Dismissed

M/s.Doosan Infracore Construction Equipments India Pvt.Ltd. v. International Commercial Corporation

Madras HC18 Apr 2023A/974/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil proceeding, the defendant applied for an order to compare signatures of Mr. Dinesh Bajpai across the plaint, a deed of partnership, and a letter of intent. The court dismissed the application because the signatory confirmed in an affidavit that all signatures belonged to him, rendering the comparison unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Application for signature comparison dismissed.

M/s.Doosan Infracore Construction Equipments… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

¶2

A.No.974 of 2023 in C.S.No.16 of 2020

¶3

This application has been filed by the defendant in the suit seeking comparison of the signature of Mr.Dinesh Bajpai, who verified the plaint with his signature found in the two plaint documents namely Deed of Partnership dated 01.04.2003 and Letter of Intent dated 01.09.2015.

¶4

In the affidavit filed in support of this application it is stated by the applicant/defendant that the signature of Mr.Dinesh Bajpai found in the Plaint Document Nos. 1 and 2 differs with his signature found in the plaint. Therefore, it is necessary to direct the plaintiff to produce the originals of the said documents and compare the same with his signature found in the plaint.

¶5

The respondent herein filed the counter and opposed this

¶6

application.

¶7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/3

¶8

The counter affidavit was filed by one of the partner of the

¶9

respondent namely Mr.Dinesh Bajpai, who verified the plaint. In the counter affidavit, he has stated that his signature in the plaint was made in full form and his signature in the plaint documents referred in the averments were made in short form. It is also asserted that signatures found in the Plaint as well as Plaint Document Nos.1 and 2 are belonged to him.

¶10

In view of the fact that the person, who put his signature in the Plaint as well as in the Plaint Document Nos.1 and 2 filed an affidavit before this Court stating that the signatures found in both the documents were subscribed by him, there is no controversy with regard to signature in the plaint. Further, the decision in this regard will not have any impact on the real controversies between the parties. In such circumstances, the present application filed by the defendant in A.No. 974 of 2023 is dismissed.

18.04.2023

(½)

nti

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

¶15

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

¶16

nti

¶17

A.No.974 of 2023 in C.S.No.16 of 2020

¶18

18.04.2023

¶19

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

M/s.Doosan Infracore Construction Equipments India Pvt.Ltd. v. International Commercial Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Doosan Infracore Construction Equipments India Pvt.Ltd. v. International Commercial Corporation

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

Murugesan Vs Pethan

Raj Television Network Limited Vs P.Jesygaa and 3 Others

Sree Annapoorna Foods and Another Vs Hindustan Unilever Ltd.

Mr.Jitender Kumar Vs Tvs Electronics Limited

M/S the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs M/S Sasitha Paper Mills Pvt.Ltd.,and Another

Thirumalai Murugan Arunachalam, Vs Mr.K.Rajaraman and Another