The Vesco Products Company v. Ramesh Shaw

Calcutta HC1 Mar 2024CS-COM/558/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Consent/settlement decree; undertaking affidavit 14.12.2023 made part of decree; court fees recovery Rs. 60,000; legal expenses Rs. 10,000; execution permitted on default within two weeks; interim orders vacated; Receiver/Special Officer discharged; Vesco Products Company v Ramesh Shaw; Calcutta HC Commercial Division; CS-COM 558 of 2024 (old CS 222 of 2023); GA 1 of 2023; Arindam Mukherjee, J.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed in terms of the defendant's undertaking of 14th December, 2023 (its terms forming part of the decree); defendant additionally directed to pay Rs. 60,000/- court fees and Rs. 10,000/- legal expenses within two weeks, failing which the plaintiff may execute the decree; interim orders vacated; Receiver/Special Officer discharged; pending applications disposed. ¶¶15

The Vesco Products Company Vs Ramesh Shaw — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether, upon the parties' settlement, the suit should be decreed in terms of the undertaking filed by the defendant, with the undertaking's terms forming part of the decree. +2 more

¶¶13

Court's answer

The suit is decreed in terms of the undertaking filed by the defendant pursuant to the parties' settlement, making the terms of the undertaking part of the decree.

¶¶13

Ratio / Principle

Considering the prayer for legal expenses, the Court directed an additional sum of Rs. 10,000/- over and above the Rs. 50,000/- previously indicated towards court fees.

¶¶11

Key takeaways

In addition to the undertaking given in the affidavit dated 14th December, 2023, the defendant shall pay an aggregate sum of Rs. 60,000/- on account of court fees paid by the plaintiff for instituting the suit and Rs. 10,000/- on account of legal expenses said to have been incurred by the plaintiff.ratio¶¶13
The cost awarded shall also form part of the decree.ratio¶¶13
Payment of cost is directed within two weeks from date; failing which the plaintiff is entitled to put the decree into execution for realization of the cost.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court at Calcutta, Commercial Division Original Side (Justice Arindam Mukherjee), 1st March, 2024 — CS-COM 558 of 2024 (Old Case No. CS 222 of 2023): The Vesco Products Company v Ramesh Shaw. Following settlement of the disputes constituting the subject matter of the suit, the defendant had filed an undertaking affirmed on 14th December, 2023, whose terms were accepted by the plaintiff. The Court decreed the suit in terms of that undertaking, making its terms part of the decree. In addition, considering the prayer for legal expenses over the previously indicated Rs. 50,000/- court-fees figure, the Court directed the defendant to pay an aggregate Rs. 60,000/- on account of court fees and Rs. 10,000/- on account of legal expenses, the cost forming part of the decree, payable within two weeks failing which the plaintiff may execute the decree. The suit was disposed of along with all pending applications; interim orders stood vacated and any Receiver/Special Officer discharged.

¶1

ORDER SHEET OCD-5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE

¶3

CS-COM 558 OF 2024 (OLD CASE NO. CS 222 OF 2023) IA NO. GA 1 OF 2023

¶4

IN THE MATTER OF :

¶5

THE VESCO PRODUCTS COMPANY VS RAMESH SHAW

¶6

BEFORE:

¶7

The Hon’ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE Date: 1^st March, 2024.

¶8

Appearance: Mr. Satyaki Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Aasish Choudhury, Adv. Mr. Tanishq pathak, Adv. For plaintiff Mr. Suvashish Sen Gupta, Adv. Mr. R. Tiwari, Adv. Miss Shrey Basu For defendant

¶9

The Court :- The learned advocate for the plaintiff has taken instruction from his client in terms of the order 28^th February, 2024. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the plaintiff that the plaintiff is willing to accept Rs. 50,000/- on account of court fees and if possible some legal expenses may be awarded which is left over to the Court. Although on the last occasion I had indicated that Rs.50,000/- towards court fees is a reasonable offer from the side of the defendant, however, considering the prayer for legal expenses, I direct payment of an

¶10

¶11

additional sum of Rs. 10,000/- over and above the said sum of Rs.50,000/-.

¶12

The parties have settled the disputes which is the subject matter of suit pursuant to which the defendant has filed an undertaking affirmed on 14^th December, 2023. The terms whereof has been accepted by the plaintiff.

¶13

The suit being CS-COM 558 of 2024 (Old Case No. CS 222 of 2023) is decreed in terms of the undertaking filed by the defendant making the terms thereof as part of the decree. The defendant in addition to the undertaking given in the affidavit dated 14^th December, 2023 shall pay an aggregate sum of Rs. 60,000/- on account of court fees paid by the plaintiff for instituting the suit and Rs.10,000/- on account of legal expenses said to be incurred by the plaintiff. The cost awarded shall also form part of the decree.

¶14

The payment of cost as directed by this order should be made within two weeks from date, failing which the plaintiff shall be entitled to put the decree into execution for realization of the cost.

¶15

The suit being CS-COM 558 of 2024 (Old Case No. CS 222 of 2023) is accordingly disposed of along with all pending applications.

¶16

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶17

The Receiver/Special Officer, if any, stands discharged.

¶18

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)

¶19

sb/

The Vesco Products Company v. Ramesh Shaw

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Vesco Products Company v. Ramesh Shaw

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

Similar cases

Usha Martin Limited Vs Til Limited

In the Goodsof Anjali Chakravarty (Deced) Vs Na

In the Goods of Bidhan Krishna Basu, Deceased Vs Na

Sandip Das and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S. Cmj Service Private Limited Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation and Ors.

Jogindar Shaw @ Yogendra Sah Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.