove certain materials which have

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

been abandoned by the 2^nd respondent/ defendant in the suit in the Office premises of the Garnishee.

¶26

The learned counsel for the plaintiff in the suit viz., the 1st respondent would submit that he is not claiming ownership of the materials. Averments have been made in the plaint that he has supplied the goods which were used by the 2^nd respondent in the work it had done for the applicant. Considering the averments made in the

¶27

plaint as well as the affidavit filed in support of the application, I do not think this application can be entertained in this suit.

¶28

The present suit is one laid by the 1^st respondent / plaintiff for recovery of money from the 2^nd respondent towards value of the goods sold and delivered. If the 2^nd respondent had abandoned the goods belonging to him with the plaintiff, it is for the plaintiff to dispose it of in the manner, it chooses to. The said goods cannot be dumped either on the plaintiff or on this Court.

¶29

Hence, this application is dismissed, leaving it open to the applicant to dispose of the goods in whatever manner it chooses to.

¶30

Dated this the th day of 2018.

¶31

KY/05.10.2018 COURT OFFICER

¶32

From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.

¶33

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

M/s.B.a.Continuum India v. D.Mahendra Kumar Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.B.a.Continuum India v. D.Mahendra Kumar Jain

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

Antony Motors Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Commissioner

M/S.Five Star Business Credits Vs L.T.Internatinal

India Cements Capital and Vs Firenze Shoes (P) Ltd.

M/S Meenam Fisheries Ltd., Vs State Bank of India

P.Shelvaraju Vs R.T.Sambandam

Mrs. S.Rathinammal & 2 Others Vs Mrs. C.Chanmundeeswari