Allowed¶33

Tachnat Pty Ltd. v. S and S Fashions Private Limited

Madras HC12 Nov 2025A/2014/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court Commercial Division order dated 12.11.2025 by N. Senthilkumar J. allowing application (A.No.2014 of 2025 in C.S.(Com.Div).103 of 2025) for furnishing of security; security fixed at Rs.49,54,816/- towards principal suit claim; plaintiff M/s.Tachnat Pty Ltd (Hulio Gash brand, Australia); defendant S and S Fashions Private Limited, Chennai; defendant unrepresented; substituted service effected by paper publication in Dinamalar; cross-border garment supply dispute involving AUD advance payments and undelivered shipments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent/defendant to furnish security for Rs.49,54,816/- towards the principal portion of the suit claim. ¶33

Tachnat Pty Ltd. Vs S and S Fashions Private Limited — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

A NO. 2014 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-11-2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR A NO. 2014 of 2025

¶5

in C.S.(Com.Div).103 of 2025 and A.No.2013 of 2025

¶6

M/s.Tachnat Pty Ltd Rep. By its Director Mr.Hulio Gash 90C Fairfield Rd Guildford West New South Wales 2165 Australia

¶7

..Applicant/Plaintiff

¶8

¶9

S and S Fashions Private Limited No.136, Arcot Road, 3rd Floor, Shyamla Towers, Saligramam, Chennai - 600 093. India. Represented by its Director Mr.Santhosh Prabu.

¶10

..Respondent/Defendant

¶11

For Applicant(s): Ms.Hema Srinivasan

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The present application is filed seeking to furnish security for a sum

¶14

of Rs.49,54,816/-.

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

A NO. 2014 of 2025

¶18

The case of the applicant/plaintiff is that the applicant is the owner

¶19

of the clothing brand “Hulio Gash” which is engaged in the business of selling Hulio Gash brand shirts in Australia and worldwide. The respondent/defendant is the manufacturing company who approached the applicant claiming that they are capable of manufacturing high quality cotton garments and expressed their interest.

¶20

Pursuant to the above approach by the respondent, the applicant/plaintiff states that the applicant, the applicant company has made the payments to the respondent/defendant to an extent of AUD 42,000 between 11.12.2013 and 07.08.2014. The 1^st shipment was made, which was invoiced under number SS/EX/04/2014-15 dated 08.12.2014 and it was duly received by the applicant/plaintiff in the month of December 2014. Thereafter, the applicant/plaintiff received two more shipments from the respondent/defendant company in December 2017 valued at AUD 12,498, leaving a significant balance unpaid. Aside from these, towards three shipments totalling AUD 32,844, the respondent/defendant failed to supply any further goods or return the advance payment of AUD 86,156.

¶21

2/5

¶22

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

¶23

A NO. 2014 of 2025

¶24

On the basis of the claim made by the applicant/plaintiff, a notice

¶25

dated 13.04.2024 was issued to the respondent/defendant and since the postal cover was returned with endorsement “Addressee cannot be located”, the applicant thereafter made repeated attempts to follow-up with the respondent/defendant through multiple emails and Whatsapp messages, on 18.10.2022, 23.09.2022, 30.01.2023, 13.07.2023, 05.01.2024, 13.01.2024, 05.03.2024 and 06.03.2024, but the respondent/defendant failed to deliver the remaining goods or return the additional advance amount of AUD 86,156.

¶26

This court permitted the applicant/plaintiff to serve the respondent/defendant through substituted service and the substituted service, by way of paper publication was effected. The publication in the Dinamalar edition was filed by the applicant before this court on 18.09.2025.

¶27