Madras High Court
Real Nutra Private Limited vs Shahnaz Hospitality Services Private ... on 3 November, 2022
Author: M.Sundar
Bench: M.Sundar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 03.11.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
C.S.(Comm. Div.)SR.No.89822 of 2022
(Filing Number)
and
A.No.4637 of 2022
in
C.S.(Comm. Div.)SR.No.89822 of 2022
(Filing Number)
1. Real Nutra Private Limited
Rep. by its Director
Mr.Bino Varghese
Door No.401, F Block, 4th Floor
1/124B, Rajiv Gandhi Salai,
Kelambakkam, Padur Chengalpet,
Kancheepuram TN 603 103 TN.
2. Herb Nutra Lab Private Ltd.,
Rep. by its Director
Mr.Ragu
No.1, Mayana Salai, Uthiramerur Taluk
Killakkadi Village, Kancheepuram
Tamil Nadu - 603 107. .. Plaintiffs
Vs.
1. Shahnaz Hospitality Services Private Limited
Having Registered Office at Sakthi Towers
Tower 1, 4th Floor, No.766, Anna Salai
Thousand Lights, Chenani-600 002.
Page Nos.1/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Mr.C.Andrew
Promoter of Shahnaz Hospitality Services Private Limited
Having Registered Office at Sakthi Towers
Tower 1, 4th Floor, No.766, Anna Salai
Thousand Lights, Chennai - 600 002.
3. Mrs.I.Isma Shahnaz
Director of Shahnaz Hospitality Services Private Limited
Having Registered Office at Sakthi Towers
Tower 1, 4th Floor, No.766, Anna Salai
Thousand Lights, Chennai - 600 002.
4. Mr.Shahul Hameed
S/o.Abdum Nasar
residing at Door No.1/1, Kamarajar Nagar,
Neelamangalam Post,
Kallakurichi Taluk, Kallakurichi 606 213.
5. V.Antony
S/o.Unknown
NUWAY, 5/14A, Visuvasapuram
Coimbatore - 6411035. .. Defendants
This Civil Suit is preferred, under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC read
with Sections Order IV Rule 1 of the Madras High Court Original Side
Rules, 1994 read with Sections 27, 134 and 135 of the Trademarks Act,
1999 and Section 7 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 praying
(i) Declaring the said Assignment Deed dated 2.6.2020 and
registered as a Document No.26 of 2020 of Book IV at the O/o. Joint II
Sub Registrar, Kallakurichi on 17.06.2020 fradulently entered between
4th defendant in the name of the 2nd plaintiff's company M/s.Herb Nutra
Lab Private in favour of the 1st defendant M/s.Shahnaz Hospitality
Services Private Limited, as null and void;
Page Nos.2/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(ii) Mandatory injunction for a direction to the defendants to
deliver up for the purpose of destruction, on oath, of all the packaging
any product bearing the plaintiffs' trade name "DIVINE NONI";
(iii) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, by itself, or
by its directors, or officers, or servants, or agents or employees or assigns
as well as all those acting in concert with it or on its behalf or claiming
under or through it or otherwise however from using or conducting or
marketing in any manner or in any way carrying on its business by using
in any manner whatsoever the impugned name "DIVINE NONI" or any
other name or mark or word which is phonetically or structurally similar
or identical or deceptively similar to the registered trademark "DIVINE
NONI" name and logo in the name of the plaintiff in any manner or for
any purpose whatsoever;
(iv) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, by itself, or by
its directors, or officers, or servants, or agents or employees or assigns as
well as all those acting in concert with it or on its behalf or claiming
under or through it or otherwise howsoever from in any manner,
committing any acts of unfair competition including passing off or
attempting to pass off or causing, enabling or assisting others to pass off
its business and services so as to discredit the fame of "DIVINE NONI"
as a trademark and / or to mislead persons as to the nature of the
beverages sold at the said premises of the defendant's being rung under
the impugned mark and / or so as to allude a nexus with the registered
trademarks for the name "DIVINE NONI" or logo and confuse persons in
any manner or under any circumstances whatsoever;
Page Nos.3/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(v) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, by itself, or by
its directors, or officers, or servants, or agents or employees or assigns as
well as all those acting in concert with it or on its behalf or claiming
