Dismissed

Intec Capital Limited Thr. Its Authorized Representative Vijay C. Gupta v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Jul 2024WP/7956/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Execution petitioner sought recall of a Lok Adalat award recording settlement and satisfaction of an arbitral decree, claiming the withdrawal was filed under a misconception. The Court noted the Pursis, settlement form and trial court order were all signed by the decree holder's representative and counsel, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Intec Capital Limited Thr. Its Authorized… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

901-WP-7956-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL

¶4

Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL

¶5

Date: 2024.07.09 19:54:33 +0530

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 7956 OF 2024

¶7

Intec Capital Limited Thr. Its Authorized Representative Vijay C. Gupta ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr.Vivek V. Salunke for the Petitioner.

¶9

Ms.V.R. Raje, A.G.P. for the Respondent – State.

¶10

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J. DATE : 9^th JULY 2024

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

The petition questions the award dated 3.3.2024 passed by the Lok Adalat, in the Lok Nyayalay held on 3.3.2024. It is contended by the learned learned counsel for the petitioner

¶13

that the order is passed under the misconception on the part of the petitioner that the matter has been settled, on which ground the application was presented and therefore, it needs to be recalled.

¶14

The award passed in arbitration proceedings was

¶15

sought to be executed in R.D. No.1229 of 2019, in which on

1 of 3

VAI

901-WP-7956-2024.doc

3.3.2024, a Pursis came to be filed by the petitioner, indicating that the matter was settled between the parties out of Court and the settlement amount was received by the petitioner / Decree Holder, on account of which the Darkhast was sought to be withdrawn. On this application, the learned Court sent it to the Loknyayalay, which again recorded the consent of the petitioner regarding the settlement and passed an award that it was settled. The learned Trial Court also by an order below Exhibit – 1 recorded the satisfaction of the decree and disposed of the execution proceedings.

¶20

It is material to note, that the Pursis for withdrawal is signed by the Decree Holder as well as by the counsel (page 91). The settlement form before the Loknyayalay is also signed by the petitioner and his counsel. The learned Trial Court also in its order dated 3.3.2024 (page 90) records that the authorized representative of the Decree Holder as well as the counsel were present and had made a statement that the decree was fully satisfied. This would clearly indicate, that the Pursis for withdrawal and its disposal, on account of the settlement, was voluntary and not otherwise. Nothing has been brought to my

2 of 3

VAI

901-WP-7956-2024.doc

notice that indicate or substantive the plea that the decree was not satisfied. The contention that the award was bad on the ground of jurisdiction, also does not hold any water for the reason that even if the award is ignored, however, the learned Court has also passed an order below Exhibit - 1 recording the factum of settlement on the basis of the statement of the representative of the Decree Holder as well as the counsel present before him. (page 90). I therefore do not see any reason to interfere. The petition is dismissed.

¶25

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶26

3 of 3

¶27

VAI

Intec Capital Limited Thr. Its Authorized Representative Vijay C. Gupta v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Intec Capital Limited Thr. Its Authorized Representative Vijay C. Gupta v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Laxman Sambhaji Aatole Trustee and Rep. of Shirsai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal vs Mahadev Gulabrao Golande and Ors.

Riyazuddin Shaikh (Ex-Chairman) and Ors. vs Rahamutalla Khamkar

Shri. Kutch Deshiya Saraswat Brahmin Mahasthan Trust vs Joint Charity Commssioner Ho II the. Gp

Sachin Gopinath Kulkarni vs Siddhakala Co-Op Hsg Society Throu. Chairman Abhijeet Vichare

Shashank Manohar Joshi vs State of Maharashtra

Annasaheb Bhupal Chougule vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Sec. Co-Op Dept and Ors.