Creamline Dairy Products Ltd. v. Ms Rk Ganapathi Chettiar

Madras HC8 Dec 2025A/5819/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 89 days; written statement; sufficient cause; change in personnel; procurement of documents delayed; Creamline Dairy Products Ltd. (applicant/first defendant) vs M/s.RK Ganapathi Chettiar and Arihant Marketings; A.No.5819 of 2025 in C.S(Comm.Div)No.108 of 2025; Madras High Court Commercial Division; Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.; order dated 08.12.2025; plaintiff's counsel no serious objection; Registry directed to receive written statement.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 89 days in filing the written statement condoned; Registry directed to receive the written statement of the first defendant. ¶¶22

Creamline Dairy Products Ltd. Vs Ms Rk Ganapathi Chettiar — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

A.No.5819 of 2025

¶2

in C.S(Comm.Div)No.108 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08.12.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

A.No.5819 of 2025 in C.S(Comm.Div)No.108 of 2025

¶7

Creamline Dairy Products Ltd., Sy. No.9/1, Orakkadu Village, Sholavaram PO, Ponneri TK, Chennai, Thiruvallur, Tamil Nadu – 600 067. Also at (Regd. Office): H.No.6-3-1238/B/21, Asif Avenue, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Telengana – 500 082.

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

vs.

¶10

1.M/s.RK Ganapathi Chettiar rep. By its Partner M.Thirumoorthi No.138, Muthur Road, S.F.No.199/2, Veeranampalayam Village, Kangayam, Tirupur District – 638 701, Tamil Nadu, India.

¶11

2.Arihant Marketings, 47, Vardha Muthiyappan Street, Chennai – 600 001. .. Respondents

¶12

For Applicant : Mr.Thriyambak J.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.Ramesh Ganapathy for R1

¶13

1/3

¶14

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

¶15

A.No.5819 of 2025 in C.S(Comm.Div)No.108 of 2025

¶16

ORDER

¶17

By this application, the first defendant seeks condonation of the delay of 89 days in filing the written statement.

¶18

In the affidavit in support of the application, it is stated that there was a change in personnel of the first defendant and therefore, the procurement of documents was delayed. It is also stated that the first defendant has a strong defence in the suit and that the first defendant would be prejudiced if this application is not allowed.

¶19

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that he has no

¶20

serious objection to this application being allowed .

¶21

Upon considering the reasons set out in the affidavit in

¶22

support and being satisfied that sufficient cause is shown, this application is allowed. Therefore, Registry is directed to receive the written statement of the first defendant.

¶23

08.12.2025

¶24

mmi

¶25