Disposed

Devidas Madhukar Lokhande and 3 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Jul 2010WP/713/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an arbitral award and appeal under the Chits Funds Act 1982, as the parties had mutually agreed to a settlement comprising payment of Rs. 7,00,000 and withdrawal of execution applications.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of by taking consent terms on record; award and appeal settled; no order as to costs.

Devidas Madhukar Lokhande and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

W.P.No.713/10

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 713 OF 2010

¶6

Devidas Madhukar Lokhande and others

¶7

).. Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra and another

¶10

).. Respondents

¶11

Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the Petitioners. Mr. Saikumar Pathrudu for Respondent No.2.

¶12

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 14TH JULY 2010

¶13

P.C.

¶14

The challenge in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the Award dated 3^rd August 2009 passed by the Arbitrator under Section 64 of the Chits Funds Money (Circulation & Banning) Act, 1982 and also the order dated 6^th February 2010 passed by the appellate authority.

¶15

The petitioners before this Court are the original opponents whereas respondent No.2 is the original disputant.

¶16

The Award directs the petitioners to jointly or severally pay a sum of Rs.7,06,400/- and interest of Rs.33,187/- to respondent No.2.

¶17

The parties have met and mutually agreed to resolve the disputes. It is agreed by parties that the petitioners would pay the sum of Rs.7,00,000/- which would be accepted in full and final settlement of the

¶18

¶19

W.P.No.713/10

¶20

Award provided it is paid in the manner set out in clause (2) of the consent terms. After the amount is paid and accepted as above, the 2^nd respondent will issue a no objection certificate. After receipt of such an amount, 2^nd respondent will withdraw all execution applications filed against the petitioners.

¶21

The consent terms are duly signed by the petitioners and their advocate so also the 2^nd respondent. The concerned advocates inform us that the terms have been explained to the parties with all their implications and consequences. The 2^nd respondent is a company and the terms have been signed by the duly authorized signatory. In these circumstances, we see no impediment in taking the consent terms on record and passing an order in furtherance thereof. We are satisfied that the consent terms fully resolve and settle the disputes arising out of the Award in question.

¶22

The consent terms are taken on record and marked “X” for identification. The Writ Petition is disposed of with consent of parties in terms of the same. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶24

S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

Devidas Madhukar Lokhande and 3 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devidas Madhukar Lokhande and 3 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju S. Yadav Vs M/S Chetan Textile and Other

Central Bank of India Vs the General Secretary Central Bank Employees Association and Anr.

Nandkishor Narayan Joshi and Ors. Vs Sujeet Narendra Sharma and Ors.

Mrs.Giribala Sangam Sagre Vs Mrs.Sharadha Hemant Joshi and Ors.

Rajaram Shivrudra Koshti and Anr. Vs Mahadev Dhulappa Khawashe

Ramesh Sakharam Padwal and 2 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.