Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 98957 (MAD)

J.David Arockiasamy v. C. Subbulakshmi

A/5771/2024 · 2025-03-20

K Kumaresh Babu

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

A NO. 5771 of 2024 in C.S.SR No.144468 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-03-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU A NO. 5771 of 2024 in C.S.SR No.144468 of 2024 J.David Arockiasamy S/o.Y.Joseph, D.No.58/29, Pudupet Garden Street, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. Applicant Vs C. Subbulakshmi W/o.Chandrasekaran, Proprietrix of C.Subbulakshmi - Contractor, D.No.4/578-1, Thirumalaikeni Nagar, Chettinaickenpatti, Collectorate Post, Dindigul 624 004., Having place of business at No.28 AKMG Nagar, Old Karur Road, Near Axis Bank, Dindigul 624 001. Respondent For Applicant: Mr.S. Senthil For Respondent: Mr.V.Regunathan for Mr.R.Kannan ORDER The instant application is an application to grant leave to the applicant/plaintiff to sue the respondent/defendant. 2. It is the claim of the learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff that 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the defendant resides in Dindigul, outside the jurisdiction of this Court and that the respondent/defendant, through her son, had requested the applicant/plaintiff for providing hand loan. Since the respondent/defendant's son was a friend of the applicant/plaintiff, the applicant transferred the amounts to the respondent's bank account on various dates and he had transferred a total sum of Rs.3,91,71,500/-(Rupees Three Crores Ninety One Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Five Hundred Only), of which, the respondent/defendant made a repayment of Rs.2,80,00,000/- (Two Crores Eighty Lakhs Only) and that as on 17.04.2024, the respondent/defendant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,11,71,500/- (Rupees One Crore Eleven Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Five Hundred Only). Learned counsel submits that the entire transaction had been made by the applicant/plaintiff only from from his bank account at Chennai to the account of the respondent/defendant and similarly, the respondent/defendant has been making repayments to the applicant/plaintiff through his bank account. 3. Lastly, when a cheque has been issued by the respondent/defendant, which when presented for collection, was dishonoured indicating the reason as “Account Closed”. Hence, the applicant/plaintiff has caused legal notice. On 20.09.2024. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff submits 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis that the entire cause of action much less part of cause of action arose in the jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, learned counsel prays to grant leave to the applicant/plaintiff to sue the respondent/defendant, who resides outside jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Countering his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant would submit that there was no transaction between the applicant/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant and also denies the issuance of the cheque, as claimed by the applicant/plaintiff. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent/defendant's son C.Sriram used to get respondent/defendant's signature in the cheques for security during the Government's tender process and the respondent/defendant's son late C.Sriram used to lend money to the applicant/plaintiff by obtaining property documents as security. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant would further submit that it is not known as to how the applicant/plaintiff had been in possession of the cheque of the respondent/defendant. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent/defendant is the permanent resident of Dindigul and is a Government contractor for many years and at present, the 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondent/defendant is inflicted with brain tumour and has been hospitalised for several months. Learned counsel further submits that there is no cause of action for the applicant/plaintiff to initiate a suit against the respondent/defendant and even assuming that the amounts have been paid, as claimed by the applicant/plaintiff, the same will be the subject matter of the dispute at Dindigul and therefore, the Courts at Dindigul alone will have cause of action. Hence, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant seeks for dismissal of the application. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and have perused the materials available on record. 7. The present application had been filed to institute a suit before this Court as the defendant is residing outside jurisdiction of this Court on a cause of action which arose out of the money transaction between the applicant/petitioner and the respondent/defendant. 8. It is the case of the applicant/plaintiff that the moneys were all paid from Chennai to the account at Dindigul and repayments were also made to the Bank account of the applicant/plaintiff directly by the 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondent/defendant. It is also his case that the respondent's son, who was a friend of the applicant/plaintiff, had requested the applicant/plaintiff to provide hand loans to his mother, who is the respondent herein. 9. However, it is the case of the respondent/defendant that she had not received any money from the applicant and the cheque which had been given to her son, has been misused by the applicant/plaintiff. 10. The merits of the suit cannot be dealt with by this Court at the present stage and such disputes are matters for trial. The applicant/plaintiff had produced statement of accounts of branch at Chennai, evidencing payment to the respondent/defendant and receipt of payment from the respondent/defendant. 11. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that atleast a part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. 12. In fine, this application is allowed and leave is granted to the applicant/plaintiff to sue the respondent/defendant before this Court. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis K.KUMARESH BABU.J., sr 13. As a corollary, Registry is directed to number the suit, it if is otherwise in order. 20-03-2025 To 1. C. Subbulakshmi W/o.Chandrasekaran, Proprietrix of C.Subbulakshmi - Contractor, D.No.4/578-1, Thirumalaikeni Nagar, Chettinaickenpatti, Collectorate Post, Dindigul 624 004., Having place of business at No.28 AKMG Nagar, Old Karur Road, Near Axis Bank, Dindigul 624 001. A No. 5771 of 2024 in C.S.SR No.144468 of 2024 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis