Madras High Court
R.Martin vs Jude Jayarathina on 27 January, 2025
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
C.M.P.No.28609 of 2024
and OSA (CAD) No. SR 104364 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.01.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
C.M.P.No.28609 of 2024
and
O.S.A. (CAD) No. SR 104364 of 2024
R.Martin
Partner, Trinity Estates,
No.6/2473, Pookara Street,
Mary Street,
Thanjavur-613 001. .. Applicant/Appellant
Vs
1.Jude Jayarathina,
Partner, Trinity Estates,
No.104, Lourdu Doss Road,
Little Mount, Saidapet,
Chennai-600 015.
2.Princy Martin,
No.104, Lourdu Doss Road,
Little Mount, Saidapet,
Chennai-600 015.
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.28609 of 2024
and OSA (CAD) No. SR 104364 of 2024
3.ORIX Auto Infrastructure Services Ltd.,
No.94, Marol Co-operative Estate,
Marol, Andheri East,
Mumbai-400 059. .. Respondents/Respondents
Prayer in C.M.P.No.28609 of 2024: Petition filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of
the Original Side Rules read with Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone
the delay of 168 days in filing the appeal.
Prayer in O.S.A.(CAD) No. SR 104364 of 2024 : Appeal under Order XXXVI,
Rule of Original Side Rules and under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts
Act read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to
set aside the order dated 19.12.2023 passed in O.A.No.30 of 2022.
For Applicant/ : Ms.S.Manjula Devi
Appellant for Mr.R.Prabhakaran
For Respondents/ : Mr.R.Mohandoss
Respondents for M/s.Swaminathan Law
Associates
for respondent Nos.1 and 2
__________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.28609 of 2024
and OSA (CAD) No. SR 104364 of 2024
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
This application is to condone the delay of 168 days in filing the
appeal. As the court was not satisfied with the explanation in the
application, by an order dated 16 th December, 2024, liberty was given to file
a better affidavit. The time was extended by this court's order dated 6th
January, 2025. Pursuant thereto, a further affidavit of applicant, affirmed
on 13 rd January, 2025, is filed, so also, a typed-set containing three
documents.
2. Ms.Manjula Devi stated that paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 of the
further affidavit contain better explanation. We are afraid we cannot accept
the statement of Ms.Manjula Devi since neither these paragraphs, nor rest of
the paragraphs give any explanation to speak of. The further affidavit only
says that applicant has been undergoing extensive medical treatment for
various health conditions. A photograph of petitioner, purportedly lying in
a hospital bed, is also filed with the typed-set. Certainly, that does not
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and OSA (CAD) No. SR 104364 of 2024
impress us.
3. The reason is, the impugned order is dated 19 th December, 2023.
Application for condonation of delay has been filed on 5 th August, 2024.
The Doctor's certificate annexed to the typed-set is dated 18 th December,
2024, one year after the impugned order was passed. By then, time to file
the appeal has expired. Moreover, the certificate only says that one
Mr.Marin, 78 year old gentleman, has been admitted to the Christian
Medical College, Vellore, Ranipet Campus, for evaluation and treatment of
various problems mentioned therein from dental to craniotomy to
hypertension to seizures and he has requested permission to leave the
hospital for one day on 19.12.2024 for attending a court hearing in Chennai
and applicant would need to come back by 5.00 P.M. It appears more to be
a permission to leave the hospital and come back with a condition that he
should return by 5.00 P.M.
4. On these grounds, the application (C.M.P.No.28609 of 2024)
deserves no consideration. The same is dismissed.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and OSA (CAD) No. SR 104364 of 2024
5. Having said that we have also considered the impugned order
dated 19 th December, 2023. According to us, there is no infirmity in the
said order.
6. Application before the learned Single Judge, which was made
under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, was to grant an
order of injunction restraining respondent No.3 from remitting monthly rent
of the lease scheduled premises to respondent Nos.1 and 2. The lease is
between respondent No.3 and one Trinity Estates. Respondent No.3 has
been paying the monthly rent as per the lease agreement. Therefore, the
learned Single Judge has correctly held that there is no dispute between the
lessor and lessee and the order sought cannot be passed in the application
filed.
7. Therefore, even on merits, assuming for the sake of argument, we
condone the delay, the appeal will not survive.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and OSA (CAD) No. SR 104364 of 2024
8. Therefore, O.S.A. (CAD) No. SR 104364 of 2024 is also dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(K.R.SHRIRAM, C.J.) (SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.)
27.01.2025
Index : Yes/No
NC : Yes/No
bbr
To
The Sub-Assistant Registrar (OS)
High Court, Madras.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and OSA (CAD) No. SR 104364 of 2024
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.
bbr
and
OSA ( CAD) No. SR 104364 of 2024
27.01.2025
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