under or through it or otherwise howsoever from in any manner, from
vending or selling its business or goods or services at under any name
which is phonetically or structurally similar or identical or deceptively
similar to the registered certification trademarks "DIVINE NONI" name
and logo in the name of th plaintiff for any purpose or in any manner
whatsoever;
(vi) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, by itself, or
by its directors, or officers, or servants, or agents or employees or assigns
as well as all those acting in concert with it or on its behalf or claiming
under or through it or otherwise howsoever from in any manner, from
indulging in any activity which dilutes the distinctive character of the
certification trademarks for the "DIVINE NONI" name and logo in the
name of the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever;
(vii) An order for deliver up for destruction upon oath of all
products including signboards, stationery, brochures, promotional
materials, letter heads, cash memos or any other items of whatsoever
description and nature, bearing the impugned name and / or any other
name or marks which may be phonetically or structurally similar or
identical or deceptively similar to the said registered marks "DIVINE
NONI" name and logo of the plaintiff;
(viii) To pass such further or other orders deem fit and proper in
the aforesaid circumstances of the case along with Costs;
Page Nos.4/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
For Plaintiffs : Mr.K.S.Elangovan
JUDGMENT
This judgment / order will now dispose of the captioned suit and application.
2. In this judgment / order, parties shall be referred to by their respective ranks in the main suit for the sake of convenience and clarity.
3. This judgment / order has to be read in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listings on 19.10.2022 and 31.10.2022 which read as follows:
Proceedings dated 19.10.2022:
'In these proceedings, parties shall be referred to by their respective ranks in the main suit for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. In the captioned 'Leave to Sue' ['LTS'] application, Mr.K.S.Elangovan, learned counsel on record for plaintiffs in the main suit draws the attention of this Court to paragraph No.8 of support affidavit and submits that the fourth defendant has issued public notices in a daily and is continuing to claim to be a director of second plaintiff company within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commercial Division.Page Nos.5/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. According to learned counsel, this part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commercial Division.
4. In these proceedings, this Commercial Division does not express any view on the LTS prayer. On a demurrer, if LTS prayer is acceded to, the date of institution of suit will obviously be post 20.08.2022. Therefore, learned counsel will have to address this Commercial Division on Section 12-A of 'The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (4 of 2016)' [hereinafter 'CCA' for the sake of brevity].
5. Learned counsel requests for a short accommodation to peruse earlier orders made by this Commercial Division and make submissions. Request acceded to.
6. List after Diwali Vacation. List in the Motion List on 31.10.2022.' Proceedings dated 31.10.2022:
'When the matter was taken up, Mr.K.S.Elangovan, learned counsel, adverting to earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 19.10.2022 requested for listing on Thursday. Request acceded to.
2. List on 03.11.2022.'
4. As the above proceedings are to be read as an integral part and parcel of this judgment / order, the short forms, abbreviations used in the earlier proceedings shall continue to be used in this judgment / order also.
Page Nos.6/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Mr.K.S.Elangovan, learned counsel on record for plaintiffs is before this Commercial Division. Learned counsel was heard out in the light of the aforementioned earlier proceedings made in the two previous listings (extracted and reproduced supra).
6. This Commercial Division has carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel inter alia by adverting to case file.
