The Bombay High Court disposed of Suit No. 444 of 2006 in terms of a consent filed by the parties via affidavit, marking the suit with liberty and no costs.
Suit disposed of in terms of Consent Terms marked 'X' with liberty; No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
SUIT NO. 444 OF 2006
Narendra Jagdish Agarwal .... Plaintiff vs Martin Francis D’Mello & ors. ... Defendants
Mr.Mahendra Bajpao with Mr. R. J. Singh for the plaintiff. Mr. N.G. Korekar for defendants 1 to 6.
Ms.Uma Palsuledesai, AGP for defendants 7 and 8.
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.
DATE : 27th August, 2009
P.C.:
1 The parties had arrived at Settlement and accordingly signed the Consent Terms dated 22.07.2009. It is also signed by their respective Advocates i.e. the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6. The matter was adjourned twice for instructions so far as defendants 7 and 8 are concerned. They have filed affidavit dated 24.08.2009 and affidavit dated 26.08.2009. They have no objection, if order is passed in terms of the consent terms filed.
2 Taking note of the affidavit as well as the consent terms, I am inclined to dispose of this matter in terms of consent terms.
2
that the consent terms is well within the frame work of the law and the record.
There is no dispute about the identification, authorisation and the signature.
4 The Suit is, therefore, disposed of in terms of Consent Terms, marked “X” with liberty. No costs.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
Martin Francis D'Mello & ors.
Anoop V. Mohta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
