M/S.Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd. - U29299MH1971PTC015520 v. Mr. Farrokh Behram Chesan and 59 Others

Bombay HC7 Feb 2025IA/395/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Consent terms disposal; settlement of disputes; interim application in company petition; Bombay High Court OOCJ; M/s. Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd.; Farrokh Behram Chesan & Ors.; expiry of original petitioner Nos. 1, 8, 49; signature through constituted attorney; undertakings accepted as undertakings to the Court; Consent Terms marked X; order dated 07 February 2025; Manish Pitale, J.

What did the court decide?

Interim Application No. 395 of 2025 disposed of as per the Consent Terms executed between the parties; the undertakings therein accepted as undertakings given to the Court, with parties bound to abide by their respective obligations; soft copy of Consent Terms to be uploaded as second order and signed hard copy retained on file. ¶¶23

M/S.Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd. - U29299MH1971PTC015520 vs Mr. Farrokh Behram Chesan and 59 Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim application should be disposed of in accordance with the Consent Terms executed upon settlement of the disputes between the parties.

¶¶23

Court's answer

With original petitioner Nos. 1, 8 and 49 having expired, the surviving petitioners signed the Consent Terms through their Constituted Attorney, and the Constituted Attorney for the applicant company likewise signed the Consent Terms.

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

The Consent Terms were taken on record and marked “X” for identification.

¶¶21

Key takeaways

The interim application is disposed of as per the Consent Terms.ratio¶¶23
The undertakings contained in the Consent Terms are accepted as undertakings given to the Court, and the parties shall abide by their respective obligations as recorded in the Consent Terms.ratio¶¶24
A soft copy of the Consent Terms shall be uploaded as the second order in the matter.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction (Manish Pitale, J.) — Interim Application No. 395 of 2025 in Company Petition No. 322 of 2012, filed by M/s. Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd. (original respondent): disposed of by consent on 07.02.2025. Counsel for the applicant and for the original petitioners reported that the disputes were settled and Consent Terms executed; original petitioner Nos. 1, 8 and 49 having expired, the surviving petitioners signed through their Constituted Attorney, as did the applicant company's Constituted Attorney. The Consent Terms were taken on record and marked “X” for identification; the application was disposed of as per the Consent Terms; the undertakings therein were accepted as undertakings given to the Court with parties bound to abide by their obligations; a soft copy was directed to be uploaded as second order, and the signed hard copy retained on the file and not sent for destruction in ordinary course.

¶1

105.IA.395.2025.doc

¶2

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

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 395 OF 2025

¶4

IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 322 OF 2012

¶5

M/s. Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd. ...Applicant

¶6

(Orgn. Respondent)

¶7

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :

¶8

Farrokh Behram Chesan & Ors. ...Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

Digitally signed by SHRIKANT SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS SHRINIVAS MALANI MALANI Date: 2025.02.07 15:11:38 +0530

¶11

M/s. Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent ***

¶12

 Ms. Kavita Shah, for the Applicant in IA/395/2025.  Mr. Tushad Kakalia i/b Mr. Dinesh Sehgal, for Original Petitioners.  Mr. Chandra Shekhar M. Salian, Constituted Attorney, present. ***

¶13

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : 07^th FEBRUARY, 2025.

¶14

P. C. :

¶15

The learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for

¶16

the respondents in this application (Original Petitioners) submit that the disputes are now settled and that Consent Terms have been executed. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the original petitioner Nos.1, 8 and 49 have expired and in that light, the surviving petitioners have signed the Consent Terms, through their Constituted Attorney. The Constituted Attorney for the applicant – company has also signed the Consent Terms.

¶17

The Constituted Attorneys for both parties are present in Court.

Page1 of 2

Shrikant Malani

105.IA.395.2025.doc

The Consent Terms are taken on record and marked “X” for

¶22

identification.

¶23

The application is disposed of as per the Consent Terms.

¶24

The undertakings given in the Consent Terms are accepted as undertakings given to this Court. The parties to the Consent Terms shall abide by their respective obligations, as recorded in the Consent Terms.

¶25

A soft copy of the Consent Terms shall be uploaded as second order in the matter.

¶26

The hard copy of the Consent Terms signed by the parties and their Counsel shall be retained on the file and shall not be sent for destruction in ordinary course.

¶27

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶28

Page2 of 2

¶29

Shrikant Malani

M/S.Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd. - U29299MH1971PTC015520 v. Mr. Farrokh Behram Chesan and 59 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd. - U29299MH1971PTC015520 v. Mr. Farrokh Behram Chesan and 59 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited vs Sanjay R. Wadekar

Tiktok Ltd. Mr Faheem Ahmad Constituted Attorney of Tiktok Ltd. vs the Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai

M S Industries a Partenership Firm vs Btali International through Its Sole Propriter Murtuza Bhopalwala

Janu Zore vs Priya Construction Company

The Commissioner of State Tax Mumbai vs Ms Mission Vivacare Ltd.

The Commissioner of State Tax vs Ms Mission Vivacare Ltd.