1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.09.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.S.No. 27 of 2021
1. E.Basheer Ahamed
2. Mohammed Saleem
3. E.Ayub Khan
4. Mrs.B.Ayish Gani
5. B.Mohammed Yosuf Raja ... Plaintiffs
Vs.
1. M/s. Pranav Foundation (P) Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director
Mrs. Srilakshmi Ranganathan
No.72-A, 21 Street,
L-Block, Anna Nagar,
Chennai – 600 102.
2. Mr.C.Jaichander
3. M/s. JNL Event Management
Rep. by its Partner
Mr.V.S.Bala Murali
No.11/233, 7th Street,
Asthalakshmi Nagar,
Valavarasavakkam
Chennai – 600 118.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
4. IDBI Bank Limited.,
(IDBI Bank)
Represented by its Authorised Officer
PM Towers,
No.37, 1st Floor, Greams Road
Chennai – 600 006. ...Defendants
Prayer : Petition filed under Order VII Rule 1 CPC read with Order IV Rule
1 of OS Rules, to pass a Judgment and Decree in favour of the plaintiffs:-
a) directing the defendants 1 to 2 to pay a sum of Rs.4,34,00,000/-
(Rupees Four Crores Thirty Four Lakhs only) together with interest on
Rs.3,50,00,000/- at 24% per annum from the date of plaint till realisation;
b) directing the defendants 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.24,00,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Only) to the plaintiffs for monthly damages for
using the plaintiffs' Decoration and furniture materials for every month from
15.04.2019 to 08.10.2020 and pay future monthly damages of Rs.2,00,000/-
for month from the date of plaint to till the defendants 1 to 3 are returning the
entire furniture materials ie., all Chairs, Tables, TVs and all kinds of
Decoration materials to the plaintiffs,
c) Grant Mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 to 3 to return
the entire furniture materials ie., Chairs, Tables, TVs and all kinds of
Decoration materials and etc., which are clearly mentioned in the Item No.2
of suit schedule property to the plaintiffs.
***
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3
For plaintiffs: Mr. A.Ilaya Perumal
For defendants
1, 2 & 3 : No appearance
For 4th defendant: Mr.Shivakumar
ORDER
The plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking a direction against the first and second defendants to pay a sum of Rs.4,34,00,000/- together with interest at Rs.3,50,00,000/- at 24% p.a., from the date of filing of the plaint till realisation and for a further direction against the first, second and third defendants to pay a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- to the plaintiffs for monthly damages for using the materials of the plaintiffs from 15.04.2019 to 08.10.2020 and also for a mandatory injunction directing the first to third defendants to return the furniture materials of the plaintiffs and also for costs of the suit.
2. Even before proceeding further, it must be mentioned that a memo has been filed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs dated 04.08.2022 wherein it had been very specifically stated that the suit is not pressed against https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 the third defendant. Recording the said memo, the suit is dismissed against the third defendant.
3. The first and second defendants had been set ex-parte by an order dated 18.02.2022. The fourth defendant had filed A.No. 1183 of 2021 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC claiming that there was no cause of action for the plaintiffs to institute the suit against the fourth defendant. That application had come up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court and by an order dated 30.11.2021, the suit had been rejected in so far as the fourth defendant is concerned.
4. Let me straight away state that whenever the order copy is issued, the Registry must indicate in the cause title itself that the suit had been rejected by an order dated 30.11.2021 in A.No. 1183 of 2021 against the fourth defendant.
5. The plaint proceeds on the basis that the first and second defendants who had entered into a partnership to share profits with respect to the running of a Kalyana Mandapam and had obtained a sum of Rs.3.50 crores from the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 plaintiffs toward the furniture and fixtures to be provided for the Kalyana Mandapam and for decoration items and such other requirements. The amount also included the expenditure to be spent on the actual construction of the Kalyana Mandapam.
