A.No.4430 of 2022

in C.S.No.43 of 2022

Reserved on

03.04.2023

Delivered on

05.06.2023

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

The instant application has been filed to implead the second respondent

herein as the second defendant in the suit.

2.Heard Ms.Chitra Sampath, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.T.S.Baskaran,

learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Arun Karthik Mohan, learned counsel for

the first respondent and Mr.P.Muthusamy, learned counsel for the second

respondent for M/s.Anand, Samy and Dhruva.

3.Ms.Chitra Sampath, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the

applicant would submit that the applicant/plaintiff had a benefit of a Judgment

passed by the Industrial Tribunal of Paris and also an Award passed by the

1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Journalists Arbitration Commission of Paris. The suit had been filed seeking to

confirm the Judgment and the Award stated supra and to consequently direct the

defendant to make the payment to the applicant/plaintiff as per the Judgment and

Award. The first respondent herein had filed a written statement in the aforesaid

suit indicating that the first respondent had demerged its publishing business

undertaking in favour of the second respondent herein pursuant to the Award of the

National Company Law Tribunal dated 28.08.2017 and that they would not be

liable to pay the amount awarded either under the Judgment or under the Award.

Therefore, the present application has been made seeking to implead the second

respondent herein as the second defendant in order to enforce the Foreign

Judgment against the successors in interest of the first respondent/defendant.

Learned Senior Counsel would submit that if the application is not ordered, the

applicant would be finding it difficult to implement the Award passed in her favour.

2/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4.Mr.Arun Karthik Mohan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first

respondent would submit that in the present suit as against the first respondent,

there is no lis as it had already transferred to a successor in interest prior in time to

the exparte Foreign Order and that such transfer included the liabilities of the first

respondent. He would further justify that the order dated 28.08.2017 sanctioning

demerger of the first respondent publishing business undertaking in favour of the

second respondent is a matter of public knowledge and therefore impleading the

first respondent is wholly misconceived and the non joinder of the second

respondent would render the suit to be dismissed in limine. He would also submit

that the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal of Paris as well as the Journalists

Arbitration Commission were made against a person who was no more in law

carrying on that business and therefore, they are non-est in law. He would further

plead that the respondent name is liable to struck off in the cause title of the present

suit and the plaintiff is liable to reimburse the first respondent for all indirect and

direct expenses incurred in the present suit.

3/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5.Mr.P.Muthusamy, learned counsel for the second respondent would submit

that the second respondent had taken over a publishing business undertaking as

early as on 28.08.2017 and the applicant cannot claim ignorance of such demerger

and the Judgment in favour of the applicant as against the first respondent cannot

be impleaded as against the second respondent as the second respondent had not

received any notice of the aforesaid legal proceedings. Neither the plaintiff nor the

first respondent had brought to the notice of the second respondent as to the

pendency of such proceedings and the purported liability under the said

proceedings. He would further submit that the Judgments that have been made in

favour of the applicant are judgments in personam and it will be not binding upon

the second respondent and hence, he would seek