Allowed

P. Ponnuchamy v. M/S. Utv Motion Pictures

Madras HC31 Oct 2023A/5552/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an amendment application to correct the cause title of a civil suit. The amendment excluded an unauthorized signatory from the plaintiff's address and updated the defendant's entity name and address to reflect its current private limited status. The court directed the plaintiff to carry out the amendments.

What did the court decide?

The amendment application is allowed to delete the name of the authorised signatory and amend the addresses of the applicant and first respondent as specified in the order.

P. Ponnuchamy Vs M/S. Utv Motion Pictures — Madras HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

A. No.5552 of 2023 in C.S. No.620 of 2012

¶2

A. No.5552 of 2023 in C.S. No.620 of 2012

¶3

ABDUL QUDDHOSE,J.

¶4

This application has been filed seeking for amendment of the long and short cause title of the plaint filed in C.S. No.620 of 2012.

¶5

2.Learned counsel for the first respondent/first defendant has raised no objection for allowing this application.

¶6

3.The name of the authorised signatory of the first respondent/first

¶7

defendant Sujit Vaidya has to be excluded. No prejudice would be caused to the applicant/plaintiff if such exclusion is made.

¶8

4.Accordingly, this amendment application is allowed by deleting the following words in the long and short cause title and the statement of address of the applicant/plaintiff

¶9

'No.112C Bazaar Street, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015' and by adding the following words

¶10

'No.52, Tholkapiyar Street, MGR Nagar, Chennai 600 078'

¶11

5.Similarly, the name of the first respondent/first defendant should be read https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4

¶12

A. No.5552 of 2023 in C.S. No.620 of 2012

¶13

¶14

'UTV Software Communications Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director, C/o.Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganapatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai - 400 013' instead of

¶15

'M/s.UTV Motion Pictures, A Division of UTV Software Communications Ltd., rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Thiru Govind Dhananjeyan, No.5, Kush Kumar Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034'

¶16

6.Even though in the application, it is disclosed that the first respondent/first defendant is a Public Limited Company, it is clear from the Incorporation Certificate produced by the first respondent/first defendant that the first respondent/first defendant is presently a Private Limited Company.

¶17

7.In view of the same, the above mentioned amendments are allowed to be carried out in the plaint.

¶18

8.Learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff is directed to carry out the amendments in terms of this Court's order.

¶19

Post the matter on 20.11.2023.

¶20

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

¶21

2/4

¶22

A. No.5552 of 2023 in C.S. No.620 of 2012

¶23

31.10.2023

¶24

vga

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4

¶26

A. No.5552 of 2023 in C.S. No.620 of 2012

¶27

ABDUL QUDDHOSE,J.

¶28

vga

¶29

A. No.5552 of 2023 in C.S. No.620 of 2012

¶30

31.10.2023

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

P. Ponnuchamy v. M/S. Utv Motion Pictures

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Ponnuchamy v. M/S. Utv Motion Pictures

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Focal Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. and 2 others Vs M/s.Indigo Business Services India Pvt. Ltd. and 5 others

M/S New Hope Food Industries Vs M/S Golden Lit Bakers

Whirlpool Properties Inc. Vs a.S.Associates

P. Ponnuchamy Vs M/S. Utv Motion Pictures

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Vs Dr Kamakshi Sundaram (Deceased) 1.Mrs.Haima Sundaram

K.a.Velayutham (Deceased) K.v.Sukumar, Vs K.v.Vijayaraghavan (Deceased) 1.Ambika Appalam Company and 2 others