AQJ APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED v. MMUNNA GARMENTS
Court: Madras High Court
Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Judgment date:
Case summary
Madras High Court judgment dated 2024-12-17. AQJ APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED v. MMUNNA GARMENTS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
OSA (CAD) No. 69 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17. 12. 2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. K. R. SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY OSA (CAD) No. 69 of 2023 and CMP No. 15084 of 2023 M/s. AQJ Apparels Pvt. Ltd Rep. by its Managing Director Mr. Shiraj Abdulgani Patanwala No. 31A Thiru Vi Ka Nagar North 1st Street College Road Tirupur 641 602 Tamil Nadu : Appellant versus 1. M/s. MMUNNA Garments Rep by its Proprietor Mr. Mohammed Kalith 19/20A Royapuram Main Road Tirupur 641 601 2. Sri Srinivasa Tex Old No. 12 Singara Garden th 8 lane, (Opp to KCS Girls School) Old Washermenpet Chennai 21 : Respondents Prayer: Appeal filed against the Judgment passed by the Honble Court in Page 1 of 5 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis OSA (CAD) No. 69 of 2023 A. No. 2100 of 2023 in C. S. (COMM DIV) No. 247 of 2022 dated 12-06-2023. For Appellant : Mr. G. Ramesh For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. A. Swaminathan, for Mr. S.
Suresh Kumar For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. J. Ganesh, for Mr. R. Thirumoorthy JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Yesterday, the following order was passed: “Shri Swaminathan, counsel for first respondent, states that the advocates who had appeared for second defendant in the trial court are from the same office of the advocate for plaintiff as well, who is the appellant before us. 2. In short, counsel for first respondent, who was first defendant in the suit, states the entire cause of action was based on an invoice and goods sold by second defendant and advocate for second defendant and plaintiff's advocate are from the same office and it is, therefore, a collusive suit. 3. Shri G. Ramesh denies and states he has nothing to do with Mr. R. Vishal and Ms. H. Alice Bibiana, who have filed vakalatnama for second defendant. 4. Shri Swaminathan stands his ground. Therefore, notice be issued to Mr. R. Vishal and Ms. H.
Alice Bibiana to remain present in court, so that the court could verify the truth. Shri Swaminathan states he shall inform Mr. R. Vishal and Ms. H. Alice Page 2 of 5 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis OSA (CAD) No. 69 of 2023 Bibiana about this order. List on 1 7. 12. 2024. ” 2. Today, when the matter was called out, Mr. Ramesh sought leave of the Court to withdraw the appeal. 3. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the interim application also stands disposed of. 4. Counsel for respondents is justified in pressing for cost. 5. We direct appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as cost for this appeal. Cost shall be paid within two weeks from today. Failing to pay cost will be viewed as deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order of this Court and respondents may move for contempt against appellant as well as its directors. (K. R. SHRIRAM, CJ. ) (SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. ) 17. 12. 2024 Index : Yes/No Page 3 of 5 https://www. mhc. tn. gov.
in/judis OSA (CAD) No. 69 of 2023 Neutral Citation : Yes/No tar Page 4 of 5 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis OSA (CAD) No. 69 of 2023 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. (tar) OSA (CAD) No. 69 of 2023 17. 12. 2024 Page 5 of 5 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis
Source: Madras High Court. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.