The suit was settled through consent terms signed by the representatives of the plaintiff and the second defendant. The court recorded the consent terms, accepted undertakings, and disposed of the suit against the second defendant.
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.
901-S307-15.DOC
Atul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 307 OF 2015
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 2806 OF 2014
Sanofi India Limited…Plaintiff
Versus
Medipaams India Private Limited & Ors.…Defendants
Mr. Ramesh Gajria, i/b Mr. Gajria & Co., for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Rajiv Singh, Director of Defendant No. 2, present.
CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:1st April 2016
PC:-
1.The Suit is settled. Mr. Rajiv Singh, a Director of the 2nd
Defendant is present in Court. Mr. Singh produces his PAN Card
as proof of identity. Consent Terms are drawn between the Plaintiff
and the 2nd Defendant. These are signed by Mr. Singh for the 2nd
Defendant and by Mr. Pankaj Khanna, the Constituted Attorney of
the Plaintiff.
2.The Consent Terms provide inter alia for a decree on
admission in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). There are also
declarations contained in clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Consent Terms.
1 of 2
901-S307-15.DOC
Mr. Singh confirms that he has signed the Consent Terms and that
he accepts what is stated in these Consent Terms.
3.Being satisfied that the Consent Terms are not contrary to
law and that they have been executed by the parties in reflection of
their true intention and without any coercion, the Consent Terms
are taken on record and marked “X” for identification. The
undertakings in the Consent Terms are accepted as undertakings to
the Court.
4.The Suit as against the 2nd Defendant is now disposed of in
these terms. It only needs to be noted that as against the 1st
Defendant the Suit was previously disposed of in view of the
Consent Terms between the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant dated 18th
December 2014.
5.The Suit is finally disposed of. Refund of court fee, if any, in
accordance with Rules.
6.In view of disposal of the Suit, nothing survives in the
Motion and it is disposed of as against Defendant No. 2. As against
the 1st Defendant, the Motion was already disposed of on 18th
December 2014.
(G. S. PATEL, J.)
2 of 2
G. S. PATEL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court