Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

V.Arunagiri Vs 1.A.VENKATRAMANI — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2025
V.Arunagiri Vs 1.A.VENKATRAMANIV.Arunagiri v. 1.A.VENKATRAMANI

Dismissed¶27

V.Arunagiri v. 1.A.VENKATRAMANI

Madras HC6 Nov 2025CS/323/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suit withdrawn by plaintiff's memo; dismissed as withdrawn; no costs. Pauper suit under Order 33 Rule 2 CPC with leave to sue as informa pauperis (Order 7 Rule 1 CPC r/w Order 4 Rule 1 High Court O.S. Rules). Plaintiff V. Arunagiri appeared as party-in-person. Defendants: A. Venkatramani (promoter, Ram Kashyap Group Company), M.D. of M/s. The Ram Kaashyap Group Company, and District Collector, Chennai (represented by Govt. Advocate Muthuvel). Claims related to consultancy agreement dated 15.01.96, termination of 'consultant' services, car TN-07-1109, directorship of Kaashyap Radiant Systems Limited, Rs. 2,48,16,800 service dues, Rs. 50,00,000 mental agony compensation, interest @ 2% pm on Rs. 2,98,16,800. Madras High Court, Dr. Justice R.N. Manjula, dated 06-11-2025.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the suit granted on the plaintiff's memo; suit dismissed as withdrawn; no costs awarded.

Why is it important?

The plaintiff's memo seeking permission to withdraw the suit was taken on record and the request for withdrawal was accepted. ¶26

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to withdraw the suit granted on the plaintiff's memo; suit dismissed as withdrawn; no costs awarded.

Ratio / Principle

The plaintiff's memo seeking permission to withdraw the suit was taken on record and the request for withdrawal was accepted.

Key takeaways

The suit is dismissed as withdrawn, with no costs.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Dr. Justice R.N. Manjula), CS No. 323 of 2002, decided 06-11-2025: The plaintiff, V. Arunagiri, appearing as party-in-person, had filed the suit under Order 7 Rule 1 and Order 33 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code r/w Order 4 Rule 1 of the High Court O.S. Rules seeking leave to sue as informa pauperis against (1) A. Venkatramani, promoter of Ram Kashyap Group Company, (2) the Managing Director of M/s. The Ram Kaashyap Group Company, and (3) the District Collector, Chennai. The prayer sought a mandatory injunction restraining termination of his services as 'consultant' and repossession of car TN-07-1109 per the agreement dated 15.01.96, appointment as whole-time director of Kaashyap Radiant Systems Limited, Rs. 2,48,16,800/- towards service charges, salaries, rents, gratuity and bonus, Rs. 50,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, and interest @ 2% p.m. on Rs. 2,98,16,800/-. Before any adjudication, the plaintiff filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the suit. The court took the memo on record, accepted the request for withdrawal, and dismissed the suit as withdrawn with no costs.

A

CS No. 323 of 2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06-11-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

CS No. 323 of 2002

V.Arunagiri

Plaintiff(s)

Vs

1.A.Venkatramani Promoter Of Ram Kashyap Group Company., S/o Annaswami, 10 Thiruvengadam Street, Mandaveli, Chennai 600 028.

2.The M.D , M/s.The Ram Kaashyap Group Company,

7 Green Corner Apartments, 3rd Floor, 10 Ivth Main Road, R.A.Puram, Chennai 600 028.

3.The Dist.Collector. Chennai District, --Defendants Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.

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

CS No. 323 of 2002

PRAYER

The plaint filed under Order 7 Rule 1 and Order 33 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code of R/w Order 4 Rule 1 of High Court OS.Rules, praying to pass a decree to and in favour of this plaintiff and against the defendants 1 & 2 herein:

(i)granting leave to sue the defendants, by the plaintiff as informa pauperis. (ii)directing the defendants 1 & 2 by way of mandatory injunction restraining them from terminating the services of the plaintiff as 'consultant' and to pay the monetary benefits as per the agreement dated 15.01.96 and not to take steps to repossess the car bearing Regn.No.TN-07-1109-Ambassadar Car, which was given custody by the above defendants 1 & 2 to the plaintiff for acting as a 'consultant' even as on his date and till the entire dues are settled to this plaintiff. (iii)directing the first defendant herein to appoint the plaintiff in Kaashyap Radiant Systems Limited (a new business venture recently promoted by the 1st and 2nd defendants herein) as a whole time director of the said concern and to pay the consequential monetary and service benefits thereof to the plaintiff. (iv) directing the defendants 1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs.24816800/- towards the various service charges, consultancy services, monthly salaries and rents & its arrears, interest payments, towards profit and loss accounts, gratuity and bonus etc., as claimed by the plaintiff herein above. As per the promises and assurances of the 1st and 2nd defendants herein and a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and losses suffered by the plaintiff, vide para 31 of the plaint

(v)directing the defendants 1 & 2 to pay the interest @ 2% pm. On Rs.29816800 from the date of plaint till the date of realisation.

(vi) cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff against the defendants 1 & 2.

For Plaintiff(s): Mr.V.Arunagiri Party In Person

For Defendant(s): Mr Muthuvel ,Govt. Advocate For The District Collector

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

CS No. 323 of 2002

ORDER

The plaintiff, who has been permitted to appear as party-in-person, has filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the suit, stating that he does not wish to proceed further with the same. The memo is taken on record, and the request for withdrawal is accepted.

In the result, the suit is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.

06-11-2025

jrs

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

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

CS No. 323 of 2002

R.N.MANJULA J.

jrs

CS No. 323 of 2002

06-11-2025

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

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Civil Procedure CodeOrder 7 Rule 1¶17 Order 33 Rule 2¶17
High Court OS.RulesOrder 4 Rule 1¶17

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Suit instituted under Order 7 Rule 1 and Order 33 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code r/w Order 4 Rule 1 of the High Court O.S. Rules.¶17
Prior proceeding
Prayer clause (i) sought leave to sue the defendants as informa pauperis.¶18

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
V. Arunagiri¶21
V. Arunagiri
respondent
A. Venkatramani¶10
respondent
The M.D, M/s. The Ram Kaashyap Group Company¶11
respondent
The District Collector, Chennai District¶13
Muthuvel

Coram

AI extract

Dr. Justice R.N. Manjulaauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 6 Nov 2025 · November
Registered: 24 Oct 2000
Case no.: CS/323/2002
CNR: HCMA010052602002
Bench: R.n.manjula
Disposal: WITHDRAWN DISMISSED
Case type: CS

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from R.n.manjula

Sarojini (Died) 1. K.Sridhar Vs Sellapillai
5 Nov 2025
Sarojini (Died) 1. K.Sridhar Vs Sellapillai
5 Nov 2025
A.Subramani Vs P.a.Naresh and Another
5 Nov 2025
R.Bakthavachalu, Vs Mr. Murugan
6 Nov 2025
Thandavarayan Vs Paranidaran
6 Nov 2025
Chengammal, Vs Kadar Basha
6 Nov 2025

Cite this judgement

V.Arunagiri v. 1.A.VENKATRAMANI, CS/323/2002 (MAD), decided on 6 November 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes3

Civil Procedure CodeOrder 7 Rule 1 · Order 33 Rule 2
High Court OS.RulesOrder 4 Rule 1

View all statutes

Procedural history2

Suit instituted under Order 7 Rule 1 and Order 33 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code r/w Order 4 Rule 1 of the High Court O.S. Rules.
Prayer clause (i) sought leave to sue the defendants as informa pauperis.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Dr. Justice R.N. Manjula

Parties & counsel