IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 18.02.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN A.S.No.590 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.10833 of 2025

1.P.Suresh Kumar

2.P.Rajendra Kumar

3.P.Vimal Kumar

4.M/s.Balaji Automotive, Represented by its Partners, P.Suresh Kumar, P.Rajendra Kumar and Vimal Kumar, No.570, T.H. Road, Old Washermenpet, Chennai – 600 021. ... Appellants Vs.

B.Sujatha ... Respondent Prayer : Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2024 passed in O.S.No.3477 of

2024 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Appellants : Mr.B.Arvind Srevatsa For Respondent : Mr.K.S.Jeyaganeshan

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment was delivered by V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.)

The present Appeal challenges the judgment and decree in O.S.No.3477 of 2024, dated 21.12.2024. The appellants before us are the defendants in the suit.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranking in the suit.

3.The plaintiff presented O.S.No.3477 of 2024 as an under-chapter suit/summary suit invoking Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff was a partner in a firm, in the name and style of “M/s.Balaji Automotives”. She and one Kalyananarayanan joined the firm consisting of defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff and Kalyananarayanan invested a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- in the business of the firm between July and August, 2020. On account of the differences of opinion between the plaintiff, Kalyananarayanan and one P.Rajendra Kumar, the 2^nd defendant, the parties decided to part ways. Accordingly, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was entered into between the plaintiff, defendants and Kalyananarayanan. It was entered into on 18.05.2023. In the terms of the MoU, the defendants 1 to 4 were called upon to return 80% of the value invested by the plaintiff and Kalyananarayanan. The defendants agreed that the plaintiff would be paid Rs.40,00,000/- and Kalyananarayanan would be paid Rs.60,00,000/-. In due discharge of the MoU, the plaintiff alleged that the 2^nd defendant had issued three cheques for Rs.16,00,000/-, Rs.12,00,000/- and Rs.12,00,000/- respectively drawn on three different dates, viz., 16.08.2023, 16.11.2023, 16.02.2024.

4.When the cheques were presented for encashment, they were returned with an endorsement “kindly contact the drawer”. When the plaintiff contacted the defendants 1 to 3, they assured that they will clear the dues within two weeks. Unfortunately, they did not do so. The same was the situation with respect to the second cheque dated 16.11.2023 and the third cheque dated 16.02.2024. Being a commercial transaction, the plaintiff presented a suit for recovery of money as an under-chapter suit/summary suit.

5.Summons were served on the defendants. They filed an application seeking leave to defend the suit.

6.In the leave to defend application filed by all the four defendants, the defendants accepted that a partnership firm was formed and on account of the huge loss suffered by the firm and due to the misunderstanding between the 2^nd defendant and one Natarajan, the husband of the plaintiff, an agreement was entered into for retirement of the newly inducted partners. They accepted that Rs.60,00,000/- was agreed to be paid to Kalyananarayanan and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was agreed to be paid to Sujatha (plaintiff) as full and final settlement for exiting from the partnership firm.

7.They urged that the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid to the plaintiff on

11.10.2023 and her husband has also acknowledged the receipt of the payment. They urged that, misusing the signed cheques and on the basis of the unenforceable MoU, the present suit came to be presented. They further pleaded that the plaintiff has not given any details of the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- said to have been invested by her, nor any document had been presented for the purpose of subs