Dismissed

M/s.Sri Balaji Educational and Charitable Public Trust (Regd) v. M/s.East Coast Constructions Ltd.

Madras HC23 Jan 2020A/9688/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed two applications by an applicant/defendant seeking to reopen the closed side of a written statement and mark additional documents alleged to be special conditions of contract. The court dismissed the plea due to the Commercial Courts Act and because the respondent was not a signatory.

What did the court decide?

Applications to reopen the closed side of the written statement and mark additional documents were dismissed.

M/s.Sri Balaji Educational and Charitable Public Trust (Regd) Vs M/s.East Coast Constructions Ltd. — Madras HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2020

¶4

THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

A.Nos.9688 and 9689 of 2019

¶6

IN C.S.No.466 OF 2015

¶7

M/s. East Coast Constructions Ltd., Rep.by its Director Mr.S.A.Mohammed Mohideen having its Regd Office at: Bukharia Buildings No.4, Moores Road, Chennai 600 006. :Plaintiff Vs M/s. Sri Balaji Educational and Charitable Public Trust (Regd.,) Represented by its Chairman-Managing Trustee Mr.M.K.Rajagopalan Mahatma Gandhi Medical College Complex Pondy - Cuddalore Main Road, Pillaiyarkuppam, Pondicherry 607 402.

¶8

Also having Office at:

¶9

No.3A, 3rd Floor, Jai Durga Complex New No.60, 1st Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 600 083. :Defendant

¶10

A.Nos.9688 and 9689 of 2019:

¶11

M/s. Sri Balaji Educational and Charitable Public Trust (Regd.,) Rep. by its Chairman-Managing Trustee Mr.M.K.Rajagopalan Mahatma Gandhi Medical College Complex Pondy - Cuddalore Main Road, Pillaiyarkuppam, Pondicherry 607 402.

¶12

Also having Office at:

¶13

No.3A, 3rd Floor, Jai Durga Complex New No.60, 1st Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 600 083. :Applicant/Defendant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

Vs.

¶15

¶16

M/s. East Coast Constructions Ltd., rep. by its Director Mr.S.A.Mohammed Mohideen having its Regd. Office at “Bukharia Buildings” No.4, Moores Road, Chennai 600 006. :Respondent/Plaintiff

¶17

A.No.9688 of 2019

¶18

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allowed to file the additional documents mentioned in the Judges Summons.

¶19

A.No.9689 of 2019

¶20

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to reopen the side of Applicant/Defendant which was closed on 19/06/2019 and recall DW1 to permit to mark the Additional Document as per the list mentioned in the Judges Summons and receive the said list mentioned document on the file of the C.S.No.466 of 2015.

¶21

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

¶22

After completion of examining the witnesses on either side, these application are filed to reopen and recall and mark the additional document viz., a letter dated 18.11.2019 issued by the Technicalliya Consultants Private Limited inclosing Special Conditions of contract/standard condition.

¶23

According to the applicant/defendant, this document

¶24

is very crucial and vital and necessary to establish the defence. It is stated in their affidavit that the said document was obtained from Technicaliya Consultants Private Limited only on 16.11.2019 through e-mail and therefore, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

the same could not be produced earlier.

¶26

¶27

applicant/defendant would submit that Clauses in the said special conditions of contract will establish that the plaintiff has no cause of action to claim the amount as detailed in the plaint and therefore, the document is very vital.

¶28

This application is stoutly opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that just to fillup the lacuna and protract the proceedings, the present applicants are filed. The plaintiff is not privy to the alleged special conditions of contract and any Clause found in the said contract has no binding effect on the plaintiff. Furthermore, it is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that under the Commercial Courts Act, belated introduction of document without disclosing the existence at the earliest instant cannot be entertained.

¶29

To buttress the above submission, the plaintiff has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Nitin Gupta v. Texmaco Infrastructure and Holding Limited dated 29th Aprail 2019 .

¶30

It is no more res integra that the document known to the parties has to be pleaded and listed at the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ time of filing the plaint or written statement as the case

¶31

may be and only in the exceptional case, new document can be

¶32

¶33

introduced and accepted, if a reasonable cause is made for belated filing of the new document. Furthermore, as pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff when the plaintiff is not a signatory to the said contract, the Clauses in the said contract will have no binding effect either on the plaintiff or in the suit. Hence, these applications are dismissed.

¶34

Post the suit on 14.02.2020 for argument. Sd./-G.J.J 23.01.2020 //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2020. JJ 28/01/2020 COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶35

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

M/s.Sri Balaji Educational and Charitable Public Trust (Regd) v. M/s.East Coast Constructions Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Sri Balaji Educational and Charitable Public Trust (Regd) v. M/s.East Coast Constructions Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Dhanalakshmi Ammal Trust Vs M/s.Vallimuthu Educational Trust

bohehringer ingelheim pharma gmbh and Co. K.G Vs Tanmed Pharma India Pvt. Ltd.

Vivriti Capital Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s.Bell Finvest India Ltd. and 2 others

Dingo Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. Vs Akb & Sons Reality Pvt. Ltd.

Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and 41 others

Akb and Sons Reality Pvt. Ltd, Vs Dingo Commodeal Pvt.Ltd