Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 87 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Virgo Industries (Eng) P.Ltd vs M/S Venturetech Solutions P.Ltd on 7 September, 2012

S.Thirugnanasambandam vs P.Kaliyaperumal on 30 April, 2013

19. In the case on hand, on the date of filing of the earlier suit, namely O.S.No.372/2002, the time stipulated in the agreement had expired. In addition, there was a notice and reply, which exhibit that the claim of the first respondent herein/plaintiff was refuted and denied by the appellant herein/defendant and the cause of action for filing the suit for specific performance had arisen along with the cause of action for filing of the earlier suit for permanent injunction. Still the first respondent herein/plaintiff chose to file the earlier suit only for permanent injunction, that too without seeking the leave of the court under Order II Rule 2(3) to file a separate suit for the relief of specific performance. The ratio decided in Virgo Industries (Eng.) P. Ltd. Vs. Venturetech Solutions P. Ltd. squarely applies to the case on hand. In view of the above said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the view expressed by the learned single judge of this court no longer reflects the correct proposition of law. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to the conclusion that the present suit for specific performance, namely O.S.No.2/2005 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Cuddalore is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC because of the filing of the earlier suit, namely O.S.No.372/2002 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore. The first substantial question of law is answered accordingly.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 6 - P R Shivakumar - Full Document

S.Varadhan vs S.Rathinam (Died) on 3 July, 2025

(P) Ltd., vs. Venturetech Solutions (P) Ltd.,], (iii) (2014) 6 SCC 424 [Coffee Board vs. Ramesh Exports Privage Limited], (iv) 2023 SCC OnLine SC 255 [Ashutosh Samanta (D) by Lrs and others vs. SM. Ranjan Bala Dasi and others], (v) (2008) 14 SCC 754 [Babu Singh vs. Ram Sahai], (vi) Manu/TN/2920/2022 [Malliga v. P. Kumaran] and (vii) (2021) 11 SCC 277 [Shivakumar vs. Sharanabasappa] will not be applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, the above rulings are rejected. Accordingly, the 32/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/07/2025 04:06:58 pm ) S.A.Nos.448 and 638 of 2013 submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondents relying on the rulings are to be rejected.
Madras High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - S S Kumar - Full Document

Neela Sports Development And ... vs Vadhula Engineering Co.Pvt Limited on 1 February, 2023

18. In Virgo Industries (Eng.) (P) Ltd. [Virgo Industries (Eng.) (P) Ltd. v. Venturetech Solutions (P) Ltd., (2013) 1 SCC 625 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 679] , the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 came up for consideration 17/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS.No.839 of 2009 before a two-Judge Bench of this Court. The Court observed : (SCC p. 631, para 10) “10. The object behind the enactment of Order 2 Rules 2(2) and (3) CPC is not far to seek. The Rule engrafts a laudable principle that discourages/prohibits vexing the defendant again and again by multiple suits except in a situation where one of the several reliefs, though available to a plaintiff, may not have been claimed for a good reason. A later suit for such relief is contemplated only with the leave of the court which leave, naturally, will be granted upon due satisfaction and for good and sufficient reasons.”
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - S S Sundar - Full Document

N.A.Chinnasamy vs S.Vellingirinathan on 9 October, 2013

36. In Virgo Industries (Eng.) (P) Ltd., v. Venturetech Solutions (P) Ltd., reported in (2013) 1 SCC 625, relying on Vithalbhai (P) Ltd., v. Union Bank of India, (2005) 4 SCC 315, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that the object behind the enactment of the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, is to prevent multiplicity of litigations on the same cause of action. The true object of the law would not stand fully subserved by holding that the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC will apply only if the first suit is disposed of and not in a situation where the second suit has been filed during the pendency of the first suit. It has been made clear that Order 2 Rule 2 CPC will apply to both the aforesaid situations.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 32 - S Tamilvanan - Full Document

Neela Sports Development And ... vs Vadhula Engineering Co.Pvt Limited on 1 February, 2023

18. In Virgo Industries (Eng.) (P) Ltd. [Virgo Industries (Eng.) (P) Ltd. v. Venturetech Solutions (P) Ltd., (2013) 1 SCC 625 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 679] , the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 came up for consideration 17/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS.No.839 of 2009 before a two-Judge Bench of this Court. The Court observed : (SCC p. 631, para 10) “10. The object behind the enactment of Order 2 Rules 2(2) and (3) CPC is not far to seek. The Rule engrafts a laudable principle that discourages/prohibits vexing the defendant again and again by multiple suits except in a situation where one of the several reliefs, though available to a plaintiff, may not have been claimed for a good reason. A later suit for such relief is contemplated only with the leave of the court which leave, naturally, will be granted upon due satisfaction and for good and sufficient reasons.”
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S S Sundar - Full Document

K.Vijayalakshmi vs A.Prakash on 25 January, 2022

13. A reading of the plaint in the case on hand shows that the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that he is unable to seek the relief for recovery of money because of the non-cooperation of the defendants in having the property measured. In view of such statement having been made in the plaint, I do not think the Trial Court was wrong in granting the permission. No doubt the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that such permission should be granted only for sufficient reasons in Virgo Industries (Eng.) P. Ltd v. Venturetech Solutions P. Ltd, referred to supra. I find that sufficient reasons do exist in the case on hand to justify the conclusion of the Trial Court.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

T.P.Natarajan vs P.Selvakumar on 27 November, 2014

16. The other decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, reported in 2013 (1) SCC 625 (Virgo Industries (Eng.) (P) Ltd. Vs. Venturetech Solutions (P) Ltd), refers about the scope of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and it has been found therein in paragraph 17 that Order 2 Rule 2 CPC will apply to both the situations, where the first suit was disposed of and the second suit has been filed during the pendency of the first suit. I am of the view that the above decision is not relevant for the present facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly when recent decisions of the Apex Court as referred to supra, reported in 2014 (12) SCALE 386 (cited supra) and 2014 (12) SCALE 435 (cited supra), are directly covering the present issue in favour of the plaintiffs.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - K R Baabu - Full Document

U.B.Shanmugam vs S.Sadagopan (Deceased)

23. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants 13 to 16 had relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Virgo Industries (Eng.) P., Ltd., vs. Venturetech Solutions P. Ltd reported in 2013(1) MWN (Civil) 224. The Hon'ble Apex Court analyzing the provisions of Order II Rule 2, placing reliance on the various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court preceding the said judgment, had in clear terms held on the facts of the case, the subsequent Suit as being barred under Order II, Rule 2(3). The facts of the case was that the plaintiff therein had originally filed Suits in the year 2005, seeking for a permanent injunction and that he had filed a subsequent suit in the year 2007 for grant of relief of specific performance. The Court therein after analyzing the cause of action in both the suits had given a categorical finding https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis that even at the time of filing the first suit in the year 2005, the plaintiff therein Page No. 18 of 21 C.S.No.879 of 2005 had a cause of action to sue the defendants for a specific performance, but had omitted to do so. Even though a leave was sought for by the plaintiff therein, no such leave was granted by the Court and since that no leave had been granted to the plaintiff therein, the Hon'ble Apex Court had come to a conclusion that subsequent suit was barred under Order II, Rule 2(3) and had directed striking off the plaint in the subsequent Suit.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next