The Bombay High Court disposed of a second appeal consisting of agreed terms of compromise between the parties, directing a decree in accordance with the compromise.
Terms of compromise are read, recorded, and a decree is passed accordingly.
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 sa 103.94
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SECOND APPEAL NO. 103 OF 1994
Nagnath S/o Dadarao Patil .. Appellant
Versus
Dr. Purshotam S/o Bhikulal Agrawal .. Respondent
Shri Amol Gandhi, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri V. M. Jadhav, Advocate h/f Shri D. S. Bharuka, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 15TH JUNE, 2012.
PER COURT :
. The parties have filed the terms of compromise. The appellant and respondent are present. They are identified by their respective counsel. The appellant is identified by Shri Gandhi, the learned counsel and the respondent is identified by Shri V. M. Jadhav, advocate holding for Shri D. S. Bharuka, the learned counsel. The parties agree and accept the terms of compromise.
2 sa 103.94
[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/June 12
Nagnath
Dr. Purshotam
S. V. Gangapurwala
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
