Madras High Court
Regaliaa Realty Ltd vs Karvy Financial Services Limited on 11 August, 2021
C.S.No.472 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.08.2021
Coram
The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN
C.S.No.472 of 2019
and A.Nos. 2148 of 2020 & 5655 of 2019
1. Regaliaa Realty Ltd.
represented by its Director,
Mrs.Kavitha Reganathan,
Having its Registered office at
No.10, Tarapore Avenue,
Harrington Road,
Chennai - 600 031.
2. Mr.D.Sudhakara Reddy
3. Ms.Deephtha Reddy,
represented by is Power Agent
Mr.D.Sudhakara Reddy ...... Plaintiffs
vs.
Karvy Financial Services Limited
represented by its Managing Director
Nos.705 and 706, 7th Floor,
Hallmark Business Plaza,
Sant Dnyaneshwar Marg,
Off Bandra Kurla Complex,
Mumbai- 400 051. ..... Defendant
Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
read along with Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules for the reliefs that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.472 of 2019
the defendant company be ordered and decreed and directed to pay the 1st
plaintiff company a sum of Rs.4.33 Crore as compensation towards the
statutory expenses incurred by the 1st plaintiff company along with interest at
the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of plaint, till the Date of realization and
that the defendant company be ordered and decreed and directed to pay as
damages of Rs.2,39,84,647/- to the 2nd plaintiff and Rs.39,76,751/- to 3rd
plaintiff along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of plaint till
realisation and for cost of the present suit.
For Plaintiffs ... No appearance
For Defendant ... Mr.Arun Anbumani
JUDGMENT
When the matter is posted today under the caption ' for dismissal', there
is no appearance on behalf of the plaintiffs. This Court vide, earlier order,
dated 14.07.2021, after taking note of the submission made by the learned
counsel appeared for the plaintiffs that he was unable to get instructions from
his clients despite his best efforts, directed the Registry to issue summons to
the 1st and 3rd plaintiffs returnable by 06.08.2021 and posted the matter on
06.08.2021. The 2nd plaintiff was stated to have expired during the pendency
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.472 of 2019
of the Civil Suit.
2. On 06.08.2021, this Court found that there was no appearance on
behalf of the plaintiffs despite service of summons on 04.08.2021 on the 1st
and 3rd plaintiffs and their names being printed in the cause list. However, in
order to provide final opportunity for the appearance of the plaintiffs 1 & 3,
the matter was posted under the caption ' for dismissal' on 11.08.2021.
3. Today also, there is no appearance on behalf of the plaintiffs. In
view of the same, this Court is constrained to dismiss the Suit for non-
prosecution. Accordingly, the Civil Suit is dismissed for non-prosecution. No
costs. Consequently, connected applications are closed.
11.08.2021
vsi
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.472 of 2019
V.PARTHIBAN,J
vsi
C.S.No.472 of 2019
11.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
