The Court treated an execution application on the Day's List to consider a settlement and urgency. The matter was dismissed as infructuous due to the decree-holder's withdrawal and out-of-court settlement.
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.
UL-8
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE [Commercial Division]
EC/58/2022
POONAWALLA FINCORP LIMITED
Vs ANUROODDHA KUMAR
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR Date : 17th August, 2022.
Appearance: Mr. P. Sinha, Adv. Mr. K.K. Pandey, Adv. Ms. E. Saha, Adv.
The Court: In view of the urgency pleaded on behalf of the decree-holder, the matter is treated on the Day’s List.
It is submitted on behalf of the decree-holder that, the judgment-debtor has not appeared at any stage of this proceeding. It is also submitted on behalf of the decree-holder that the parties have settled the matter out of Court and the decree-holder does not want to proceed any further with this execution application. I find that a Warrant of Arrest had also been directed to be issued in this proceeding.
In view of the submissions made on behalf of the decree-holder, EC/58/2022 stands dismissed as infructuous. All interim orders stand vacated.
The Warrant of Arrest also stands discharged.
(RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.)
D.Ghosh
POONAWALLA FINCORP LIMITED
ANUROODDHA KUMAR
RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court