Dismissed

Samir Kumar v. Fast Track Logistics

Madras HC6 Feb 2023CRP/230/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition, the High Court of Madras upheld the trial court's rejection of an application by a former director to be struck off as an unnecessary party in a maintenance suit instituted by a company, holding that his directorship makes him a necessary party and his involvement is a triable issue.

What did the court decide?

The order and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 dated 05.07.2022 stands confirmed; the civil revision petition is dismissed.

Samir Kumar Vs Fast Track Logistics — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.No.230 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

C.R.P.No.230 of 2023 and

¶7

C.M.P.No.1915 of 2023

Mr.Samir Kumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.M/s. Fast Track Logistics, Represented by its Proprietor Mr.M.Subramaniam, New No.30, Old No.17, First Floor, Second Cross Street, C.I.T. Nagar East, Chennai – 600 035. (Deceased)

¶12

2.M/s. Net Avenue Technologies Private Ltd.,

¶13

Registered Office at No.5, Egmore High Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. And also at M/s. Net Avenue Technologies Private Ltd.,

¶14

Factory & Admin Office at 18 & 21, Race Course Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶15

3.Mr.S.Rajesh Nahar

¶16

4.Mr.K.Ritesh Katariya

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

C.R.P.No.230 of 2023

¶20

5.Mr.Pavan Krishnamurthy

¶21

6.Mr.Khivraj Naresh Kumar

¶22

7.Mr.Hemchandra Gurunath Javeri

¶23

8.Mrs.Chitra

¶24

9.Mrs.S.Mahalakshmi

¶25

10.Mr.S.Praveen Raj Kumar ... Respondents

¶26

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 5^th July 2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in C.O.S.No.1167 of 2022 passed by the Commercial Court, Egmore, Chennai.

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.Rohan K George

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

The civil revision petition is filed challenging the order and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in C.O.S.No.1167 of 2022 dated 05.07.2022.

¶30

The 4^th defendant in the Suit is the revision petitioner herein. The 1^st

¶31

respondent instituted a Suit for recovery of money in C.O.S.No.1167 of 2022. During the pendency of the Suit, the revision petitioner / 4^th defendant filed Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in C.O.S.No.1167 of 2022 Page 2 of 6

¶32

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

¶33

C.R.P.No.230 of 2023

¶34

under Order I Rule 10 (2) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to delete / remove the revision petitioner / 4^th defendant from the array of parties in the Commercial Suit.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the revision petitioner was holding the post of Director and subsequently, resigned from the post and further there are no specific allegations against the revision petitioner. Thus, he became an unnecessary party in the Commercial Suit and thus, the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the Interlocutory Application is perverse and to be set aside.

¶36

The revision petitioner states that he is no way connected with the affairs of the plaintiff / Company and he has not interfered with the day to day administration of the Company and thus, impleading him as a party in the Suit, itself becomes unnecessary and he has chosen to file Interlocutory Application, which was not considered properly by the Trial Court and the petition was dismissed. It is contended that the Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that there is no averments in the plaint regarding the involvement of the revision petitioner into the affairs of the Company and

¶37

Page 3 of 6

¶38

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

¶39

C.R.P.No.230 of 2023

¶40

thus, the order is infirm.

¶41

Perusal of the finding of the Trial Court reveals that the plaintiff has

¶42

not sought for any personal decree against the 4^th defendant. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner was holding the post of Director of the plaintiff / Company and the plaint averments also reveals that the 4^th defendant has been impleaded as a proper necessary party. The unnecessary parties may be striked off only if they were impleaded improperly and in the present case, the revision petitioner was holding the post of Director of the plaintiff / Company admittedly and thereafter resigned. While so, the participation, involvement or otherwise of the revision petitioner are to be adjudicated and it is a triable issue. Thus, the Court cannot form an opinion in advance regarding participation as Director in the plaintiff / Company. This being the factum, the finding of the Trial Court in this regard is in consonance with the principles established and there is no infirmity as such.

¶43

That apart, the Suit was instituted by the Company for recovery of

¶44

money and it was not instituted against the 4^th defendant in his personnel capacity and he was impleaded in his capacity as the erstwhile Director of the

¶45

Page 4 of 6

¶46

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

¶47

C.R.P.No.230 of 2023

¶48

Company and thus, there is no impediment for the Trial Court to proceed

¶49

with the Suit and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law.

¶50

Accordingly, order and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in C.O.S.No.1167 of 2022 dated 05.07.2022 stands confirmed and consequently, the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.230 of 2023 is dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶51

06.02.2023 (1/3)

¶52

Jeni

¶53

Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes

¶54

¶55

The Judge, Commercial Court, Egmore, Chennai.

¶56

Page 5 of 6

¶57

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

¶58

C.R.P.No.230 of 2023

¶59

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶60

Jeni

¶61

C.R.P.No.230 of 2023

¶62

06.02.2023 (1/3)

¶63

Page 6 of 6

¶64

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

Samir Kumar v. Fast Track Logistics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samir Kumar v. Fast Track Logistics

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

E.Jenifer Vs a.Franco

L.Suseela Vs C.Geetha @ Dhanalaxmi

Mumtaj Begum Vs M/S. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.

Banu Vs Poonkodi

S. Baby Vs S. Sakkubai Ammal

A. Kaliammal Vs Vimaladevi