Madras High Court
OSA/48/2022 of M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs Arun Thambuswamy on 7 October 2026
OSA No. 48 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GK.MUTHUKUMAAR
OSA No. 48 of 2022
CNR:{HCMA010271612022}
AND
CMP NO. 3256 OF 2022
1. M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Registered Office Bharat Bhavan, 4 and 6, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, P.B..NO.688, MumbaI 400 001.
2. M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., BPEC - Site Rent, Western Regional Office, Plot No.6, Sector - 2 Kharghar, Navi Mumbai - 410 210
3. The Territory Manager (Retail) Chennai, M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, No.35, Vaidyanathan Street, Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 081.
4. M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., No.1, Ranganathan Gardens, Off.11th Main Road Anna Nagar, (West)
Chennai 600 040.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Arun Thambuswamy
No.22, Appa Garden Street,
Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.
2. Mr.Ashok Thambuswamy
No.2B, Palace Rengency,
90, Purasawalkam High Road,
Kellys, Chennai 600 010.
OSA No. 48 of 2022
3. Mrs.Geetha Johnson
No.8 A, Palace Regency,
90, Purasawalkam High Road,
Kellys, Chennai 600 010.
4. Mrs.Shobha Thambuswamy
No.22, Appa Garden Street,
Kilpauk, Chennai 10
5. Mrs.Veronica Thambuswamy
No.2B, Palace Regency,
90, Purasawalkam High Road,
Kellys, Chennai 600 010.
..Respondent(s)
This original side appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Order 36 Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules seeking to set aside the order dated 17/02/2022 passed in A.No.4867/2021 in CS.No.372/2021 and thereby render justice.
For Appellant(s):
Mr.Krishna Srinivasan,
Senior Advocate for
M/s.Ramasubramaniam & Associates
For Respondent(s):
RR1,2,4 and 5 No appearance
R3 No more
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Judgment
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.) This original side appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 17.02.2022 directing the appellants herein /respondents in the application to furnish security.
OSA No. 48 of 2022
2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that no proper reason has been made while passing the impugned order. The learned counsel further submitted that after the trial, the suit has been posted for final arguments and in fact, the matter has been argued before the concerned Roster Judge and in view of the change of roster, now the suit has to be argued afresh. Further, the impugned order has been passed with no proper reason and hence, the learned senior counsel sought for setting aside the said impugned order.
3. This court heard the submissions made by learned senior counsel for the appellants and perused the materials available on record.
4. The point that arise for consideration in this appeal is whether the impugned order passed by the learned single judge is without reasons and can be sustained in the eye of law?
5. Despite the name of the respondents 1,2,4 and 5 are printed in the cause list, none appeared for them. It is to be noted that an application has been filed by the respondents herein in C.S.No.372 of 2021 seeking to grant leave to sue the first and second respondents therein and to direct the respondents therein to furnish security for a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs to the applicants. When the application came up for hearing on 17.02.2022, the learned single judge noting that no counter has been filed by the respondents in the application directed the respondents therein to furnish security. But while passing such order, no proper reason has been assigned. It is further to be noted that the suit itself has now reached the final stage and it is in the final stage of argument. Hence, this court
OSA No. 48 of 2022
is of the view that mere giving a direction to furnish security within a time frame and that too without proper reason is not valid and it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the point is answered. The impugned order dated 17.02.2022 made in A.No.4867 of 2021 in C.S.No.372 of 2021 is set aside. This court is of the view that as the suit has reached the final stage of hearing, the learned single Judge having roster is requested to dispose of the suit on merits. This original side appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No VVK
OSA No. 48 of 2022
N.SATHISH KUMAR J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR J. VVK OSA No. 48 of 2022 AND CMP NO. 3256 OF 2022 07-10-2026