Allowed

M/S.Apm Chemicals Pte Ltd. v. M/S.Times Chartering Pvt. Ltd.

Madras HC27 Sept 2018A/6144/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed two applications by Defendants 3 and 4 to set aside an ex-parte order dated 03.04.2018 in C.S.No.128 of 2018. The court found it a fit case to allow the prayers given the affidavit showed no recalcitrance involved, merely logistical difficulties.

What did the court decide?

Both applications to set aside the ex-parte order dated 03.04.2018 are allowed.

M/S.Apm Chemicals Pte Ltd. Vs M/S.Times… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶3

A.Nos. 6144 and 6145 of 2018 IN C.S.NO.128 OF 2018

¶4

M/s. Times Chartering Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.941, Sector 21, Gurgaon, Haryana-122016, India Represented by its Line Manager, Mr.Yogesh Ramesh Abhichandani .. Plaintiff Vs. 1. M/s. Pink rose Cargo Pvt Ltd., 9/12, roters lane (Krishnan Kovil Street) 5th Floor, Mannady, Chennai 600 001 Tamil Nadu, India Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director 2. M/s. Pink Rose Liners Pte Ltd., 701, SIMS Drive, LHK Building, #o6-03, Singapore 387383 Also Having office at No.1 North Bridge Road # 03-82, High Street Centre Singapore - 179094 Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director 3. M/s. APM chemicals Pte. Ltd., No.1, Soon Lee Street, Pioneer Centre, #05-64, Singapore 627605 Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director 4. M/s. Southern Chemical Industries No.4, Senthil Nagar, 100 Feet Road Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106, India Represented by its Authorised Signatory 5. M/s. Eiffel Ogistics Private Limited Om Sri Sai Ram Plaza, No.57, 3rd Floor, Thambu Chetty Street, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Manady, Chennai 600 001, India Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director

¶5

¶6

M/s. P.S.Logistics Pvt Ltd., NO.56-54, M.N.J. Plaza, 3rd Floor, Mannadi Street, Parrys, Chennai 600 001 Tamil Nadu, India Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director 7.NDR Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, 4, Lamech Aveneu, Arcot Road, Valasaravakkam, Chennai 600087, Tamil Nadu, India Represented by its Chairman.

¶7

.. Defendants A.Nos.6144 & 6145 of 2018 M/s. APM chemicals Pte. Ltd., No.1, Soon Lee Street, Pioneer Centre, #05-64, Singapore 627605 Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director .. Applicnat/3rd Defendant Vs. 1. M/s. Times Chartering Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.941, Sector 21, Gurgaon, Haryana-122016, India Represented by its Line Manager, Mr.Yogesh Ramesh Abhichandani ...1st Respondent/Plaintiff

¶8

M/s. Pink rose Cargo Pvt Ltd., 9/12, roters lane (Krishnan Kovil Street) 5th Floor, Mannady, Chennai 600 001 Tamil Nadu, India Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director ...2nd Respondent/1st Defendant 3. M/s. Pink Rose Liners Pte Ltd., 701, SIMS Drive, LHK Building, #o6-03, Singapore 387383 Also Having office at No.1 North Bridge Road # 03-82, High Street Centre Singapore - 179094 Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director ...3rd Respondent/2nd Defendant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

¶10

M/s. Southern Chemical Industries No.4, Senthil Nagar, 100 Feet Road Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106, India Represented by its Authorised Signatory

¶11

...4th Respondent/4th Defendant

¶12

M/s. Eiffel Ogistics Private Limited Om Sri Sai Ram Plaza, No.57, 3rd Floor, Thambu Chetty Street, Manady, Chennai 600 001, India Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director

¶13

...5th Respondent/5th Defendant

¶14

M/s. P.S.Logistics Pvt Ltd., NO.56-54, M.N.J. Plaza, 3rd Floor, Mannadi Street, Parrys, Chennai 600 001 Tamil Nadu, India Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director ...6th Respondent/6th Defendant

¶15

7.NDR Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, 4, Lamech Aveneu, Arcot Road, Valasaravakkam, Chennai 600087, Tamil Nadu, India Represented by its Chairman.

¶16

...7th Respondent/7th Defendant

¶17

A.No.6144 of 2018

¶18

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.

¶19

A.No.6145 of 2018

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

This common order will govern both these applications.

¶25

These applications have been taken out by defendant Nos.3 and 4 in the main suit. Plaintiff is the first respondent in both these applications. Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5 to 7 are the co-respondents in these applications. For the sake of convenience and clarity, I refer to the parties by their respective ranks in the main suit.

¶26

Defendant Nos.3 and 4 were set ex-parte on 03.04.2018 and this application has been filed with a prayer to set aside the order setting them ex-parte . In other words, these are applications under Order IX Rule 7 of 'The Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908' ('C.P.C.' for brevity). The reason given is that defendants 3 and 4 entrusted the brief to a counsel, who was unable to take further steps and therefore, the matter was entrusted to the present counsel, resulting in some time lag, during which defendants 3 to 4 were set ex-parte.

¶27

Though the defendants, who are co-respondents along with the plaintiff, have no objection or opposition to these applications, learned counsel for plaintiff took serious objection and submitted that the reasons assigned are not good enough for setting aside the order setting them ex-parte . Learned counsel pointed out that defendants 3 and 4 ought to have been diligent.

¶28

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

¶29

A perusal of the affidavits filed in support of

¶30

¶31

these two applications reveal that defendants 3 and 4 cannot be said to have been recalcitrant in defending the claim against them. There have been some difficulties qua logistics also.

¶32

I therefore, overrule the objection of the
plaintiff (respondent No.1 in these two applications), as I
find that it is a fit case to accede to the prayers in
these two applications.
7. Both applications are allowed and ordered as
prayed for.
Sd/.M.S.J
27.09.2018
//Certified to be a true copy//
Dated this the th day of 2018.
KY/04.10.2018 COURT OFFICER
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.Apm Chemicals Pte Ltd. v. M/S.Times Chartering Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Apm Chemicals Pte Ltd. v. M/S.Times Chartering Pvt. Ltd.

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

m/s.multi channel (india) Ltd. Vs sri sai ram arts

Tablets (India) Ltd. Vs D.R.John Lab Pharma P.Ltd.

Mr.a.D.Padmasingh Isaac Vs M/S.Sri Aachi Appalam

M/s.Amilal Ramkishan Dass Vs Ashok Kumar Sethi

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Vs C.Prakash

Indusind Bank Ltd. Vs Premier Housing and Industries