The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed a civil suit for non-prosecution. The plaintiff, represented by new counsel, failed to appear, and no fresh counsel had entered the case since 2016. Consequently, the court held the plaintiff was not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Suit dismissed for non-prosecution; no costs awarded.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)
WEDNESDAY, THE 18th DAY OF AUGUST 2021
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.S. No.126 of 2007
G.V.Films Limited rep. by its Director P.Raghuraman No.4, Seshadri Road, Chennai 600 018. ...Plaintiff .Vs.
1.Gayathri Holdings P.Limited 2.K.L.Swamy 3.K.L.Srihari 4.K.L.Padmanabhasa 5.K.L.Ramachandra all having office at New No.22/1, Old No.33, Pasumarthy Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. ... Defendants
Civil Suit praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to a Judgement and Decree :-
(a) directing the defendants to jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff damages and compensation, as might be assessed by this Hon'ble Court subject to a minimum of Rs.25,00,00,000/-;
(b) directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiff interest at the rate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of 12% per annum on Rs.25,00,00,000/- or such other sum as might be
assessed by this Hon'ble Court as damages from the date of plaint till
2
realization;
(c) directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiff the costs of the suit.
This Civil Suit coming on this day before this court for hearing in the presence of Mr.K.Harishankar, Advocate for the defendants 1 & 2 herein and for the plaintiff herein not appearing in person or by advocate and upon reading the plaint filed herein and Mr.Srinivasan, learned counsel representing M/s.Rugan and Arya for the plaintiff having submitted that they have given change of vakalat as early as on 07.05.2016, since no new counsel has entered appearance till date, it is clear that the plaintiff is not interest in prosecuting the suit it is ordered as follows:-
That the suit in C.S.No.126 of 2007 be and is hereby dismissed for non-prosecution.
WITNESS THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS AFORESAID, THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021.
Sd./-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Comm.Cases)
//Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
3
KY
02.09.2021
C.S. No.126 of 2007
ORDER :-
DATED: 18.08.2021
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
FOR APPROVAL: 13.09.2021
APPROVED ON: 13.09.2021
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.S.No.126 of 2007
G.V.Films Limited rep. by its Director P.Raghuraman No.4, Seshadri Road, Chennai 600 018. ...Plaintiff
.Vs.
1.Gayathri Holdings P.Limited
2.K.L.Swamy
3.K.L.Srihari 4.K.L.Padmanabhasa
5.K.L.Ramachandra
all having office at New No.22/1, Old No.33, Pasumarthy Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024.
... Defendants
Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for a judgment and decree:
(a) directing the defendants to jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff damages and compensation, as might be assessed by this Hon'ble Court subject to a minimum of Rs.25,00,00,000/-;
5
(b) directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiff interest at the rate
of 12% per annum on Rs.25,00,00,000/- or such other sum as might be
assessed by this Hon'ble Court as damages from the date of plaint till
realization and
(c) directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiff the costs of the suit.
For Plaintiff : No appearance For Defendants : Mr.K.Harishankar for D1 and D2
J U D G M E N T
Mr.Srinivasan, learned counsel representing M/s.Rugan and Arya for
the plaintiff would submit that they have given change of vakalat as early as on 07.05.2016.
2. Since no new counsel has entered appearance till date, it is clear
that the plaintiff is not interest in prosecuting the suit.
3. Hence, the suit is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.
Sd./-R.S.M.J
18.08.2021
List of the witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff : Nil
List of Exhibits marked on the side of the plaintiff : Nil
https://hcservices.ec ourts.gov.in/hcservices/
6
List of the witnesses examined on the side of the defendants : Nil List of Exhibits marked on the side of the defendants : Nil
Sd./-R.S.M.J 18.08.2021
//Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the 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.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit should be dismissed for lack of active prosecution by the plaintiff.
Whether costs of the suit should be awarded despite dismissal for non-prosecution.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gayathri Holdings P.Limited
K.L.Swamy
K.L.Srihari
K.L.Padmanabhasa
K.L.Ramachandra
R.Subramanian
Sanjib Banerjee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
