M/S.Sri Ayyappan Constructions v. The Chief Engineer And 2 Others

Application No.3784 of 2019 in C.S.No.SR.68013 of 2019 KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J., The present Application has been filed seeking to grant leave to sue the second defendant and third defendant in the suit. The suit is filed for following reliefs:

(i) to declare that the plaintiff is entitled to the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.296, Finance (Salaries) Department, dated 09.10.2017 in respect of the CR.Agreement No.3/2016-2017, dated 31.08.2016 and (ii) for a mandatory direction directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.27,12,055/- being the amounts payable by the defendants to the plaintiff as GST within the time frame fixed by this Court.

2.1. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant is carrying on the business of constructing bridges and laying roads and the respondents are in charge of laying, repairing and improvements of roads in and around Tamil Nadu and they do all the works by engaging contractors by inviting tenders.

2.2. He would also submit that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.28 Highways and Minor Ports (HW1) Department dated 11.02.2016, for construction of roads and bridges including at Kilometre 64/8 of Thirukattupalli, Sengipatti Pattukottai Road, including the construction of retaining wall and thereafter, passed another G.O.Ms.No.296, Finance (Salaries) Department, dated 09.10.2017.

2.3. The learned counsel fairly submitted that the first respondent is the person who has to direct the respondents 2 & 3 to apply G.O.Ms.296, Finance (Salaries) Department dated 09.10.2017 and he is the authority who

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J., mrr has to approve the calculation and allot the funds and the respondents 2 & 3 will only execute the orders of the first respondent. He further submitted that the first respondent is within the jurisdiction of this Court whereas the respondents 2 & 3 are outside the jurisdiction of this Court and for the purpose of this suit, the first respondent is a person who is responsible to act upon, if the decree is granted by this Court. 2.4. He would also submit that the present contract is entirely performed at Thirukattupalli, Sengipatti, Pattukottai since that is only a part of cause of action and for the purpose of the suit, the part of obligation is to be performed in Chennai by the first respondent because Chennai is the place where the major part of the cause of action has arisen.

3. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also having been satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Application, this Application is ordered as prayed for.

4. Registry is directed to number the suit, if it is otherwise in order and after numbering the suit, post the same for hearing. 11.06.2019 mrr Application No.3784 of 2019 in C.S.No.SR.68013 of 2019