Allowed

M/s.Bgr Energy Systems Ltd., v. P.S.Techcom Pvt.Ltd.

Madras HC15 Jul 2019OA/459/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants an order of ad-interim injunction ex parte restraining respondents from making defamatory statements or maligning the applicant's reputation pending the disposal of the suit, due to the respondents' consistent failure to file a required affidavit of undertaking after multiple adjournments and unsuccessful mediation.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim injunction restraining respondents from making defamatory statements or maligning the applicant's reputation until the disposal of the suit.

M/s.Bgr Energy Systems Ltd., Vs P.S.Techcom Pvt.Ltd. — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2019

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

O.A.No.459 of 2017

C.S.No.341 of 2017

M/s.BGR Energy Systems Limited, having its Reg. Office at A-5, Pannamgadu Industrial Estate, Ramapuram Post, Sullerpet Taluk, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh, India having its corporate office at No.443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. :Applicant/Plaintiff

¶9

-Versus-

¶10

P.S.Techcom Pvt. Ltd., (Division Vecaun Projects),

¶11

Mrs.Priya Harish, Director, P.S.Techcom Pvt. Ltd., (Division Vecaun Projects),

¶12

Mrs.Prasad Parasuraman, Director, P.S.Techcom Pvt. Ltd., (Division Vecaun Projects), 1 to 3 are at 2C, 728 I Block, HRBR Layout, Bangalore-560 043. :Respondents/Defendants

¶13

Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, its men, agents, or any person claiming through or under them from making any defamatory statements or attempting to malign the applicant/plaintiff's reputation which is in any manner derogatory or defames the applicant/plaintiff's reputation or in any manner causes disrepute to the applicant/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ plaintiff and its business or malign the applicant/ plaintiff or its business.

¶14

¶15

This Original Application coming on this day before this court for hearing, the court made the following order:-

¶16

This application has been filed seeking an order of injunction restraining the defendants from making any defamatory statements or attempting to malign the applicant/plaintiff's reputation, pending disposal of the suit.

¶17

injunction restraining defendants from making any defamatory statements or attempting to malign the

¶18

plaintiff's reputation and for damages. The defendants, who had entered appearance through counsel on 26.09.2018

¶19

had given an undertaking through their counsel to the effect that they shall not indulge any act of defaming the

¶20

plaintiff. An endorsement to that effect was also made by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant.

¶21

Recording the said endorsement, this Court had adjourned the matter to 23.10.2019. On 23.10.2019, the

¶22

learned counsel appearing for the defendant had sought for further time to carry out the undertaking as agreed on the earlier hearing. A memo has also filed stating that though

¶23

an affidavit had been prepared, the same could not be

¶24

executed within the time granted by this Court. Since the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

authorized signatory of the first defendant was travelling

¶26

¶27

and two weeks time was sought for to enable the defendants to file an affidavit as agreed to earlier.

¶28

On 23.10.2019, the matter was listed before the

¶29

Court, this Court had adjourned the matter to 13.11.2018 as

¶30

requested in the memo. On 13.11.2018, the parties agreed

¶31

to go before the Mediation Centre to explore the possibility of settlement. The matter was referred to Mediation. It appears that the mediation was unsuccessful.

¶32

Hence, the papers have been returned to Court. When the

¶33

matter was listed on 04.07.2019, upon the request made by

¶34

the counsel on either side, the matter was adjourned to 11.07.2019.

¶35

On 11.07.2019, Mr.Adithya Reddy, learned counsel

¶36

for the defendants reported that the parties have collected

¶37

the papers from him in order to engage some other counsel.

¶38

Hence, the matter was adjourned to today requiring the

¶39

registry to find out as to whether any other counsel had

¶40

entered appearance. The registry has reported that no

¶41

other counsel had entered appearance for the defendant. In

¶42

the above backdrop, I find no alternative but to set the respondents exparte and grant an order of injunction as prayed for in O.A.No. 459 of 2017.

¶43

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

¶44

¶45

Though the time has been granted on the precious occassions to file an affidavit of undertaking, no affidavit had been forth coming. Hence, O.A.No.459 of 2017 will stand allowed. There will be an order of injunction as prayed for till the disposal of the suit.

¶46

Sd./-R.S.M.J
15.07.2019
//Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the day of 2019.
JJ 30/08/2019
COURT OFFICER(O.S.)
From 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing
certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this
format.

¶47

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

M/s.Bgr Energy Systems Ltd., v. P.S.Techcom Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Bgr Energy Systems Ltd., v. P.S.Techcom Pvt.Ltd.

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

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Vijaya

The Managing Director Vs Sirangamma @ Seerangammal

The Managing Director Vs Natarajan

M/S.Triguni Food Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S.Capricorn Food Products

Will of Dr.K.Venkata Rao Vs Dr.K.Shamsunder Rao @

N.Muthukrishnan Vs S.Rajagopal Raju Trust and 6 Others