Dismissed¶148

M/S.Coimbatore Capital Limited v. M.Ramasamy(Died)

Madras HC12 Feb 2026AS/129/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; A.S.No.129 of 2017; decided 12.02.2026; C.V.Karthikeyan J. and K.Kumaresh Babu J.; Coimbatore Capital Limited v. M.Ramasamy (died) and R.Manoharan; guarantee deed proof; mortgage by deposit of title deeds; equitable mortgage unproved; attesting witnesses not examined; ex parte decree; preliminary decree invalid; Order IX Rule 13 CPC; Order XIV Rule I CPC; Section 2(11) CPC legal representatives; non-impleadment of legal representatives; Registration Act; Indian Stamp Act; NSE arbitration award against Ankal Finance Ltd.; suit dismissed; appeal dismissed with costs; trial judgment confirmed.

What did the court decide?

The cryptic ex parte judgment dated 30.10.2008 cannot be considered valid in the eye of law; the mere absence of the defendants does not create a presumption that the plaintiff's case is true. ¶110

M/S.Coimbatore Capital Limited Vs M.Ramasamy(Died) — Arbitration | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶148

Issue for consideration

Whether the ex parte decree could be taken advantage of by the appellant to the disadvantage of the 1st respondent. +2 more

¶80

Court's answer

The cryptic ex parte judgment dated 30.10.2008 cannot be considered valid in the eye of law; the mere absence of the defendants does not create a presumption that the plaintiff's case is true.

¶110

Ratio / Principle

The preliminary decree passed on 30.08.2008 is no decree in the eye of law and the appellant can never place reliance on it.

¶140

Key takeaways

Even where a defendant is set ex parte, the plaintiff must prove all facts and relevant facts which would entitle him to a decree; this burden must be discharged to earn the right to relief.ratio¶128
The Trial Judge's finding that the plaintiff failed to prove execution of Exs.A5 and A7 by not examining the attesting witnesses is sustained by this Court.ratio¶141
Both Exs.A5 (Guarantee Deed) and A7 (deposit of title deeds), both dated 14.08.2000, have not been proved in manner known to law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

First Appeal under Order XLI Rule 1 read with Section 96 CPC by the plaintiff (a trading member of NSE) against judgment and decree dated 03.12.2016 in O.S.No.486 of 2004 (I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur) dismissing its suit against two defendants as guarantors of Ankal Finance Ltd.'s liabilities, based on a Guarantee Deed (Ex.A5) and mortgage by deposit of title deeds (Ex.A7), both dated 14.08.2000. Held by the Division Bench (judgment by C.V.Karthikeyan, J.): (i) the cryptic ex parte judgment of 30.10.2008 and the preliminary decree of 30.08.2008 are no decree in the eye of law — a defendant's absence creates no presumption of truth, and even ex parte the plaintiff must prove its case (dicta in Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya, Sushil Kumar Sabharwal and Maya Devi relied on); (ii) Exs.A5 and A7 were not proved in manner known to law, attesting witnesses not having been examined, and Ex.A5 required registration under the Registration Act; (iii) no personal decree can be fastened on the respondents merely because the 2nd respondent was a Director of Ankal Finance Ltd.; (iv) the other legal representatives of the deceased 1st respondent were necessary parties and, not having been impleaded, the suit suffered and had to be dismissed. Appeal dismissed with costs; the Trial Court's judgment and decree confirmed.

¶1

2026:MHC:1347

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Reserved on : 08.12.2025

¶4

Pronounced on : 12.02.2026

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶9

A.S.No.129 of 2017

¶10

M/s. Coimbatore Capital Limited, A Public Limited Company, Having its office at Stock Exchange Building, 686, 1^st Floor, Trichy Road, Coimbatore – 641 005 Through its Executive Director T.Balakrishnan ... Appellant / Plaintiff Vs

¶11

M.Ramasamy (Died) R.Manoharan ... Respondents / Defendants Substituted the appellant name from Mr.B.Venkateswaran to Mr.T.Balakrishnan vide order of Court dated 04.12.2004 made in CMP No.27045 of 2024 in A.S.No.129 of 2017.

¶12

1/26

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Vs K. Venkateshwara Rao

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sundaram Finance Ltd.

P.Irisan, Vs the Union of India

P.Thangavel Vs Union of India

P.Ramakrishnan (Died) Vs v.Arumugam

Mohammed Sadik @ Mo Sadik Vs S.Saravanan