Dismissed

M/s. Sicagen India Ltd., v. M/s. Sai Electromech Industries

Madras HC12 Mar 2021A/275/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Madras dismissed two applications filed to amend a plaint and an interlocutory order by withdrawing the petitions upon application, granting liberty to file fresh applications under the correct provisions.

What did the court decide?

Applications dismissed as withdrawn; liberty granted to file necessary application with correct relief and provisions.

M/s. Sicagen India Ltd., Vs M/s. Sai… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 12.03.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

A.Nos.275 & 276 of 2021
in
C.S.No. 676 of 2017
1.Sicagen India Ltd.,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory,
Mr.N. Aravindharaj, ... Applicant
[in both Applications]
Vs.
1. Sai Electromech Industries,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory,
UmangKumar Joshi ... Respondent
2. Umangkumar Joshi,
Proprietor of Sai Electromech Industries ... Proposed Respondent
[in both Applications]

¶6

Prayer in A.No.275 of 2021:

¶7

Applications filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules r/w

¶8

Orders VI Rule 16 & 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to amend the 2nd respondent in the plaint short cause title, long cause title, and statement of

¶9

address in the above suit in C.S.No.676 of 2017.

¶10

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

¶11

1/3

¶12

Prayer in A.No.276 of 2021:

¶13

Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules r/w Orders VI Rule 16 & 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to amend the cause title to add the 2nd respondent in the above interim application in A.No.5206

¶14

of 2017 in C.S.No.676 of 2017.

¶15

For Applicant : Ms.D.Roobinichitra
For Respondents : Mr.Palaniandava
-----
COMMON ORDER

¶16

Both these applications have been filed to amend the plaint by

¶17

bringing on record the 2^nd respondent as the 2nd defendant in the suit and as

¶18

the 2nd respondent in the Interlocutory Application No.5206 of 2017.

¶19

2. The learned counsel for the respondent laid a preliminary

¶20

objection stating that the proper application that should have been filed was to implead the said respondent as a party defendant and as a party respondent in the application.

¶21

3. The learned counsel for the applicant requests permission to

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ withdraw the present applications with liberty to file further applications

¶23

2/3

¶24

under the correct provisions of law and with the correct reliefs sought in the applications. Such permission is granted. Both the applications are dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty is granted to file necessary application wording relief properly and giving the correct provision of law.

¶25

Both the applications are dismissed as withdrawn and liberty
is granted as stated above. No order as to costs.
Sd/-C.V.K.J
12.03.2021
// Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this day of 2021.
Court Officer(O.S.)
From 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of
the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶26

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

¶27

3/3

M/s. Sicagen India Ltd., v. M/s. Sai Electromech Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sicagen India Ltd., v. M/s. Sai Electromech Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Sea Utensili Diamantati Vs Sea Diamond Tools

Roca Bathroom Products Pvt.Ltd Vs Sri Ram and Co. and Another

Surya Tv.,a Unit of Sun Tv Vs 1.ASIANET Communications Ltd.

A.D.Padmasingh Issac Vs D.Raja Singh

M/s Vansan Movies Vs M/s Ysr Film Private Limited and another

M/s Mrf Limited Vs Powermax Rubber Factory and another