7. The case file has also been perused. On a careful consideration of submissions, plaint averments, this Commercial Division is of the view that the captioned suit is a clear case where on the basis of averments in the plaint, it comes to light that the suit is barred by law (Section 12-A of CCA) and this is a case where plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that this is a case which can be taken out of rigor and requirements of Section 12-A of CCA and therefore the plaint deserves to be rejected without issuing summons {discussion and reasons i.e., dispositive reasoning are set out elsewhere infra in this judgment / order}. To be noted, this course is adopted in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Patil Automation case law [Patil Page Nos.7/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Automation Private Limited and Others vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1028] {paragraph No.76 of SCC OnLine report}. It is also to be noted that in Patil Automation case law {paragraph No.79 of SCC OnLine report}, it has been held that law has been laid down that a plaintiff can be 'told off the gates' to first comply with the mandate of Section 12-A of CCA. It was made clear that such process would not involve the Courts actually spending time on such matters vide paragraph No.79 of Patil Automation case law. This Commercial Division deems it appropriate to add that there is one other facet to the 'told off the gates' course. When a matter is listed with a LTS application under Clause 12 of Letters Patent, for presentation of intended plaint along with LTS application under Clause 12 of Letters Patent, it is not necessary for plaintiffs to pay entire Court fee along with intended plaint. Therefore, if the rigor of Section 12-A of CCA is applied after grant of LTS, it will result in a situation where the plaintiffs will lose the Court fee also. This is owing to categoric pronouncement in Patil Automation case law (paragraph No.84 of SCC OnLine report) that this would necessarily involve loss of Court fee paid by plaintiffs in such a case as they have to bring up a fresh suit after complying with Section Page Nos.8/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12-A of CCA as permitted under Order VII Rule 13 of CPC.
8. In the light of this view of the matter, the plaint in the captioned suit is one which deserves to be rejected for the following reasons. The discussion and dispositive reasoning is as follows:
(i) It is necessary to have a chronicle of dates and events together with short facts. The short facts are that the plaintiffs have come to this Commercial Division seeking reliefs qua alleged infringement of registered trademarks, passing off and declaration qua Assignment Deed dated 02.06.2020 which according to the plaintiffs has been fraudulently entered into between the fourth defendant and second plaintiff company. The product is Herbal Medicine Diabetic Substance. The mark is 'DIVINE NONI' and competing marks have been set out in the plaint;
(ii) Even according to the plaint averments, cause of action arose when the assignment deed dated 21.05.2018 came to be executed and subsequently when the plaintiffs Page Nos.9/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis came to know from social media and intermediaries through WhatsApp and Facebook that on 16.07.2022 when the fourth defendant circulated an advertisement / publicity material to be sold in the market with the alleged offending mark and on 29.07.2022 when the fourth defendant issued a public notice. The date of presentation of intended plaint is 17.08.2022 and date of filing of LTS application is 29.09.2022. LTS application namely, A.No.4637 of 2022 was first listed before this Commercial Division on 19.10.2022. On a demurer, assuming LTS prayer had been acceded to on 19.10.2022 itself, the date of institution of suit would have at best been on 19.10.2022 and not prior to this date. This means that the date of institution of suit can be by no stretch of imagination be prior to 20.08.2022 and the date of presentation of the (intended) plaint is 17.08.2022. In this view of the matter, it is clear that Patil Automation case law applies in all fours qua the case on hand;
(iii) After the plaintiffs saw public notice dated Page Nos.10/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 29.07.2022 issued by fourth defendant, the plaintiffs have admittedly not even issued cease and desist notice. No suit notice has been issued. The next step taken by the plaintiffs is presentation of (intended) plaint in this Court on 17.08.2022. The second step taken by plaintiffs in this Court is filing of LTS application (A.No.4637 of 2022) on 29.09.2022. Therefore, there is absolutely no compliance qua Section 12-A of CCA. To be noted, Section 12-A of CCA reads as follows:
'12-A. Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement. - (1) A suit, which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief under this Act, shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre-institution mediation in accordance with such manner and procedure as may be prescribed by rules made by the Central Government.
(2) The Central Government may, by notification, authorise the Authorities constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), for the purpose of pre-institution mediation.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), the Authority authorised by the Central Government under sub-section (2) shall complete the process of mediation Page Nos.11/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis within a period of three months from the date of application made by the plaintiff under sub-section (1):
Provided that the period of mediation may be extended for a further period of two months with the consent of the parties :
Provided further that, the period during which the parties remained occupied with the pre-institution mediation, such period shall not be computed for the purpose of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963).
