Allowed¶30

Whipd Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms.Cheruba Charis Nelson and 2 others

Madras HC16 Feb 2026A/802/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court single-judge order dated 16-02-2026; A No. 802 of 2026 in C.S.No.25 of 2025; Whipd Foods Pvt Ltd v. Cheruba Charis Nelson & two others; miscellaneous application to receive additional documents in civil suit for permanent and mandatory injunction; allowed subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility; respondents/defendants free to object at time of marking; counsel: Ms.Aishwarya B (applicant), Mr.Sanjay K (respondents R1-R3).

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; additional documents to be received in C.S.No.25 of 2025 subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility, with liberty to the respondents/defendants to raise objections at the time of marking. ¶30

Whipd Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ms.Cheruba Charis Nelson and 2 others — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

A No. 802 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

¶6

A No. 802 of 2026 in C.S.No.25 of 2025

¶7

Whipd Foods Pvt Ltd Rep.by its Director Mrs.Vasuki, W/o.Dr.S.Rajagopal, Having registered office at New No.83, Chamiers Road, Raja

¶8

Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028.

¶9

..Applicant

¶10

¶11

Ms.Cheruba Charis Nelson D/o.Mr.L.Nelson, No.19A, C5 Abhinav Kailash, Velachery Road, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015 & two others.

¶12

..Respondents

¶13

This Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to allow the above Application and receive the additional documents in the above Civil Suit.

¶14

For Applicant: Ms.Aishwarya B for M/s.S.P.Pavithra For Respondents: Mr.Sanjay K for M/s.H.Karthik Seshadri (R1 to R3)

¶15

Page1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

A No. 802 of 2026

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This application has been filed to receive the additional documents in the above Civil Suit.

¶20

According to the applicant, she is the applicant in the main suit. The

¶21

above suit has been filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. It is further stated that at that time of filing of the suit, the documents filed along with this application were not available with them. Hence, they filed this application.

¶22

3.Learned counsel for the respondents strongly objected for allowing this application, by stating that the documents sought to be received and marked by the applicant are no way relevant to the suit or to decide the case and the application is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

4.Heard both sides. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶24

Considering the nature of the application and the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this application, this application is allowed and the documents can be received subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility.

¶25

Page2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

A No. 802 of 2026

¶28

6.The respondents/defendants are at liberty to raise any objection in

¶29

respect of the documents, i.e., sought to be received at the time of marking.

¶30

7.This Application is ordered accordingly.