Disposed

Raj Enterprises v. Tele-Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Others

Bombay HC10 Oct 2016S/242/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of Suit No. 242 of 2010 on consent terms. Leave to amend was granted after a defendant's death. The suit was dismissed against Defendants 1 and 3 per consent terms while impleading heirs for the deceased defendant. Costs were not ordered, and a drawn-up decree was dispensed with unless requested for implementation.

What did the court decide?

Suit dismissed against Defendants 1 and 3; suit disposed of in accordance with consent terms against others; leave to amend granted; no order as to costs.

Raj Enterprises Vs Tele-Video Electronics Pvt… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

6-S242-10.DOC

¶2

ATUL

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

SUIT NO. 242 OF 2010

¶5

…Plaintiffs

¶6

Raj Enterprises…Plaintiffs
Versus
Tele-Video Electronics Private Limited & 3 Ors.…Defendants

¶7

Mr. Ganesh Ambekar, i/b Thakore Jariwala & Associates, for the
Plaintiffs.

¶8

Mrs. Divya Shah, i/b M/s. Divya Shah & Co., for Defendants Nos.
2(a) to 2(c).

¶9

Ms. Kavita Shah, for Defendant No. 4.

¶10

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 10th October 2016

¶11

PC:-

¶12

1.The Defendant No. 2 has passed away. Mr. Ambekar for the
Plaintiffs tenders a draft amendment. This is taken on record and
marked “X” for identification with today’s date. Leave to amend in
terms of the draft tendered. Amendment to be carried out on or
before 14th October 2016 without need of re-verification.

¶13

2.Given the fact that the Suit is being settled, it is not necessary
to serve a copy of the amended Plaint on the Defendants. It will be
sufficient to forward a copy of the amendment to the Defendants
who will complete their own copies accordingly.

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

10th October 2016

¶16

6-S242-10.DOC

¶17

3.Consent Terms are tendered in the Suit. These are signed on
behalf of the Plaintiff by its partner/karta, as also by Defendants
Nos. 2(a) to 2(c) and Defendant No. 4. As against Defendants Nos. 1
and 3, the Suit is dismissed. This is provided for in the Consent
Terms. Defendant No. 2(a) is present in Court, as is the signatory on
behalf of the Plaintiffs. The Consent Terms are also signed by the
parties’ Advocates. Ms. Divya Shah for Defendants Nos. 2(a) to 2(c)
will file her vakalatnama in the Registry on or before 14th October
2016. These Defendants are newly added as the heirs of original
Defendant No. 2.

¶18

4.I have seen the Consent Terms. They are in order. They are
not contrary to law and they appear to reflect the parties’ true
intention and have been drawn by the parties of their own volition.
The Consent Terms are taken on record and marked “X” for
identification. The undertakings in the Consent Terms, if any, are
accepted as undertakings to the Court.

¶19

5.The Suit is disposed of in accordance with the Consent
Terms. There will be no order as to costs.

¶20

6.Drawn up decree dispensed with. However, if for the purpose
of implementation of these Consent Terms, should the parties
require a drawn up decree, they will be entitled to apply to the
Department for one without having to make a separate application in
that behalf and on production of an authenticated copy of this order.
Drawn up decree is to be strictly in accordance with these Consent
Terms only.

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

10th October 2016

¶23

6-S242-10.DOC

¶24

7. Refund of court fee, if any, in accordance with the Rules.

¶25

8. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶26

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶27

Page 3 of 3
10th October 2016

Raj Enterprises v. Tele-Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Enterprises v. Tele-Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Madhavi Sridhar Vs Smt. Shubha Satish Mhapsekar

Sidharth Baori and 14 Ors. Vs Mantri Realty Limited Cin No. U45202MH2001PLC164434

Reliance Communications Ltd. Vs -

Gorbatschow Wodka Kg Vs John Distilleries Ltd.

Subhash Arjun Jadhav and Ors. Vs Laxmi Balaram Salvi and Ors.

Manoj Navinchandra Shah Vs Usha B. Shah