Allowed

P.S.Sengottu Velu v. Poongodi

Madras HC23 Aug 2023CRP/1358/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Madras, in Article 227 writ petitions, interfered with orders by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, that had entertained claims via interim applications under promissory notes despite the expiration of the stipulated limitation period and absence of original documents. The Court held the orders suffered legal infirmity and set them aside.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 28.01.2022 in I.A.Nos. 431, 432, and 435 of 2017 were set aside and the Civil Revision Petitions were allowed; no order as to costs.

P.S.Sengottu Velu Vs Poongodi — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P. No. 1358 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :23.08.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶6

C.R.P. Nos. 1358,1359 and 1362 of 2023

¶7

P. S. Sengottu Velu ...Petitioner in all C.R.P's .Vs. 1. Poongodi 2. S.V. Sivakumar 3. M. Muthusamy 4. N. Jayabalamurugan 5. V. Palraj 6. S. Indra ..Respondents in C.R.P. Nos. 1358 of 2023 1. R. Kailasa Gounder 2. S.V. Sivakumar 3. M. Muthusamy 4. N. Jayabalamurugan 5. Palraj ..Respondents in C.R.P. Nos. 1359 of 2023

¶8

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

¶9

1/6

¶10

C.R.P. No. 1358 of 2023

¶11

1. Nainamalai

¶12

S.V.Sivakumar

¶13

M. Muthusamy

¶14

N. Jayabalamurugan

¶15

V. Palraj

¶16

S. Indra ..Respondents in C.R.P. Nos. 1359 of 2023

¶17

Prayer in C.R.P. Nos. 1358 of 2023: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the impugned order dated 28.01.2022 in I.A.No.435 of 2017 in OS.No.239 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem and to pass orders.

¶18

Prayer in C.R.P. Nos. 1359 of 2023: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the impugned order dated 28.01.2022 in I.A.No.432 of 2017 in OS.No.239 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem and to pass orders.

¶19

Prayer in C.R.P. Nos. 1362 of 2023: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the impugned order dated 28.01.2022 in I.A.No.431 of 2017 in OS.No.239 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem and to pass orders.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.Nirmal Aditya

¶21

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

¶22

2/6

¶23

C.R.P. No. 1358 of 2023

¶24

ORDER

¶25

These petition have been filed to set aside the orders passed by

¶26

the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem in I.A.No.435 of 2017 in OS.No.239 of 1998, I.A.No.432 of 2017 in OS.No.239 of 1998 and I.A.No.431 of 2017 in OS.No.239 of 1998 on 28.01.2022.

¶27

The facts of the case is that the first respondent in all the C.R.P's are depositors in Chamundi group of finance companies which are under the administrators who are arrayed as respondents 2 to 5 in all the C.R.P's. The petitioner herein was granted permission to examine the truthfulness of the claims finalized by the administrators as per the orders passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.4357 of 2011 and C.R.P.No.4358 of 2011 on 20.04.2016 The first respondents in all the C.R.P's are claimants for repayment of money under promissory notes. Hence, they filed the above I.A's to entertain their claim on the basis of the promissory notes and all the I.A's were allowed by the learned Judge vide order dated 28.01.2022 with a condition that the claimants are directed to produce the original documents and the time granted to produce the document is within a period of two months. Aggrieved over the same the petitioners have come up with this petition.

¶28

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

¶29

3/6

¶30

C.R.P. No. 1358 of 2023

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the claim of the respondents/claimants is barred by limitation. The respondent/claimant had deliberately filed the I.A's after a lapse of 17 years from the date of the Judgment as the suit is of the year 1998. He further submitted that as per the decree passed in the suit the claimants ought to have filed their claims within a period of three months from the Judgment. Whileso no claims will be considered after three months. He further submitted that the learned Judge before the Court below ought not to have entertained the I.A's filed by the respondents. Hence he prays to allow this petition.

¶32

On perusal of impugned order it reveals that the claimants/respondents herein have not produced original promissory notes for verification by the administrators. If the claims of the respondents are genuine they ought to have produced the original documents at the time of filing of the I.A's or even at the time of passing the Judgment in the I.A's. If the original promissory notes are available with the claimants they can very well produce the same before the Court below and nothing prevented them to produce the original documents which is the subject matter of this petition.

¶33

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

¶34

4/6

¶35

C.R.P. No. 1358 of 2023

¶36

In view of the above, it is made clear that the impugned order

¶37

suffers from infirmity, which calls interference by this Court and the impugned orders deserves to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside.

¶38

6.Accordingly, the order passed in I.A.No.435 of 2017 in OS.No.239 of 1998, I.A.No.432 of 2017 in OS.No.239 of 1998 and I.A.No.431 of 2017 in OS.No.239 of 1998 on 28.01.2022 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem is hereby set aside and these Civil Revision Petition are allowed. No order as to costs.

¶39

23.08.2023

¶40

smn Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No

¶41

To. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem

¶42

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

¶43

5/6

¶44

C.R.P. No. 1358 of 2023

¶45

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. Smn

¶46

C.R.P. Nos. 1358,1359 and 1362 of 2023

¶47

23.08.2023

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

P.S.Sengottu Velu v. Poongodi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.S.Sengottu Velu v. Poongodi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Selvam Vs Arulmigu Anjaneyaswamy Temple

Kayalvili Vs R.Jagan Kumar

T. Venkatesh Vs N. Ragavendira

Sathish Vs S.Prithviraj

P. Geetha Marman Vs Saraswathi (Died) 1.Dhanalakshmi

A.H.Balaji Vs Saravanan