(4) If the parties to the commercial dispute arrive at a settlement, the same shall be reduced into writing and shall be signed by the parties to the dispute and the mediator.
(5) The settlement arrived at under this Section shall have the same status and effect as if it is an arbitral award on agreed terms under sub-section (4) of Section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996).'
(iv) Section 12-A of CCA was not in the Statute book when CCA kicked in on 23.10.2015 but it was introduced in CCA by way of amendment on and from 03.05.2018. After Section 12-A of the said Act kicked in on 03.05.2018, the Central Government in exercise of its Page Nos.12/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis powers under sub section (2) of section 12-A made a notification dated 03.07.2018. On the same day, i.e., on 03.07.2018, in exercise of its powers under sub-section (2) of Section 21A (rule making power) read with sub-section (1) of section 12-A of said Act, Central Government also made a set of rules captioned 'The Commercial Courts (Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement) Rules, 2018' (hereinafter 'said Rules') wherein and whereby an elaborate procedure has been laid down / codified for adhering to Section 12-A before presentation of plaint / institution of suit. Thereafter a conundrum of sorts erupted as different High Courts took different views as to whether Section 12-
A of said Act is mandatory or merely directory. Ultimately, when this issue was taken up by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned Patil Automation case law, law has been laid down to the effect that Section 12-A is mandatory and this put to rest the controversy and the conundrum of sorts stood solved. In this Patil Automation case law, Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it Page Nos.13/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis clear that prospective operation doctrine has been invoked to stakeholders and therefore Patil Automation case law would start applying on and from 20.08.2022. This mechanism was obviously put in place by Hon'ble Supreme Court taking into account the difficulty faced by stakeholders in various Courts as in other circumstances, any pronouncement qua procedural law by Courts is retrospective. In Chank Lungi case [Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Revathy Textiles and four others], this Commercial Division had an occasion to deal with a similar case where the plaintiff had approached this Commercial Division without issuing any Cease and Desist Notice much less suit notice. This Commercial Division in and by order dated 27.09.2022 in C.S(Comm. Div.)No.208 of 2022 & A.Nos. 4296 and 4297 of 2022 & O.A.Nos.626 to 628 of 2022 rejected the plaint. In Chank Lungi case, this Commercial Division explained the term 'contemplation' occurring in sub-section (1) of Section 12-A of CCA and most relevant paragraph is sub- Page Nos.14/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis paragraph No.(xxv) of paragraph No.6 which reads as follows:
'(xxv) A careful perusal of the meaning of the term 'contemplate' makes it clear that a thoughtful look and a profound thought at length would essentially be the determinants qua 'contemplate'. Therefore it is not for the asking qua plaintiff to say that urgent interim orders are required. When the plaintiff makes such a plea, it is open to this Commercial Division to examine the contemplation determinant i.e., the term 'contemplate' occurring in Section 12-A of CCA. In the case on hand, inter alia owing to there being no cease and desist notice, no notice at all and more particularly plaintiff going into slumber for nearly two months, this Commercial Division has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it cannot be gainsaid by the plaintiff that there is contemplation of urgent interim orders in the case on hand. Though obvious, it is made clear that this Commercial Division has referred to judgments rendered by Hon'ble single Judges of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bolt Technology and Retail Royalty only for the purpose of completion of not only the narrative but the discussion and dispositive reasoning also. Those being orders of other single benches of another High Court have only persuasive value and this Commercial Division as of now does not express any opinion on the persuasive value as far as Bolt Page Nos.15/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Technology and Retail Royalty are concerned. Suffice to say that they do not come to the aid of the plaintiff in the case on hand. To put it differently, Bolt Technology and Retail Royalty are factually distinguishable, not applicable to case on hand. Therefore, this order is not to be understood as following the same.'
