K.Palani Vs C.Raja

¶1

O.S.A.No.178 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.10.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶7

O.S.A.No.178 of 2024 AND C.M.P.No.21399 of 2024

¶8

1.K.Palani

¶9

2.Senthil Kumar @ K.Senthil Raj

.. Appellants

Vs.

1.C.Raja

Proprietor of M/s.Honest Builders Having office at No.13/17, Rear Building 18^th Avenue, Ashok Nagar Chennai 600 083

¶14

2.K.Sridevi .. Respondents

¶15

Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in A.No.782 of 2024 in C.S.No.27 of 2024.

¶16

For Appellants : Mr.Davidson Devashish For 1^st Respondent : Ms.Aparna Raju for M/s.G.Vijay Anand Associates

¶17

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

¶18

O.S.A.No.178 of 2024

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

(Delivered by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)

¶21

This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in A.No.782 of 2024 in C.S.No.27 of 2024, attaching the property of the defendants since they have not furnished security, pursuant to the earlier order of the learned Single Judge, in the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order XXXVIII Rule 15 of CPC seeking an order of attachment before judgment.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are as under :

¶23

2.1. The 1^st respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in C.S.No.27 of 2024 for recovery of a sum of Rs.2.26 crores towards compensation for the work done by him, based on the undertaking letter dated 09.12.2021 given by the appellants/defendants, pursuant to the joint venture agreement dated 28.07.2016 entered into between the appellants/defendants and the 1^st respondent/plaintiff.

¶24

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

¶25

2/5

¶26

O.S.A.No.178 of 2024

¶27

2.2. Pending suit, the 1^st respondent/plaintiff filed an application in A.No.782 of 2024 for attachment before judgment. This Court originally directed the appellants/defendants to furnish security for the said amount on or before 11.03.2024. However, this order seems to have been modified, taking note of the fact that the appellants/defendants have issued cheques for a total sum of Rs.57,15,000/- and therefore, the security to be furnished by the appellants/defendants was reduced to Rs.57,15,000/- and time was granted till 26.03.2024.

¶28

2.3. Despite time having been granted till 26.03.2024, the learned Single Judge found that the appellants/defendants did not furnish the security. Taking note of this conduct of the appellants/defendants, the said application was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 18.04.2024, ordering attachment of the property with effect after 07.06.2024. Challenging this order of the learned Single Judge, the defendants 1 and 2 preferred this appeal stating that the claim is based on forged documents.

¶29

The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 who was unable to convince us on merits, came forward with a proposal that the appellants/defendants may be directed to furnish bank guarantee, instead of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/5

¶30

O.S.A.No.178 of 2024

¶31

attachment of the property. To this course, the learned counsel for the

¶32

1^st respondent has no serious objection. Hence, this appeal is partly allowed and the attachment shall be lifted on condition that the appellants/defendants furnish

¶33

a bank guarantee to a tune of Rs.57,15,000/- within a period of` four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, along with an undertaking to keep the bank guarantee alive and enforceable, till the suit is disposed of. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.

¶34

[S.S.S.R.,J.] [A.D.M.C.,J.] 14.10.2024

¶35

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No gya

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/5

¶37

O.S.A.No.178 of 2024

¶38

S.S.SUNDAR, J. AND A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

gya

O.S.A.No.178 of 2024

14.10.2024

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

¶43

5/5

K.Palani v. C.Raja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Palani v. C.Raja

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.Rajeswari Vs C.Parimala

R.Savithri Vs the Director

Sundeep Devarajan Vs the District Registrar

T.Dhanapal Vs The Secretary to the Government

Deivasigamani Vs Kittathal

S. Prabhu Shankar Vs the Sub Registrar