Dismissed

Indigo Buisness Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Focal Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd.

Madras HC10 Dec 2025A/2880/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiffs sought transfer of a debt-recovery suit from the Commercial Court to the High Court for joint trial with their damages suit. The court found distinct causes of action, non-identical parties, an advanced stage in the Commercial Court suit, and dismissed the application as contrary to the object of the Commercial Courts Act.

What the court decided

AI extract

Indigo Buisness Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.12.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶5

A.No.2880 of 2025 in C.S.No.793 of 2014

¶6

M/s.Indigo Buisness Services (India) Pvt Ltd Represented by its Director Mr.Irwin Beasant Raj Having its registered office at No. 18/35, Second Cross Street, R.K. Nagar, Chennai- 600 028. and another

¶7

... Applicants

¶8

-vs-

¶9

M/s.Focal Merchandising (India) Pvt Ltd Director Mr.Noel Mohan Ravin No.3/8, New Dhamu Nagar, Puliyangulam, Coimbatore 641 037 and 6 others

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

For Applicants : Mr.Gautam S.Raman

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.S.R.Raghunathan for M/s.S.Vijaya Ganesh for R1 to R3

¶13

¶14

1/8

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The suit before this Court has been filed against seven defendants.

¶18

The relief claimed in the suit is for a direction to all the defendants to jointly

¶19

and severally pay a sum of Rs.1,70,00,000/- to the plaintiff as compensatory

¶20

and punitive damages with interest thereon from the date of plaint till the date of realization. A permanent injunction has also been requested. A separate suit has been filed by the third defendant herein suit against the two plaintiffs in this suit. The said suit is currently pending before the Commercial Court, Chennai.

¶21

The plaintiffs in this suit have sought a transfer of the suit pending

¶22

before the Commercial Court to the file of this Court. Learned counsel for

¶23

the plaintiff submits that some of the evidence would be common in both

¶24

suits. By relying on the judgment of this Court in Vediammal and others v.

¶25

2/8

¶26

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

¶27

M.Kandasamy and others Manu/TN/0965/1997 , learned counsel contends

¶28

that the causes of action could be distinct, but the fact that the causes of

¶29

action are distinct is not a ground to reject the application for transfer. He also relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. Ranjan Chemicals Ltd. and another (2007)1 SCC 97 with regard to the

¶30

power of the Court to transfer a suit if the circumstances warrant and justify

¶31

the same.

¶32

In response, learned counsel for the third defendant submits that the

¶33

parties to the two suits are not the same. He also submits that the third defendant’s suit before the Commercial Court is for recovery of a debt, whereas the suit before this Court is for damages. After further pointing out

¶34

that the cause of action for the suit before this Court arose after the resignation of the third defendant from the employment of the first plaintiff,

¶35

whereas the cause of action for the suit before the Commercial Court

¶36

3/8

¶37

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

¶38

accrued while the third defendant was in the employment of the first

¶39

plaintiff, learned counsel also submits that the two suits are at different

¶40

stages. While the arguments of the plaintiff were heard in full in the suit before the Commercial Court, he submits that D.W.1 is being examined in

¶41

the suit before this Court. He concluded his submissions by referring to

¶42

clause 13 of the Letters Patent and submitting that the prescription therein is

¶43

not satisfied in the present case.

¶44

Learned counsel for defendants 4 to 7 submits that the said

¶45

defendants propose to examine two witnesses.

¶46

On perusal of the plaint in the suit before this Court, it is beyond

¶47

doubt that this suit is for a judgment and decree for payment of a sum of

¶48

Rs.1,70,00,000/- as damages by the defendants jointly and severally to the

¶49

4/8

¶50

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

¶51

plaintiffs. As stated earlier, there are seven defendants in the suit. Since it is an action for damages, there is no debt due at present. The suit before the

¶52

Commercial Court, on the other hand, is framed as a suit for recovery of a debt. The third defendant herein is the sole plaintiff therein and the plaintiffs herein are the only defendants herein. From the above, it is clear that the causes of action are distinct. It should also be noticed that the suit before the Commercial Court is at an advanced stage and that the arguments of the plaintiff were concluded.

¶53

Given the fact that the parties are not the same and the distinct nature of the causes of action, transferring the suit before the Commercial Court to the file of this Court, at this juncture, would only cause delay in the conclusion of the suit before the Commercial Court. This is contrary to the object and purpose of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. In any event, it is no longer possible to even consider a request for a joint trial.

¶54

5/8

¶55

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

¶56