OSA/96/2022 of Spellbound Vs The Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Lim on 7 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.) Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge directing the appellant to furnish the Bank Guarantee for the suit claim to the satisfaction of the plaintiff on or before 18.04.2022, the present appeal has been filed.

2. The suit has been originally filed by the first respondent for recovery of rental charges and damages for a sum of Rs.1,08,40,760/- for breach of contract. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has agreed to pay the rental charges for the area during the Tourist and Industrial Fare organised every year. The defendant has executed the agreement, as the defendant has failed to pay the amount as agreed, the plaintiff claimed damages. In the meanwhile, the defendant has also sought to dismantle its machineries from the area, in respect of which a writ petition was also filed. In the writ petition, it appears that the defendant was directed to furnish the Bank Guarantee, on such Bank Guarantee, the defendant was permitted to remove the machineries. As against which, writ appeal was filed and the same was withdrawn and since the earlier order was not complied, the learned Single Judge directed the defendant to furnish the Bank Guarantee for the suit claim to the satisfaction of the plaintiff. Challenging the said order, the present appeal is filed.

3. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

4. In light of the above, now the point arise that arise for consideration in this appeal is In a suit for damages which is not ascertained, whether security

OSA No. 96 of 2022

could be ordered?

5. Admittedly, the suit has been filed for recovery of rental charges and damages on the ground of breach of contract. The damages has to be established only in the evidence; in the absence of any evidence, security or direction to furnish the security to the value of the suit claim cannot be ordered as a matter or right. No doubt, in the earlier writ proceedings, the appellant has sought permission for dismantling the machineries and the appellant was permitted to dismantle the machineries on furnishing the Bank Guarantee, however, the Bank Guarantee has not been furnished, therefore, machineries of the appellant has also not been removed. At this stage, once again in the suit directing the appellant to furnish the Bank Guarantee for such huge amount in our view is not proper. Since the suit is not only with regard to the recovery of certain rental charges, the major relief is with regard to the damages and as long as the damages has not been established, as a matter of right, security cannot be ordered.

6. Admittedly, the machineries of the appellant has not been dismantled and is still in the control of the respondent. Now, it is stated by both sides that the suit is at the trial stage and PW1 is also examined. Such view of the matter, we are of the view that the suit itself could be disposed of. In the event of decree being granted in favour of the respondent, the respondent can proceed to recover the same in the manner known to law and that will take care of the interest of the respondent.

OSA No. 96 of 2022

7. Accordingly, this original side appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The learned Master is directed to complete the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment and send the matter to the learned Single Judge. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. (N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 26-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dhk To The General Manager The Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Limited Tamilnadu Tourism Complex, No.2 Walajah Road, Near Kalaivanar Arangam, Chennai-600 002.

OSA No. 96 of 2022

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR, J. dhk OSA No. 96 of 2022 26-10-2026