Dismissed

Nepc India Ltd. v. Sree Ganesh Gears Pvt. Ltd.

Madras HC17 Nov 2023CS/882/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a civil suit filed in 1998 for non-prosecution. The Court observed that the plaintiff had no representation at the hearing and inferred disinterest in continuing the litigation, leading to the dismissal of the suit and closure of the connected application.

What did the court decide?

Suit dismissed for non-prosecution; connected application closed.

Nepc India Ltd. Vs Sree Ganesh Gears Pvt. Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.S. No.882 of 1998

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

C.S. No.882 of 1998 and

¶7

A. No.847 of 2011

¶8

M/s.NEPC India Ltd. (Formerly known as NEPC Micon Limited) Rep. By its Vice Chairman, Mr.Rajkumar Khemka .... Plaintiff vs M/s.Sree Ganesh Bears Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr.M.S. Velu, A Private Ltd. Company carrying on business at its Regd. Office, at Plot No.106, Balagola Industrial Area, K.R.S. Road, Matagalli, Mysore – 570 016. ... Defendant

¶9

Prayer : PLAINT FILED UNDER ORDER IV Rule 1 OF THE ORIGINAL SIDE RULES READ WITH ORDER VII RULE 1 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE to pass a judgement and decree against the defendant :

¶10

(i) directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,22,29,131/- together with interest at 36% per annum on Rs.64,69,971/- from this date till date of payment.

¶11

(ii) directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the cost of the above suit.

¶12

(iii) granting such further or other reliefs as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶13

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

¶14

1/4

¶15

C.S. No.882 of 1998

¶16

For Plaintiff : No appearance For Defendant : Mr.Krishnappan Senior counsel for Ms.R.Swarnalatha Ms.Ambili – No appearance Dy. Official Liquidator

¶17

JUDGEMENT

¶18

As directed by this Court, the learned counsel for the defendant has

¶19

addressed a registered letter to the plaintiff, dated 03.11.2023 informing the plaintiff about today's hearing date. The notice sent by the learned counsel for the defendant has been returned with an endorsement “left”. On the last hearing date i.e. on 02.11.2023, it was recorded that the Official Liquidator for the plaintiff has been discharged by virtue of a judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A. No.345 of 2011, dated 01.03.2018. The said judgment was also placed on record before this Court by the learned counsel for the defendant on the last hearing date, i.e., on 01.03.2018. This Court after giving due consideration to the same had directed the learned counsel for the defendant to inform the plaintiff since the winding up order passed against the plaintiff has been vacated. Accordingly, the same has been

¶20

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

¶21

2/4

¶22

C.S. No.882 of 1998

¶23

informed as seen from the returned cover, which is enclosed along with the Affidavit of Service filed by the learned counsel for the defendant. There is no representation on the side of the plaintiff once again. The suit is of the year 1998. It can now be inferred that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting this suit. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed for non prosecution. Consequently, connected application is closed.

¶24

17.11.2023

¶25

Index: Yes/ No Speaking order / Non speaking order Neutral citation : Yes / No vsi2

¶26

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

¶27

3/4

¶28

C.S. No.882 of 1998

¶29

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶30

vsi2

¶31

C.S. No.882 of 1998 and A. No.847 of 2011

¶32

17.11.2023

¶33

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

¶34

4/4

Nepc India Ltd. v. Sree Ganesh Gears Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nepc India Ltd. v. Sree Ganesh Gears Pvt. Ltd.

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

Microsoft Corpn. Vs Rdp Workstations Pvt. Ltd.

M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s. South Indiaa Oil Corporatiom

A.R.Chandrasekhar Vs Najeeb Mohammed, Prop.M/s.

G.Sriharan Vs M/s Guruprakash Hotels and 4 others

M/S Pvr Inox Limited Vs M/S Sri Thenandal Films

New Hope Food Industries (P) Vs Pioneer Bakeries (P) Ltd.