← Library
Madras High CourtA/8241/2019dismissed

Ms Infoplus Technology Private v. The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited And 2 Others

2019-12-10Honourable Dr Justice G. Jayachandran4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN A.No.8241 of 2019 in C.S.NO.126 OF 2014 1.The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai, Chennai -02 represented by its Deputy General Manager, (Enterprises Business) Office of the Chief General Manager, Telecom BSNL Tamil Nadu Circle, Ethiraj Salai, Chennai 600 008.

2.The General Manager, Telecom BSNL, South By-pass Road, Vannarapettai, Tirunelveli 627 003. ...Plaintiffs -vs1.M/s. Infoplus Technology Private Limited, Rep.by its Director, Mr.R.Siva, having office at, 61, Development Block Estate, Perungudi, Chennai 96.

2.Anna University, Represented by its Registrar, Guindy, Chennai 32. ...Defendants A.No.8241 of 2019:

M/s.Infoplus Technology Private Limited, Rep.by its Director, R.Siva, having office at, 61, Development Block, Estate, Perungudi, Chennai 96.

..Applicant/1st Defendant Vs.

1.The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Tamil Nadu Circle, Rep. by its DGM (Enterprises Business) Office of the Chief General Manager, Telecom BSNL Tamil Nadu Circle, Ethiraj Salai, Chennai-600 008.

2.The General Manager, Telecom BSNL, South Bypass Road, Vannarapettai, Tirunelveli 627 003. ...Respondents/Plaintiffs 3.Anna University, Rep. by its Registrar, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. ...Respondent/2nd Defendant Application praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 368 days in filing the Application to set aside the exparte decree dated 06.06.2018 passed in C.S.No.126/2014.

Application coming on this day before this Court for hearing, the Court made the following order: The suit is of the year 2014 filed for recovery of money was decreed and exparte on 06.06.2018. After affording several opportunities to the defendants but earlier engaged counsel by filing vakalat but failed to contest the matter. After passing the decree, the decree holder/plaintiff has caused notice to the defendants for honouring the decree. Thereafter, the defendants have come out with this application to condone delay of 368 days to file application to set aside the exparte decree. If the petitioner, in the affidavit accompanied with this application has stated that, though engaging a counsel due

to the pre-occupation with some other work, they could not instruct the counsel and only after the notice from the decree holder, they came to know about the exparte decree.

2. It is seen from the affidavit that, the defendants have not taken any interest in defending the case and after suffers a decree, had come out with invented story by filing an application to condone the delay of 368 days.

3. The Learned Counsel for the decree holder/plaintiff would submit that, the defendants were actively conducting the case but wantonly to avoid adverse judgment, they keep on shifting the residence and evading notice. Even after the decree, they come forward to pay the decreetal amount but try to protract the proceedings by filing present application to condone the delay. It is also pointed out by the decree holder/plaintiff that, even now the defendants have not exposed their bonafide without filing the written statement. They only sought for condonation of delay in setting aside the exparte decree.

4.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant and the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

5. The Plaintiff/BSNL is a Government undertaking enterprises, which has engaged the applicant/defendant to

conduct e-governing examination of the various affiliated colleges under the Anna University. Being the successful bidder, had failed to honour the contract and thereby caused loss to the plaintiff' to tune of Rs.1,09,66,382/-.

6. In such circumstances, when the suit was filed, the defendants have deliberately evaded notice and even after receipt of the notice and engaging the counsel, they did not contest the suit. Hence, this Court is of the view that, there is no merit in the application to condone the delay of 368 days. Accordingly, the Application No.8241 of 2019 is dismissed. With costs.

Sd./-G.J.J 10.12.2019 //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2019. JJ 19/12/2019 COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.