(v) Thereafter in Varathan case vide Judgement and order dated 13.10.2022 made in C.S. (Comm.Div.) No. 202 of 2022 & O.A. No. 612 of 2022 & Application No. 4280 of 2022 in C.S. (Comm.Div.) No. 202 of 2022 [Mr.K. Varathan vs. Mr. Prakash Babu Nakundhi Reddy] this Commercial Division explained the expression 'urgent interim relief'. To be noted, this expression 'urgent interim relief' occurring in Section 12-A of CCA is constituted by three terms and this Commercial Division has explained this expression by going into the meanings contextually most relevant to each of these terms in the sequence in which they occur in Section 12-A of CCA. Most relevant paragraphs in Varathan case are paragraph Nos.14 to 16 and the same read as follows:
'14. Before embarking upon the above exercise, it is Page Nos.16/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis made clear that this Commercial Division is of the view that the four terms and the expression 'contemplation of urgent interim relief' constituted by these four terms can be described but not defined. It is also made clear that when a term or expression is defined, the meaning is confined (constricted) whereas a term or expression stands explained and / or elucidated when described. Let me now go to Lexicons and dictionaries. To be noted, from the Lexicons and dictionaries those of the meanings which are contextually most relevant to our exercise on hand have been culled out and the same are set out infra as a tabulation.
Term / Name of Lexicon / Meaning
Expression Dictionary
New 9th Edition of to think carefully about Oxford Dictionary and accept the possibility of happening Contemplate Concise Oxford look at thoughtfully;
English Dictionary think about,
think profoundly and at
length
Urgent New 9th Edition of that needs to be dealt
Oxford Dictionary with or happen
immediately
Concise Oxford English requiring immediate
Dictionary action or attention
P.Ramanatha Aiyar's Demanding prompt
Advanced Law Lexicon action
(5th Edition)
Stroud's Judicial A high standard is
Page Nos.17/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Dictionary of Words required to satisfy the and Phrases (Ninth court of the urgency Edition) Urgency – The “urgency” exemption from the duty to consult contained in this section does not apply to any urgency arising as a result of the minister's own failure to reach a decision until the last moment.
Interim New 9th Edition of intended to last for only Oxford Dictionary a short time until more permanent is found;
in the interim - during the period of time between two events;
until a particular event happens Concise Oxford English the intervening time;
Dictionary provisional; meanwhile
P.Ramanatha Aiyar – Meanwhile; in the
The Law Lexicon meantime
P.Ramanatha Aiyar's Meanwhile; in the Advanced Law Lexicon meantime;
(5th Edition) The word “interim”
when used as a noun
means “intervening”
and when used as an
adjective, it means
“temporary” or
“provisional”
Black's Law Dictionary Done, made, or
(Tenth Edition) occurring for an
Page Nos.18/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
intervening time;
temporary or
provisional.
Stroud's Judicial For the time being
Dictionary of Words
and Phrases (Ninth
Edition)
Relief Concise Oxford The alleviation or
English Dictionary removal of pain, anxiety or distress P.Ramanatha Aiyar's Relief arising out of a Advanced Law cause of action which Lexicon (5 Edition) had accrued at the date th of suit and on which the suit was brought and did not include relief accruing after the date of suit.
P.Ramanatha Aiyar The remedy which a
– The Law Lexicon Court of Justice may
afford in relation to
some actual or
apprehended wrong or
injury;
It is a maxim in our law
that a plaintiff must
show that he stands on
a fair ground when he
calls on a Court of
justice to administer
relief to him.
Stroud's Judicial 'Relief' and 'relieve' are
Dictionary of Words appropriate terms to and Phrases (Ninth describe the remedial Edition) action of the court in cases where a penalty Page Nos.19/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis or forfeiture has been incurred, and which the court thinks it equitable that the complainant should not lie under or suffer.
15. A careful perusal of the aforementioned definitions / descriptions bring to light that a plaintiff should think carefully about possibility of a thing happening. The thinking process should be profound and thoughtful, such thinking process should lead the plaintiff to believe that prompt action (not attributable to plaintiff's own doing) is demanded or the matter requires immediate attention and needs to be dealt with immediately and that it is so immediate that time consumed in exhausting the remedy of pre institution mediation that will lead to wrong or injury which the plaintiff in law and equity should not be made to stand and suffer. To put it differently, a relief for the time being which is temporary or provisional is so imperative that possible wrong or injury will overtake the process of exhausting remedy of pre institution mediation.
16. This Commercial Division having explained the expression 'contemplation of urgent interim relief' deems it appropriate to make an adumbration of parameters / tests and they are as follows:
(a)whether the prayer for interim relief is a product of profound thinking carefully about the possibility of the happening;
Page Nos.20/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(b)whether the matter demands prompt action and that promptitude is of such nature that exhausting the remedy of pre institution mediation without any intervention in the mean time can lead to a irreversible situation, i.e., a situation where one cannot put the clock back;
(c)where the urgency is of plaintiff's own doing, if that be so the plaintiff cannot take advantage of its own doing;
(d)high standard is required to establish the requirement of this prompt action (urgency);
(e)plaintiff should be on fair ground in urging urgency and an interim measure;
(f)actual or apprehended wrong or injury should be so imminent that the plaintiff should be able to satisfy the court that plaintiff should not be made to stand and suffer the same.'
(vi) This Commercial Division carefully applied the aforementioned principles and there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that this is not a case which will fall under the category of a suit where 'urgent interim relief' has been sought. In other words, this is not a case where the plaintiffs can claim that the suit on hand falls outside Section 12-A legal perimeter and parameters as the plaintiffs have not even issued cease and desist notice.
Plaintiffs have not taken any steps on coming to know Page Nos.21/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis about the alleged infringement i.e., cause of action accruing. Therefore, this is a case where the plaintiffs could have certainly issued a notice and called upon the defendants to participate in mediation. This has not been done;
(vii) As regards Section 12-A rigor and requirement, it is in the nature of a jurisdictional fact and therefore it has to precede the suit. In this view of the matter, even if mediation is going to be held today, that will not save the suit. All that can be done is rights of the plaintiffs can be preserved for complying with Section 12-A of CCA and thereafter coming to this Commercial Division if the need arises i.e., after Section 12-A does not fructify into a settlement. In this regard, a detailed procedure has been set out and separate sets of Forms have also been prescribed under said Rules made by Central Government which kicked in on and from 03.07.2018. In other words, if Section 12-A of CCA mediation does not culminate in a settlement and if it becomes a non-starter or failure, it is Page Nos.22/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis open to plaintiffs to come to this Commercial Division qua same cause of action and rights of plaintiffs are preserved in this regard;
(viii) In the case on hand, the plaintiffs have paid Court fee along with intended plaint. Therefore, in the light of paragraph Nos.84 and 91 of Patil Automation case law, the plaintiffs have to necessarily forego the same. Fortunately for the plaintiffs it is not a huge sum;
(ix) Before writing the concluding paragraph of this order, this Court deems it appropriate and pertinent to mention about the scope a of LTS application. LTS under Clause 12 of Letters Patent is not a legal mechanism qua which this Commercial Division gets vested with jurisdiction. In other words, this Commercial Division does not derive or get jurisdiction by acceding to LTS prayer as acceding to LTS prayer is only an expression of intention to exercise jurisdiction over the entire suit while it has jurisdiction over a part of cause of action. In this view of the matter, the sequitur which is to be set out infra Page Nos.23/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis is to preserve rights of the plaintiffs to come up with LTS application also afresh if a Section 12-A of CCA drill does not culminate in a settlement.
9. In the light of the discussion and dispositive reasoning delineated supra, inevitable sequitur that follows is, plaint in the captioned suit is rejected. Consequently, captioned application is disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
03.11.2022 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order mk M.SUNDAR, J.
Page Nos.24/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis mk C.S.(Comm. Div.)SR.No.89822 of 2022 (Filing Number) and A.No.4637 of 2022 in C.S.(Comm. Div.)SR.No.89822 of 2022 (Filing Number) 03.11.2022 Page Nos.25/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis