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.

M.Ramasamy Vs Senthil Andavar Farms — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

Home
Madras HC
2026
M.Ramasamy Vs Senthil Andavar FarmsM.Ramasamy v. Senthil Andavar Farms

Dismissed¶21

M.Ramasamy v. Senthil Andavar Farms

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Abdul Quddhose, J.) – C.R.P.Nos.1572 & 1387 of 2025 and C.M.P.Nos.9142 & 8246 of 2025 – Decided 15.06.2026

Madras HC15 Jun 2026CRP/1572/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of civil revision petitions after amicable out-of-court settlement; Madras High Court; Justice Abdul Quddhose; C.R.P.Nos.1572 & 1387 of 2025; C.M.P.Nos.9142 & 8246 of 2025; Article 227 of Constitution of India; Commercial Court (District Judge cadre) Coimbatore; C.O.S.No.56 of 2024; I.A.No.5 of 2024; docket daily orders dated 03.03.2025 and 07.03.2025; Written Statement rejected as time-barred; M.Ramasamy; Senthil Andavar Farms; C.Muruganathan; R.Senthilkumar; dismissed as withdrawn; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw both Civil Revision Petitions; dismissed as withdrawn with no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions C.M.P.Nos.9142 & 8246 of 2025 closed. ¶21

Why is it important?

Both Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed as withdrawn, with no costs, after the petitioner's counsel reported that the matter had been amicably settled between the parties out of court (endorsement made in the court bundle); consequently the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. ¶21

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to withdraw both Civil Revision Petitions; dismissed as withdrawn with no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions C.M.P.Nos.9142 & 8246 of 2025 closed.

Ratio / Principle

Both Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed as withdrawn, with no costs, after the petitioner's counsel reported that the matter had been amicably settled between the parties out of court (endorsement made in the court bundle); consequently the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Abdul Quddhose, J.) — C.R.P.Nos.1572 & 1387 of 2025 and C.M.P.Nos.9142 & 8246 of 2025 — Decided 15.06.2026 — M.Ramasamy v. Senthil Andavar Farms (Rep. by its Partner, C.Muruganathan) & others. Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging docket daily orders of the Commercial Court (District Judge cadre), Coimbatore: order dated 03.03.2025 in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in C.O.S.No.56 of 2024 (C.R.P.No.1572 of 2025) and order dated 07.03.2025 in C.O.S.No.56 of 2024 rejecting the petitioner's (1st Defendant's) Written Statement as time-barred (C.R.P.No.1387 of 2025). On the petitioner's counsel reporting that the matter had been amicably settled between the parties out of court (endorsement made in the court bundle), both revisions were dismissed as withdrawn, with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. Non-speaking order; no merits adjudicated.

A

C.R.P.Nos.1572 & 1387 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

C.R.P.Nos.1572 & 1387 of 2025 and C.M.P.Nos.9142 & 8246 of 2025

M.Ramasamy ... Petitioner in both CRPs

Vs.

1.Senthil Andavar Farms, Rep. by its Partner, C.Muruganathan, Varappatti Village, Sulur Talk and Coimbatore District.

2.C.Muruganathan, Partner of Senthil Andavar Farms, 6/x26, Selakkarichal, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District. ... Respondents 1 & 2 in both CRPs

3.R.Senthilkumar ... 3^rd Respondent in C.R.P.No.1387 of 2025

Prayer in C.R.P.No.1572 of 2025 : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the docket daily order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the Commercial Court in the cadre of District Judge, Coimbatore in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in C.O.S.No.56 of 2024.

Prayer in C.R.P.No.1387 of 2025 : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the docket daily order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the Commercial Court in The Cadre of District Judge, Coimbatore in C.O.S.No.56 of 2024, rejecting the Written Statement filed by the petitioner (1^st Defendant in Suit) as time-barred and direct the Commercial Court in The Cadre of District Judge,

Page No.1 of 4

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

C.R.P.Nos.1572 & 1387 of 2025

Coimbatore, to accept the Written Statement of the petitioner (1^st Defendant in Suit) on record.

For Petitioner : Mr.Sam Jayaraj Houston (in both CRPs) for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates For Respondents : Mr.K.Sudhakar [R1 & R2] (in both CRPs) No appearance [R3] *****

COMMON ORDER

When these matters were taken up for hearing today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Therefore, he seeks permission of this Court to withdraw these Civil Revision Petitions as the same has been settled out of court. He has also made an endorsement to that effect in the court bundle.

2. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

15.06.2026

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

Page No.2 of 4

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

C.R.P.Nos.1572 & 1387 of 2025

To

The Commercial Court (District Judge Cadre), Coimbatore.

Page No.3 of 4

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

C.R.P.Nos.1572 & 1387 of 2025

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

sp

C.R.P.Nos.1572 & 1387 of 2025

15.06.2026

Page No.4 of 4

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

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 227¶12

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Two docket daily orders of the Commercial Court (District Judge cadre), Coimbatore, challenged under Article 227: order dated 03.03.2025 in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in C.O.S.No.56 of 2024 (challenged in C.R.P.No.1572 of 2025) and order dated 07.03.2025 in C.O.S.No.56 of 2024 rejecting the petitioner's (1st Defendant's) Written Statement as time-barred (challenged in C.R.P.No.1387 of 2025).¶12
Commercial Court in the cadre of District Judge, Coimbatore · 03.03.2025 and 07.03.2025
Prior proceeding
Suit C.O.S.No.56 of 2024 pending before the Commercial Court, Coimbatore, with interlocutory application I.A.No.5 of 2024 therein; the petitioner is the 1st Defendant in the Suit.¶12
Prior proceeding
By docket daily order dated 07.03.2025 in C.O.S.No.56 of 2024 the Commercial Court rejected the petitioner's Written Statement as time-barred; this rejection is the subject-matter of C.R.P.No.1387 of 2025.¶13

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
M.Ramasamy¶7
Sam Jayaraj Houston
respondent
Senthil Andavar Farms, Rep. by its Partner, C.Muruganathan¶9
K.Sudhakar
respondent
C.Muruganathan, Partner of Senthil Andavar Farms¶10
K.Sudhakar
respondent
R.Senthilkumar¶11

Coram

AI extract

Abdul Quddhoseauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 15 Jun 2026 · June
Registered: 8 Apr 2025
Case no.: CRP/1572/2025
CNR: HCMA010609152025
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
Disposal: WITHDRAWN DISMISSED
Case type: C.R.P.

Similar cases

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

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Abdul Quddhose

R.Rajaveni Vs G.Ramanathan
12 Jun 2026
Karuppan Vs Chellan
12 Jun 2026
C.Manickam Vs Priya Diagnostic and Ultra Sound Centre Pvt.Ltd
12 Jun 2026
K.Suresh Kumar Vs M.Naveen
15 Jun 2026
Rajendra Kumar Vs Angel Mary
15 Jun 2026
M.Dinesh Kumar Vs G. Naveena
15 Jun 2026

Cite this judgement

M.Ramasamy v. Senthil Andavar Farms, CRP/1572/2025 (MAD), decided on 15 June 2026.

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

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 227

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Two docket daily orders of the Commercial Court (District Judge cadre), Coimbatore, challenged under Article 227: order dated 03.03.2025 in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in C.O.S.No.56 of 2024 (challenged in C.R.P.No.1572 of 2025) and order dated 07.03.2025 in C.O.S.No.56 of 2024 rejecting the petitioner's (1st Defendant's) Written Statement as time-barred (challenged in C.R.P.No.1387 of 2025).Commercial Court in the cadre of District Judge, Coimbatore · 03.03.2025 and 07.03.2025
Suit C.O.S.No.56 of 2024 pending before the Commercial Court, Coimbatore, with interlocutory application I.A.No.5 of 2024 therein; the petitioner is the 1st Defendant in the Suit.
By docket daily order dated 07.03.2025 in C.O.S.No.56 of 2024 the Commercial Court rejected the petitioner's Written Statement as time-barred; this rejection is the subject-matter of C.R.P.No.1387 of 2025.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Abdul Quddhose

Parties & counsel