6. The plaintiffs naturally expected that in lieu of advance of such amounts to the first and second defendants, whenever any function was conducted in the marriage hall, they would be called upon to do the allied event management job for which they could independently charge from the customers, who use the Kalyana Mandapam. Unfortunately, though the first and second defendant had so received a sum of Rs.3.50 crores from the plaintiffs, they had an understanding with the third defendant, who was called upon to do the decoration and other event Management related aspects for functions conducted in the Kalyana Mandapam. This was a cause of grievance for the plaintiffs.
7. The plaintiffs had addressed a notice to the first and second defendants pointing out their obligation and liability. There was no reply. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6
8. It is also stated that the third defendant ahd instituted a suit in the City Civil Court as against the first and second defendants seeking a relief that the third defendant should not be injuncted or prevented from acting or performing as event Manager in any of the functions held in the said premises. It is contended by the plaintiffs that the said suit is a collusive suit as between the first and second defendants on the one hand and the third defendant on the other hand.
9. In the meanwhile, the first defendant appears to have approached the fourth defendant and had obtained loan and had offered as collateral security, 50% of the land and building to which he was entitled. There was a default in the repayment of the loan and proceedings in manner known to law had been initiated and the fourth defendant had taken possession of the said 50% of the land and building.
10. This has left the plaintiffs high and dry. They had advanced a sum of Rs.3.50 crores. They have not been repaid that amount. They were under the hope that they would be called upon to act an event Managers or provide decorative items for the functions held. They were not called. On the other https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7 hand, the third defendant was given that privilege. They had also supplied furnitures and fixtures and the first and second defendants had rented out such furniture and fixtures to the customers who used the Kalyana Mandapam and made further money. The plaintiffs did not get any return for the amount advanced. In effect, it was a failed business venture.
11. To esablish all these facts, the plaintiffs witness were called upon to graze the witness box. Accordingly, E.Ayub Khan, the third plaintiff did so and filed his proof affdiavit.
12. Along with the proof affidavit which infact is only a reduction of the averments made in the plaint, he also filed 17 documents. The related document would be the receipts issued by the first and second defendants for receipt of a sum of Rs.3.50 crores. They were marked as Ex.A-1 to A-4. They were all dated 01.07.2017. The agreement between the first and second defendants with the third defendant dated 15.04.2019 was marked as Ex.A-4. This was the agreement complained by the plaintiffs as being to their adverse interest. The documents relating to the suits in the City Civil Court were marked as Exs. A-6 to A-8. As mentioned, the fourth defendant had taken https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8 possession and the document relating to that particular aspect had been maked As Ex.A-9. The plaintiff also issued legal notices for which replies were not received. The legal notices had been marked as Exs. A-9 and A-10 and the acknowledgment cards for the same were marked as Ex.A-12 and A-
13. The encumbrance certificate of the property to hold out that it is still available if any decree is put to test had been marked as Ex.A-17.
13. Heard Mr.A.Ilaya Perumal, learned counsel who pointed out these facts before this Court.
14. In view of the fact that the defendants had taken a concious decision not to contest the case of the plaintiffs and had actually remained set ex-parte and further particularly in view of Ex.A-1 to A-4 which evidence payment of money by the plaintiffs directly to the first and second defendants, I hold that the plaintiffs have made out a case for grant of decree for repayment of the amount claimed together with interest of 24% p.a. In so far as the relief of damages is concerned, there being absence of evidence to substantiate the same, I am afraid I cannot acceed to the claim of the plaintiffs. Similarly, the relief of mandatory injunction also cannot be granted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9
15. The suit is partly decreed directing the first and second defendants for placing the liability on them for a sum of Rs.4,34,00,000/- as stated in the first relief of the plaint. I also hold that the plaintiffs are entitled for the cost of the litigation from the first and second defendants.
16. The suit is dismissed as not pressed against the third defendant. The palint had been rejected against teh fourth defendant by order dated 30.11.2021 in A.No. 1183 of 2021.
22.09.2022 Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No vsg Speaking/Non Speaking Order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Vsg C.S.No. 27 of 2021 22.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis