Madras High Court
M/S.K.P.Textiles (Coimbatore) Pvt Ltd vs G.R.Kannan on 3 June, 2025
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
A.S.No.217 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 03.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
A.S.No.217 of 2023
1. M/s.K.P.Textiles (Coimbatore) Pvt Ltd
Represented by its Managing Director,
Mr. Kandasamy Padmanabhan
No.4/237, Caltonpet (post) Near Sulur
Coimbatore – 641 401.
2. Mr.V.K.Padmanabhan .. Appellants
Versus
G.R.Kannan .. Respondent
First Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree
dated 14.03.2022 made in O.S.No.446 of 2020 on the file of the learned XVIII
Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr. A.G.Sathyanarayanan
For Respondents : Mr.J.Rajmohan
JUDGMENT
Appeal Suit has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2022 made in O.S.No.446 of 2020 on the file of the learned XVIII 1/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:31 pm ) A.S.No.217 of 2023 Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Defendants in O.S.No.446 of 2020 on the file of the learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai are the Appellants herein.
3. The brief facts which are relevant for consideration are as follows:
3.1 The Plaintiff in O.S.No.446 of 2020 has set up a Bio Gas Plant in Survey No.177/2, Mambakkam Village, Arcot Taluk, Vellore District measuring to an extent of 2 acres 50 cents and registered it as a Company in the name of M/s.Saastha Energy Private Limited having its office in Door No. 2/4, Cauvery Street, Kalashetra Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai. It was involved in the business of generation of biomass energy and the plant was operating from Survey No.177/2, Mambakkam Village, Arcot Taluk, Vellore District. The biomass energy was supplied to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board through a power purchase agreement. The Defendant-1 and Defendant-2 in O.S.No.446 of 2020 had approached the Plaintiff for purchase of the biomass energy plant.
3.2 The Plaintiff was interested in selling the plant. They negotiated and 2/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:31 pm ) A.S.No.217 of 2023 arrived at a conclusion thereby the sale price was fixed 2 crores 10 lakhs for the entire plant along with machinery. The same was accepted by Plaintiff and the Defendants. On 07.09.2012 as per sale agreement-cum-hand receipt, a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- (Rupees one crore twenty five lakhs only) was paid by the Defendant-1 by transferring the said amount in the Plaintiff’s Company account. It was further agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.85,00,000/-
(Rupees eighty lakhs only) on or before 07.09.2012. As per the above agreement dated 07.09.2012, one of the conditions mentioned in para 3 was “any other benefit out of government proceedings which took place before three months from the agreement dated 07.09.2012 belong to the Plaintiff” 3.3 Accepting the same both the Plaintiff and Defendants signed the receipt in the presence of two witnesses namely T.N.Sivakumar and V.R.Paramasivam. Further on 17.09.2012, the Defendants paid a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only) and again on 21.09.2012, the Defendants paid another Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only) to the Plaintiff. Subsequently the entire process of purchase of the company was completed on 04.10.2013. The Plaintiff had claimed the refund of excise duty from the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranipet Division for a sum of Rs.12,14,468/. The proceedings regarding refund of Excise duty were 3/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:31 pm ) A.S.No.217 of 2023 pending with the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise during the sale of the said plant. Only because of these proceedings, a condition was imposed on the agreement cum hand receipt dated 07.09.2012 that any other benefits from the Government belong to the Plaintiff. Under these circumstances, the refund of Excise duty proceedings pending with the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Ranipet Division came to an end in the year 2019. A sum of Rs.11,19,193/- was reimbursed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Tax in the Company's account which was purchased by Defendant-1. Having received the said amount, the Defendant-1 had not returned the same to the Plaintiff which the Plaintiff is entitled as per agreement dated 07.09.2012. The above said amount is due for a long of time, the Defendants had not responded to the reminders made by the Plaintiff as well as by the witness persons on several occasions. On 31.10.2019, the Plaintiff had issued a legal notice to the Defendant-1 to repay the said amount of Rs.11,19,193/- (Rupees Eleven lakhs nineteen thousand one hundred and ninety three only) refunded by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and tax which belong to the Plaintiff within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the said notice.
3.4 Having received the legal notice issued on behalf of the Plaintiff 4/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:31 pm ) A.S.No.217 of 2023 dated 31.10.2019, the Defendant-1 had not chosen either to reply to the same nor return the money. Therefore, the Plaintiff had filed this suit for recover of the sum of Rs.11,19,193/-. No similar suit had been filed by the Plaintiff for the same relief in any other Court. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and tax has refunded the said amount in the month of June 2019 into the Defendant-1 account. The same is not barred by limitation. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks judgment and decree directing the Defendants 1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally to the Plaintiff, a sum of Rs.11,19,193/- refunded by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and taxes.
3.5 The suit was resisted by the Defendants by filing written statement disputing the claim of the Plaintiff.
4. The contents of the written statement of the Defendants are as follows:
No part of cause of action has arisen within the City of Chennai and the plaint fails to specify exactly which part of Cause of Action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court at Chennai. The plaintiff has admitted in the 2 para of the plaint that the subject matter of transaction between the plaintiff and the Defendants pertains to a Biomass Energy plant running at S.No.177/2, Mambakkam Village, Arcot Taluk, Vellore District. While that being so, the 5/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:31 pm ) A.S.No.217 of 2023 plaintiff should have initiated the suit before the Jurisdictional court at Vellore or before the jurisdictional courts at Coimbatore where the Defendants are situated. The present suit has been filed against the order of refund of Excise Duty into the bank account of the 1st Defendant by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Tax, who is situated at Vellore. While that being so, the cause of action would have arisen when the order of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Tax is passed at Vellore and when the refund amount was credited in to the Bank Account which is situated as Coimbatore. The entire sale negotiation took place at Vellore and Coimbatore. The claim of the plaintiff is based on the Hand receipt dated 07.09.2012 and the receipt fails to specify the place of execution. No part of cause of action has arisen at Chennai and the plaint has failed to aver in detail the exact part of cause of action which has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court. That being so, the plaintiff has failed to prove which cause of action has arisen at Chennai and on this Ground alone the suit shall be liable to be dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The Defendants have approached the plaintiff to purchase the plant. It is originally the plaintiff who has approached the Defendants to sell his company on an outright basis together with its land, plant, machinery. building, movable and fixed equipment and the Defendants have agreed to purchase the same on an outright basis. The 1st Defendant has 6/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:31 pm ) A.S.No.217 of 2023 paid a sum of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- on 07.09.2012 into the Account of Sri Sasthaa Energy Private Limited is a matter of records and the same is not denied by the Defendants. It was further agreed to pay the balance sum on or before 17.09.2012. The Defendants doesn't deny the averment that it is mentioned in second half of para 3 that "Also any other benefits out of Government proceedings which took before 3 months from today are belong to the present Seller." However, the Defendants denies the averment of the plaintiff that afore said condition pertains to the refund of Excise Duty claim. 'The 2 Defendant doesn't deny the execution of the Hand Receipt dated 07.09.2012 but he denies the averment that T.N.Sivakumar and V.R.Paramasivan were present while the plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant executed the Hand Receipt. The Defendants have paid the remaining sums on 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012 is matter of records and hence the same need not be traversed in detail. The plaintiff i.e., Mr.G.R.Kannan has claimed refund of Excise Duty from the Asst.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranipet Division, is totally false. It is only due to refund claim the condition in para 3 of the Hand Receipt was imposed. The averments in para 6 of the plaint are highly illusory and calls upon the plaintiff to strict proof of the same. It is the company M/s Sri Sasthaa Energy Private Limited who have made a claim of refund of Excise Duty before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranipes Division. There was no 7/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:31 pm ) A.S.No.217 of 2023 discussion between the plaintiff and the Defendants on the Excise Duty being entided is the plaintiff and if it all it was discussed the same would have been specifically mentioned in the Hand Receipt dated 07.09.2012. The Excise Duty was paid by the Company M/s Sri Sasthaa Energy Private Limited which was sold on an outright basis to the Defendants. Subsequent in the purchase of the company they were put to irreparable loss and hardship due to misrepresentation of the plaintiff on the performance of the plant. Presently the said plant is not in operation due to the aforesaid reason. The plaintiff is entitled to refunded Excise Duty as per the terms of the Hand Receipt is totally denied as false. The Excise Duty was refunded by way of a cheque drawn in the name of "Sri Sasthaa Energy Private Limited" and the said cheque was sent by Post/Courier to the old registered office address that existed before the transfer of the company i.e., which happens to be the present address of the plaintiff. The cheque and the order of Refund was received by the plaintiff at his present address and the cheque alone was sent to the Defendants at Coimbatore. The plaintiff except the issuance of the Legal notice has not sent any letter or correspondences claiming the Excise Duty right from the date of sale to the date of issuance of Legal Notice. The plaintiff even while receiving and sending the refunded Excise Duty Cheque to the Defendants has not made a claim on the Excise Duty amount. The plaintiff being, enriched himself from 8/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:31 pm ) A.S.No.217 of 2023 the sale of his shares in the company Sri Sasthaa Energy Private Limited to the Defendant is presently trying to unjustly enrich himself by laying a claim on the Excise Duty belonging to the company. The claim of the plaintiff is clearly an afterthought to defeat the lawful claim of the company viz., Sri Sasthaa Energy Private Limited. The plaintiff has wantonly suppressed the fact that the receipt of the Excise Duty refund Cheque by the plaintiff at his address and also the fact that it is the plaintiff who has forwarded the cheque to the Defendants at their address. The actions of the plaintiff would prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the Excise Duty Refund Claim was not the reasons for which the condition in para 3 of the Hand Receipt was imposed. The plaintiff has sent several reminders to the Defendants and through Mr.T.N.Sivakumar is totally denied as false. The plaintiff sent a legal notice to the 1" Defendant is not denied. However, for the reasons best known to the plaintiff the Legal notice has not been issued to the 2nd Defendant inspite of laying various allegations against the 2 Defendant in the plaint. The claim of the plaintiff made in this plaint is not substantiated with any evidence. The plaintiff inspite of receipt of sale consideration to the tune of Rs.2,10,00,000/- has approached this Hon'ble with an ulterior motive to lay a claim on the Excise Duty paid by the company viz., Sri Sasthaa Energy Private Limited. The cause of action for filing this present suit arose at Chennai and the 9/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:31 pm ) A.S.No.217 of 2023 Defendants is put to strict proof of the same. The present suit is liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction for the reasons averred in para 3 of this written statement has been averred and acknowledged by the plaintiff that he was aware of the Excise Duty Refund Claim while executing the Hand Receipt dated 07.09.2012. While that being so, if it was the intention of the plaintiff to lay a claim on the Excise Duty the plaintiff would have specifically mentioned the same in the Hand Receipt dated 07.09.2012. However, to the contrary the same was not mentioned in the Hand Receipt. The act of the plaintiff would prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the claim of the plaintiff is totally unsustainable both in law and facts. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.
5. Based on the pleadings, the Plaintiff had examined himself as P.W-1. Examination in chief of Plaintiff as P.W-1 was filed as affidavit and the same was recorded.
6. In support of the contention of the Plaintiff in the plaint, documents were marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6. Ex.A-1 is the agreement cum hand receipt original. Ex.A-2 is the receipt for payment of Rs.30 lakhs by the Defendants on 19.09.2012. Ex.A-3 is the acknowledgment receipt for payment of Rs.30,00,000/- dated 21.09.2012 by the Defendants to the Plaintiff. Ex.A-4 is 10/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:31 pm ) A.S.No.217 of 2023 the letter dated 08.11.2012 from the Plaintiff to the Defendants reporting handing over of original documents to the Defendants. Ex.A-5 is the Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and tax dated 24.06.2019. Ex.A-6 is the lawyers’ notice issued on behalf of the Plaintiff dated 31.10.2019 seeking the refund amount refunded by the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise and taxes to the Defendants.
7. It is the contention of the Appellants that the suit as framed itself is not maintainable. Biomass Energy plant is situated at Arcot Taluk, Vellore District whereas the suit had been filed in the City Civil Court, Chennai. None of the cause of action had taken place in Chennai. The proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise and tax was at a Ranipet in Vellore District. Therefore, the suit ought to have been dismissed. But the learned Judge had decreed the suit. Further, the Defendants were made to believe by the Plaintiff that the biomass energy plant was running successfully and it will fetch gains. Believing the representation of the Plaintiff, the Defendants had purchased it. Only then they came to know that it was running to losses. After the sale of the plant, M/s. Sri Sasthaa Energy Private Limited belong to the Defendant. Therefore, the refund ordered by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and tax is in the name of the company and not to the individual, 11/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:31 pm ) A.S.No.217 of 2023 the Plaintiff herein. On that score also the suit is not maintainable.
8. After having sold the plant, M/s. Sri Sasthaa Energy Pvt Ltd, the Plaintiff has no locus standi to seek refund of the amount from the Defendants. In spite of the pleadings of the Defendants, the Plaintiff had not amended the plaint. Ex.A-1 is the hand receipt. Ex.A-1 did not contain the specific words regarding the refund of the Central Excise amount. Ex.A-1 is not a proper document. The suit is bad for non joinder of parties. The plant was six to seven years old and it was not in a running condition. The Plaintiff claims to have sent legal notice to the Defendants. But they had not produced any acknowledgment card as proof of service of notice on the Defendants. The pleadings of the Defendants in written statement was not at all considered by the learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court. As per the written statement, all the parties to the suit were not impleaded. Therefore, the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Therefore, the learned XVIII Additional Judge misdirected herself without considering the pleadings raised by the Defendant in the written statement and mechanically granted a decree in favor of the Plaintiff. The judgment of the learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court in O.S.No.446 of 2020 dated 14.03.2022 is erroneous and is to be set aside.
12/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:31 pm ) A.S.No.217 of 2023
9. Written argument filed by the Respondent are as follows:
9.1 The respondent/Plaintiff stats that he owned a private limited company by name called M/s. Sri Sasthaa Energy Private Limited involved in the business of generation of biomass energy, running the plant at Sl.No.177/2, Mambakkam Village, Arcot Taluk, Vellore District measuring an extent of Acres 2.50 cents and had power purchase agreement with the TNEB.
9.2 While the respondent/plaintiff about to sell the above said plant, the appellant/Defendant expressed their willingness to purchase the said plant.
The negotiation started between them and came to conclusion that a sum of Rs.2,10,00,000/- for sale of entire plant along with machineries. The same was accepted both appellants/Defendants. by the respondent/plaintiff and the appellants/Defendants.
9.3 On 07.09.2012 an agreement of sale cum Hand receipt was executed at Chennal and a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000 has been paid by the 1 appellant/Defendant by transferring the said amount in the respondent/plaintiff company account and it was further agreed to pay balance amount of Rs.85,00,000/- on or before 17.09.2012. As per the above said agreement 13/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:31 pm ) A.S.No.217 of 2023 dated 07.09.2012 one of the conditions as mentioned in clause-3 is that "any other benefit out of Government proceedings which took place before three months from the agreement date 07.09.2012 will belong to the plaintiff" which was signed by both the respondent/plaintiff and the appellants/Defendants in the presence of two witness viz T.N.Sivakumar & V.R.Paramasivam.
9.4 The respondent/plaintiff further states that on 17.09.2012 & 21.09.2012 the appellants/Defendants have paid the balance sum of Rs.30,00,000/- 6 Rs.30,00,000/- and subsequently the entire process of purchase of the company was over on 04.10.2013.
9.5 The respondent/plaintiff states that they already claimed refund of Excise duty from the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranipet Division for sum of Rs. 12,14,468/- and the said proceedings were pending during the sale of the said plant, only because of these proceedings a condition was imposed on the agreement cum hand receipt dated 07.09.2012 that any other benefits from the government are belonged to respondent/plaintiff.
9.6 Under these circumstances, the above said proceedings came to end in the year 2019 and a sum of Rs.11,19,193/- has been reimbursed by the 14/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:31 pm ) A.S.No.217 of 2023 Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Tax in the company account which was purchased by the appellants/Defendants. But having received the said amount the appellants/Defendants have not returned the same to the respondent/plaintiff as per the agreement of sale cum hand receipt dated 07.09.2012.
9.7 As the above said amount is due for a long period of time and the appellants/Defendants have not responded to the reminders made by the respondent/plaintiff as well as by witness person Mr.T.N.Sivakumar on several the appellant/Defendant to repay the said amount of Rs.11.19.193/- refunded occasion. On 31.10.2019 the respondent/plaintiff has issued legal notice to by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Tax which belongs to the respondent/plaintiff within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Having received the said legal notice dated 31.10.2019 the appellant/Defendant has not chosen either to reply for the same not returned the money.
9.8 Hence, the respondent/plaintiff was constrained to approach the learned XVIII Additional Court at Chennai for recovery of money in O.S.No.446/2020 and the appellants/Defendants resisted the same by filing 15/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:31 pm ) A.S.No.217 of 2023 their written statement stating that there is no jurisdiction to file the suit in Chennai and after full-fledged trial the suit was allowed.
9.9 As against the same the present first appeal is filed by the appellants/Defendants.
10. Points for consideration as raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondent:
a) The appellant/Defendant has accepted the execution of agreement of sale cum hand receipt dated 07.09.2012 and the clause-3 mentioned in the said agreement, which was marked as Ex-A-1.
b) The appellants/Defendants have received the legal notice dated 31.10.2019 issued by the respondent/Plaintiff which was marked as Ex-A-6 and have not chosen to reply for the same.
Point for determination:
i. Whether the suit is maintainable before the City Civil Court? ii. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to refund of the excise duty? 16/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:31 pm ) A.S.No.217 of 2023 iii. Whether the Hand receipt cum agreement contain clause regarding refund of excise duty?
11. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr.A.G.Sathyanarayanan and the learned Counsel for the Respondent Thiru. J. Rajmohan. Perused the original records. Perused the judgment of the learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court in O.S.No.446 of 2020 dated 14.02.2022.
12. On perusal of Ex.A-1, it is found to be a hand receipt cum agreement dated 07.09.2012 in the letter pad of the M/s.Sri Sasthaa Energy Pvt Ltd signed by the Plaintiff herein, G.R.Kannan as Managing Director in M/s.Sri Sasthaa Energy Pvt Ltd and also signed by Defendants 1 and 2 under the heading major points for discussion, which is extracted hereunder as follows:
1. Total outright price of the land, plant, machinery, the buildings, movable and fixed equipments are inclusive in the sales for which a list will be issued separately.
2. The Revenue due to the sales of Electric Energy produced and sold to third party until 13.09.12 will be to the account of the seller and thereafter it will be accounted to the new promoters 17/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:31 pm ) A.S.No.217 of 2023 account.
3. As regards the stock of the raw material at the plant namely casuarina wood brickets and coconut Shell, the cost will be reimbursed by the buyer to the seller by cash based on the purchase bill. Also any other benefits out of Government proceedings which took before 3 months from today are belong to the present seller.
4. Other remaining formalities like transfer of shares of the company to the buyer and handing over the related documents vide the List which will be furnished will all be carried by the seller in a shortest time (before 20.09.12).
As a witness of this agreement and subsequent discussion Mr.T.N.Sivakumar of M/s. Electronics & Controls Corporation, Coimbatore was also present and token of which he has also signed.
13. The proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner dated 24.06.2019, Central Excise, from the proceedings dated 24.09.2012 it is found that M/s. Sri Sasthaa Energy Private Limited, Door No.2/4, Cauvery Street, Kalakshetra Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai herein after referred to as claimant, submitted 18/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:31 pm ) A.S.No.217 of 2023 a letter dated 15.11.2018 requesting for refund of Central Excise duty. The Claimant had originally submitted refund claim dated 25.10.2010 for Rs.12,14,468/- with the Office of the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise and Tax on 10.11.2010, requesting a refund of excise duty. Therefore, it is the claim of the Plaintiff that the amount paid by him as excise duty had to be refunded, as it was already paid by him, and hence, the amount is to be refunded to him. As per the written statement, the Defendants claim that they had purchased the Biomass Energy Plant and therefore the Claimant is not entitled to a refund of the amount. It is the claim of the Defendants that the Company M/s.Sri Sasthaa Energy Pvt Ltd had made a claim for refund of Excise duty. Further it is contended that there was no discussion between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on excise duty entitled to the Plaintiff. The Defendant in the written statement claimed that the Excise duty was refunded by way of cheque drawn in the name of M/s.Sri Sasthaaa Energy Pvt Ltd. Cheque was sent by Post/Courier to the old registered office that existed before the transfer of company. The said cheque and the order of refund was received by the Plaintiff at his present address and cheque was sent to the Defendant at Coimbatore. Except the legal notice issued by the Plaintiff, there was no further letter correspondence.
19/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:31 pm ) A.S.No.217 of 2023
14. On perusal of the judgment, it is found that the learned Judge had in the discussion on issues 1 to 3 in the judgment stated as follows:
12. As far as the issue whether the claim of the plaintiff with regard to any other benefit out of Government proceedings which takes place three months from the agreement dated of 07.09.2012 will belong to the plaintiff. It is essential to consider Ex.A-1 on the whole. In Ex.A-1 page no.2 paragraph 3 there is a mention of the words “also any other benefits out of Government proceedings which took before three months from today or belong to the person seller”. The said words in the hand receipt has not been denied. However, it is the case of the Defendant that the said condition pertains to the refund of excise duty claim and that if at all it pertain to the same there would have been a specific mention in Ex.A-1. It is needless to state that by way of producing Ex.A-1 the plaintiff was able to establish the initial presumption. However the duty of the Defendant is to rebut the said presumption by way of raising a probable defense the Defendant who denies the fact that the words any other benefit out of Government proceedings and that it does not pertain to the excise refund, has not put forth before court that, apart from the excise refund there were other benefits which were due from the Government proceedings prior to three months from the date of hand receipt. Therefore this Court is of the view that the defense raised by the Defendant does not appear to be a probable one.
Merely because the Ex.A-1 does not find place in particular words that the said part of wordings in Ex.A-1 pertains to the 20/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:31 pm ) A.S.No.217 of 2023 Central Excise refund and in the absence of the Defendant putting the claim that there were other refunds from the Government, this Court is of the considered view that the defence plea does not appear to be a reasonable and probable one.
15. The Plaintiff having initiated the refund proceedings by filing application before the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise in the year 2010, he was expecting refund of the amount. But the refund of amount was ordered only in the year 2019. It was initiated by the Plaintiff in the year 2010 dated 25.10.2010 as per the proceedings dated 24.06.2019. Therefore, he was expecting the amount any time. Therefore, the wordings, “any other benefit out of government proceedings which took place before three months from the agreement dated 07.09.2012 belong to the Plaintiff” includes the claim petition preferred by the M/s.Sri Sasthaa Energy Pvt Ltd for refund of Excise duty for which the petition was filed in the year 2010. Therefore, the claim of the Plaintiff is found justified. When the Plaintiff was examined as PW1 in the cross examination, he had admitted that Ex.A-5 is the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner regarding refund of the amount. Ex.A-5 dated 24.06.2019 was also admitted by him. But it will not be considered against the Plaintiff because the Plaint was filed in the year 2010 which is prior to the date of proceedings under Ex.A-5. Therefore, the Plaintiff had sought refund of the 21/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:31 pm ) A.S.No.217 of 2023 amount. The Defendant in his cross examination admitted that the registered office of the company was at Chennai Thiruvanmiyur, the residence of the Plaintiff. He had admitted that there is a clause in Ex.A-1, “any other benefit out of government proceedings which took place before three months from the agreement dated 07.09.2012 belong to the Plaintiff”
16. The Defendant-1 as D.W-1 in his cross examination had admitted that the Plaintiff had issued legal notice directing him to refund the amount. The suggestion that since the amount was due to the Plaintiff was why the Defendant had not preferred any Appeal was also projected by him. Therefore, on proper appreciation of evidence, the learned Judge arrived at a conclusion that the Office of the Company, M/s. Sri Sasthaa Energy Pvt Ltd being the residence of the Plaintiff at Tiruvanmiyur within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Cour. Therefore, the suit as framed by the Plaintiff is maintainable. The date mentioned in Ex.A-5 is 24.06.2019, but steps taken by the Plaintiff for the refund of the amount was on 25.10.2010.
17. The cause of action is at Chennai as the transaction took place at Chennai. Office of the Sri Sasthaa Energy Pvt Ltd is situated at Cauvery Street, Kalakshethra Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai. That is the Corporate 22/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:31 pm ) A.S.No.217 of 2023 ofice of the Company. That is, part of the cause of action occurred at Chennai. Therefore, the claim made by the Defendant, "that none of the part of the transaction took place at Chennai," therefore, the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction, is rejected.
18. On perusal of the judgment of the learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, it is found to be a well reasoned judgment that does not warrant interference by this Court. Therefore, the points for determination is answered in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the judgment of the learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court with cost. The judgment of the learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court is not perverse and does not warrant any interference by this Court. There shall be no order as to costs.
03.06.2025 Shl Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order 23/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:31 pm ) A.S.No.217 of 2023 SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
shl To
1. The XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court
2. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Madras.
Judgment made in A.S.No.217 of 2023 03.06.2025 24/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:31 pm )