Dismissed¶36

M/S Lingam Engineering Works v. S.Harisingh Narain Singh

Madras HC8 Jul 2026SA/1440/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lingam Engineering Works; T.K.Chandrasekaran; S.Harisingh Narain Singh; Shyam N.Raheja; Rajesh S.Raheja; Shivakumar S.Raheja; Vijayakumar N.Wadhwa; Anju Chigk; Varsha Batheeja; P.C.Anitha; Vikram Singh Chepra; Jagadisan; Madras High Court; second appeal; S.A.No.1440 of 2007; Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure; A.S.No.668 of 2006; III Additional Judge City Civil Court Chennai; out-of-court settlement; withdrawal of second appeal; dismissal as settled out of Court; refund of court fee; reconstitution of partnership firm; memo recorded; MP.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007; P.Dhanabal; 08.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed as settled out of Court; Court Fee directed to be refunded as per the Rules; connected civil miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs. ¶36

M/S Lingam Engineering Works Vs S.Harisingh Narain Singh — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

S.A.No.1440 of 2007

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶6

S.A.No.1440 of 2007 and MP.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007

¶7

M/s.Lingam Engineering Works, Regd. Partnership Firm, by its Partner T.K.Chandrasekaran Carrying on business at No.17, V.O.C Salai (Waltax Road), Peddunaikanpet, Chennai – 600 079.

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.S.Harisingh Narain Singh

¶11

2.Shyam N.Raheja

¶12

3.Rajesh S.Raheja

¶13

4.Shivakumar S.Raheja

¶14

5.Vijayakumar N.Wadhwa

¶15

6.Ms.Anju Chigk

¶16

7.Ms.Varsha Batheeja

¶17

8.Ms.P.C.Anitha

¶18

9.P.Vikram Singh Chepra

¶19

1/4

¶20

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

S.A.No.1440 of 2007

10.Jagadisan

... Respondents

[Respondents 1, 2, 7 and 10 remained ex-parte before the Trial Court (defts 2, 4, 9 and 12)] [cause title accepted vide order of Court dated 11.12.2007 made in M.P.No.1 of 2007 in SA.SR.No.87583/07]

¶25

PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 23.07.2007 passed in A.S.No.668 of 2006 on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court,

¶26

Chennai by decreeing the suit as prayed for by the Appellant-Firm.

¶27

For Appellants : Mr .J.Ram

¶28

For Respondents :Mr.Raj Prince for Mr.Thiagarajan for R8 R1, R2, R7 and R10 remained ex-parte R3 to R6-Not ready in notice

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel

¶31

appearing for the appellants would submit that they have already filed a memo stating that the Partnership Firm was reconstituted and also filed a copy of the reconstituted deed and thereby, their names as partners in the

¶32

2/4

¶33

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

¶34

S.A.No.1440 of 2007

¶35

said Partnership Firm has to be reconstituted for which purpose a memo has been filed. The memo is recorded.

¶36

Further, he also seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the second appeal, as the matter has been amicably settled out of Court between the parties and also made an endorsement to that effect. The 8^th respondent is also present and has no objection. Since the matter has been settled out of Court between the parties, the second appeal is dismissed as settled out of Court.

¶37