Allowed

M/s.Brand Avatar LLP v. Thilakarasu Venkatasamy Trading as Grand Catering Company

Madras HC17 Oct 2023A/4100/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an application to admit additional documents (correspondence) in an ongoing commercial suit, subject to proof, admissibility, and relevancy, noting no serious objections were raised by the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed permitting placement of additional documents (correspondence) on record subject to proof, admissibility and relevancy.

M/s.Brand Avatar LLP Vs Thilakarasu… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

A.No.4100 of 2023

¶2

A.Nos.4100 and 2056 of 2023 and O.A.Nos.294 to 297 of 2023 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.82 of 2023

¶3

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶4

This application A.No.4100 of 2023 has been filed by the plaintiffs to place on record the documents marked in Schedule-A to the present application in the suit C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.82 of 2023. Documents sought to be received as additional documents in this application are mainly the correspondence between the applicants/plaintiffs and the respondent/defendant.

¶5

According to the applicants, they could not file the documents earlier, since the suit had to be filed in a hurried manner to protect the interest of the applicants/plaintiffs.

¶6

A counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondent, disputing reasons given by the applicants/plaintiffs for not filing the documents at the time of filing the suit.

¶7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶8

1/3

¶9

A.No.4100 of 2023

¶10

This Court has perused and examined the affidavit filed in support of the

¶11

application as well as the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/defendant in these applications.

¶12

After giving due consideration to the same, this Court is of the considered view that the documents disclosed in the affidavit are mainly correspondence between the applicants/plaintiffs and the respondent/defendant and therefore, the said documents can be allowed to be marked subject to proof, admissibility and relevancy.

¶13

The learned counsel for the respondent/defendant has also not raised any serious objections if such a direction is issued by this Court.

¶14

Accordingly, this application is allowed as prayed for by permitting applicants/plaintiffs to place on record the documents marked in Schedule-A to the application in the said suit in C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.82 of 2023, subject to proof, admissibility and relevancy.

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/3

¶16

A.No.4100 of 2023

¶17

ABDUL QUDDHOSE,J.

¶18

Mac/rkm

¶19

Post the matter for filing of affidavit of admission/denial of documents

¶20

by both the parties on 07.11.2023.

¶21

17.10.2023

¶22

mac/rkm

¶23

A.Nos.4100 and 2056 of 2023

¶24

and

¶25

O.A.Nos.294 to 297 of 2023

¶26

¶27

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.82 of 2023

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/3

M/s.Brand Avatar LLP v. Thilakarasu Venkatasamy Trading as Grand Catering Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Brand Avatar LLP v. Thilakarasu Venkatasamy Trading as Grand Catering Company

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

Lss Ocean Transport Dmcc Vs K.I, Intl Ltd.

P.Srinivas @ Rahul Vs Mr.Yuvaraj Reddy

M/S Kaleesuwari Refinery Limited Vs Ammi Samayal

Athenese-Dx (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs Medonica Healthcare Private Limited and another

Sun Tv Network Ltd. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and 37 others

Kybele Ltd. Vs Owners and Parties Interested