Madras High Court
M/S. Srinivasa Educational Academy vs M/S. Shubhra Facilities Management ... on 15 July, 2025
Author: G. Jayachandran
Bench: G. Jayachandran
A.S. No.174 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 15.07.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
A.S. No.174 of 2022
and C.M.P. No.6312 of 2022
M/s. Srinivasa Educational Academy,
Represented by its Secretary Mr. V. Srinivas,
Having his office at R.V.S. Nagar, Tirupathi road,
Chittor, Andhra Pradesh - 517 127. ... Appellant/ Defendant
-vs-
M/s. Shubhra Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory,
Mr. G. Pitchai S/o. Gurusamy,
Having office at No.194/21, Asiad Colony,
Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai - 600101. ... Respondent/ Plaintiff
Prayer:- Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 to set aside the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.58 of 2019
dated 06.02.2020, on the file of XVI Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr. K. Pattabhi
For Respondent : Mr. J. Kamaraj
******
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:59:47 pm )
A.S. No.174 of 2022
JUDGMENT
The appeal filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 06.02.2020 in
O.S.No.58 of 2019 on the file of XVI Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai, for
allowing the suit for recovery of money pursuant to the house keeping work
executed based on a work contract.
The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal is as follows:
2. The plaintiff company engaged in House Keeping has entered into
agreement with the defendant on 01.08.2015 to maintain its premises for a charge
of Rs.9,24,929/- per month for a period from 01.08.2015 to 31.07.2017. However,
the contract got terminated prematurely on 31.03.2016, since the defendant failed
to pay the agreed amount for a period of three months starting from 1st January
2016. After raising invoices for Rs.6,44,539/- dated 02.02.2016 for the month of
January 2016, for Rs.6,46,528/- invoice dated 04.03.2016 for the month of
February 2016 and for Rs.6,59,843/- invoice dated 04.04.2016 for the month of
March 2016, totally a sum of Rs.19,50,910/-, after waiting for some time counsel
notice to the defendant for payment of the arrears amount to a sum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:59:47 pm )
Rs.19,50,910/- and to return his house keeping machines, which were kept under
the defendant's custody.
3. The defendant had contested the suit on the ground that it is a works
contract entered at Chittor, Andhra Pradesh and the work has to be executed at
Chittor, where the defendant's college is located. While so, the suit for recovery of
money filed at Chennai is without territorial Jurisdiction. The Notice sent by the
defendant was duly replied, denying liability and reiteration that the contract was
terminated due to ill-performance of the plaintiff and the amount due and payable
have been fully settled to the plaintiff. It was the plaintiff, who breached the
contract and abandoned the work during the month of January 2016, had caused
inconvenience and loss to the defendant. Nothing payable to the defendant for the
months of January, February and March of the year 2016, as claimed in the plaint.
4. Based on the pleadings, the issues framed by the Trial Court whereas
under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:59:47 pm )
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive the suit
claim of Rs.19,50,910/- along with subsequent interest?
2. To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled?
5. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, the Director of the
plaintiff's company Mr. G.Pitchai was examined as P.W1 and nine documents
were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.9. On the side of the defendant, one G.Murali,
Manager of the defendant's company was examined as D.W.1 and no documents
was filed on behalf of the defendant.
6. The Trial Court allowed the suit, passing a decree for a sum of
Rs.19,50,910/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
filing of the suit till the date of realization.
7. The Appeal is filed by the defendant on the ground that the Court had
miserably failed to note that no cause of action has aroused within the jurisdiction
of the City Civil Court, Chennai. The suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff company
by an authorized signatory. Law mandates special Board Resolution, authorizing
such person to sue on behalf of the Company, in this case, no Board Resolution
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:59:47 pm )
copy was filed along with the plaint. Even in the plaint, the Company has not
stated that it is represented by Mr.Pitchai, as per the Board Resolution. That apart,
the plaintiff had not placed evidence to show that the plaintiff executed the work
for the months of January, February and March of the year 2016. The suit is also
barred by limitation, hence the Trial Court ought not to have allowed the suit.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff submitted
that, Ex.A1 is the letter sent by the defendant on 01.08.2015, awarding the House
Keeping contract to the plaintiff and it is addressed to the plaintiff's office at
Chennai. On acceptance of the offer, the contract got concluded at Chennai.
Therefore a part of cause of action has fallen within the jurisdiction of Chennai
Courts, which confers jurisdiction. As far as the Board Resolution Authorization
letter dated 05.07.2017, marked as Ex.A8, explicitly refers about the Board
Resolution. Further in the plaint itself, it is stated that the plaintiff's company is
represented by its Authorized Signatory, hence there is no defect in the plaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:59:47 pm )
9. Regarding the money claimed, the learned counsel submitted that
D.W.1 had expressively admitted that there was a contract between the plaintiff
and the defendant for House Keeping and the reply notice relied by the defendant,
which is marked as Ex.A7 also admits the contractual relationship and stoppage of
the work. Having extracted the work for three months, the defendant are liable to
pay the amounts in the invoices, marked as Exs.A2, A3 and A4.
10. In the appeal, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
raised serious objections regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Court below to
entertain the suit and locus of Mr.G.Pitchai to represent the plaintiff company
without proper Board resolution was emphatically canvassed.
11. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent as well the
appellant wanted to negotiate the matter amicably and settle the issue.
Accordingly, the parties have arrived at settlement and agreed to give quietus to
the issue by tendering a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- to the plaintiff towards full quit and
settlement of the suit claim.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:59:47 pm )
12. A memo has also been filed by the learned Counsel for the appellant,
along with a copy of the cheque for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/-, drawn at Union Bank
of India, Kattamanchi Branch, Chittoor, dated 14.07.2025, in favour of the
respondent/plaintiff. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff
has acknowledged the receipt of the cheque for the said amount and concede for
allowing the appeal in terms of the memo.
13. In view of the above, the Appeal Suit is partly allowed. The appeal is
decreed in terms of the compromise memo. The full quit and satisfaction on the
part of the respondent/plaintiff is hereby recorded. Consequently, the connected
Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
15-07-2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
bsm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:59:47 pm )
To,
1. The XVI Additional City Civil Judge,
Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:59:47 pm )
Dr. G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.,
bsm
15.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:59:47 pm )
