Application for leave to sue. The Court found that jurisdictional facts regarding the place of business, transactions, and offices were satisfied. Consequently, the Court granted permission to sue the respondent/defendant.
Leave granted to sue the respondent/defendant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
A.No.1975 of 2021
Application No.1975 of 2021
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY,J
This application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Clause XII of the Letters Parent Act, to grant leave to
sue the respondent/defendant to institute the suit.
applicant would submit that the all the documents and transactions were made in Chennai, where the goods were exported. Hence, payments have to
be made in Chennai. Further, he submits that the office of the plaintiff is situated at Chennai. The defendant has approached the plaintiff and orders were placed at Chennai. Invoices were raised at Chennai on various dates.
The defendant also agreed to receive the payment at Chennai. Hence, this
Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and prayed to sue the respondent/defendant to institute the suit.
in the affidavit filed in support of the application, this Court is inclined to grant permission to sue against the respondent/defendant.
1/2
A.No.1975 of 2021
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY,J
mvs/arb.
respondent/defendant.
12/5/2021
mvs/arb.
Application No .1975 of 2021
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether leave to sue the respondent/defendant should be granted.
Applicant
Respondent/Defendant
Krishnan Ramasamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
