Madras High Court
Quick Sort vs Vetri Software India Pvt. Ltd on 9 February, 2022
S.A.No.820 of 2014
and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
S.A.No.820 of 2014
and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014
Quick Sort
Represented by its Proprietor
D.Venkatesh Kumar
Old No.5, New No.9, Thambu Swamy Street,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Vetri Software India Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. By its President Mr.Jayakumar
Nelson Tech Park,
New No.49, Old No.116,
Nelson Manickam Road,
Chennai – 600 029.
2. Lason India Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its President Mr.Jayakumar
Nelson Tech Park,
New No.49, Old No.116,
Nelson Manickam Road,
Chennai – 600 029.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.820 of 2014
and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014
3. HOV Services - Indian Office,
Represented by its President Mr.Jayakumar
Dowlath Towers, 8th-12th floor,
59, Taylors Road, Kilpauk,
Chennai – 600 010 ... Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure code,
against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S. No.507 of 2012 on the file of the
learned XVIII Additional City Civil Judge at Chennai dated 31.07.2013,
confirming the Decree and Judgment passed in O.S.No.913 of 2009 on the file of
the learned XIV Assistant City Civil Judge at Chennai dated 28.09.2010.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Raghupathi
For R1 and R2 : Mrs.M.G.Joseph for
M/s.Chennai Law Associates
For R3 : No Appearance (Notice Served)
********
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff is the appellant in the second appeal. The plaintiff filed a
suit in O.S.No.913 of 2009 against the defendants on the ground that they were
engaged in execution of a project by the defendants by extending a contract in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.820 of 2014
and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014
favour of the plaintiff and that all of a sudden in breach of the contract, the
defendants abruptly withdrew the project work from the plaintiff from January
2009 onwards. Hence, the plaintiff sought for the relief of declaration to declare
that the stoppage of the project is in breach of the existing agreement and for
consequential mandatory injunction to continue the project in favour of the
plaintiff in accordance with the contract and for other consequential reliefs.
2. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence and also after considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
rejected the claim made by the plaintiff, both on the ground that there was an
Arbitration Clause that binds the parties and hence, the relief can be claimed only
before an Arbitral Tribunal and on the merits of the case, by a judgment and
decree dated 28.09.2010.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal before XVIII
Additional City Civil Court, Chennai and the lower Appellate Court found in
favour of the plaintiff insofar as the issue of Arbitration is concerned and held that
such a plea can not be taken after the written statement was filed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.820 of 2014
and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014
defendants. However, when it came to the merits of the case, the lower Appellate
Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and on considering
the findings rendered by the trial Court, found that there are no merits in the case
and concurred with the finding of the trial Court to that extent. The appeal was
dismissed by a Judgment and Decree dated 31.07.2013.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal has been filed
before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the Courts
below went wrong in doubting the genuineness of Ex.A1 letter, which formed the
basis of the case. Learned counsel submitted that if really Ex.A1 letter is held to
be a forged document, the burden of proof is upon the defendants to prove the
same and both the Courts below straight away came to such conclusion without
any basis. The learned counsel further submitted that the agreement between the
parties is borne out by documents relied upon by both sides and specifically
placed reliance upon Ex.A10 letter dated 28.01.2009. Learned counsel also placed
reliance upon Ex.B9 final settlement report, which was issued by the defendants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.820 of 2014
and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014
and submitted that this was the document through which final settlement was sent
by the defendants and this also substantiates the existence of an agreement
between the parties.
6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the the materials available
on record and also gave anxious consideration to the findings rendered by both
the Courts below.
7. In the present case, the appellant is proceeding on the basis that there
is an existing agreement. It is only on this basis, the appellant has sought for
various reliefs like declaration and mandatory injunction. Both the Courts
concurrently found that there is no existing agreement, as claimed by the appellant
and it has not been produced before the Court. What the appellant had filed before
the Courts below and which have been marked as documents are the letters and
the various invoices between the parties. The appellant is specifically alleging that
there is a breach of the terms of the existing agreement. In order to substantiate
this contention, an agreement must be produced and such an agreement must
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.820 of 2014
and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014
contain the terms and conditions and on going through the terms and conditions,
the Court must satisfy itself that there is a breach. This requirement has not been
fulfilled by the appellant in the present case. The appellant has also sought for the
relief of mandatory injunction to continue with the existing contract. Once again,
to determine this relief, the contract/agreement must be produced before the Court
and in the absence of the same, such a relief can never be granted by the Court.
8. Both the Courts below and particularly the lower appellate Court has
given a categoric finding that in the absence of an agreement which was never
produced by the appellant, the relief sought for by the appellant cannot be granted.
This finding rendered by both the Courts below was not perverse and it is based
on the materials available on record. This Court sitting in a second appeal cannot
revisit this finding and such an exercise will go beyond the scope of Section 100
of Code of Civil Procedure. In the considered view of this Court, there is no
substantial question of law involved in the present case.
9. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. Considering the facts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.820 of 2014
and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014
and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
09.02.2022
sr/rgi
Index:yes/no
Speaking Order/Non-speaking order
To
1. XVIII Additional City Civil Court
Chennai.
2. XIV Assistant City Civil Court,
Chennai.
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.820 of 2014
and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014
sr/rgi
S.A.No.820 of 2014
09.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
