Madras High Court
E.Basheer Ahamed vs M/S. Pranav Foundation (P) Ltd on 22 September, 2022
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Vsg
C.S.No. 27 of 2021
22.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
