Partly allowed

Apollo International Ltd. v. Supriya Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Delhi HC19 Jul 2016CS(OS)/2815/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a suit for monetary recovery, the High Court of Delhi allowed the parties' settlement deed dated 15.06.2016. The court recorded the undertaking by the defendant's director to pay the agreed sum and decreed the suit accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The suit was decreed in terms of the Deed of Settlement dated 15.06.2016, with the defendant's director ordered to pay the agreed sum per the deed.

Apollo International Ltd. Vs Supriya… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(OS) 2815/1999

¶4

APOLLO INTERNATIONAL LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. B.L. Wali, Adv. Versus

¶5

SUPRIYA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma & Ms. Jasmine Kottai, Advs.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 19.07.2016

¶10

The counsels have mentioned the matter.

¶11

The counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendant no.1 state that the disputes subject matter of the present suit have been amicably settled in terms of Deed of Settlement dated 15^th June, 2016 executed by the authorized representatives of the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 and seek a decree in terms thereof.

¶12

A copy of the Deed of Settlement dated 15^th June, 2016 is handed over in the Court and is taken on record.

¶13

I have perused the said Deed of Settlement.

¶14

The plaintiff has instituted the suit for recovery of Rs.6,22,42,540/along with interest.

¶15

United Bank of India was subsequently impleaded as defendant no.2 but the counsel for the parties state that the defendant no.2 is not concerned with this settlement and is not a part of the compromise arrived at between them.

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

CS(OS) 2815/1999

¶18

As per the settlement, the defendant no.1 has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.48,00,000/- to the plaintiff in the manner provided therein and the defendant no.1 company through its Director Mr. Ramesh Dugar has also furnished an undertaking to this Court to pay the said amount in the manner provided in the Deed of Settlement.

¶19

The compromise as recorded in the Deed of Settlement is found to be lawful and is allowed.

¶20

The Deed of Settlement for the purpose of identification is marked as Ex.C1.

¶21

The counsel for the defendant no.1 states that he has instructions also from Mr. Ramesh Dugar, Director of the defendant no.1 company to furnish an undertaking to this Court to make the payment in terms of the said Deed of Settlement.

¶22

Mr. Ramesh Dugar, Director of the defendant no.1 company through his counsel is made aware of the consequences of the breach of undertaking given to the Court.

¶23

The undertaking of Mr. Ramesh Dugar, Director of the defendant no.1 company is accepted and Mr. Ramesh Dugar is ordered to be bound thereby. 13. The suit is decreed in terms of the said Deed of Settlement Ex.C1 which shall form part of the decree sheet, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶24

Decree sheet be drawn up.

¶25

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

JULY 19, 2016

‘gsr’..

Page 2 of 2

CS(OS) 2815/1999

Apollo International Ltd. v. Supriya Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apollo International Ltd. v. Supriya Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Ahuja Vs Kulwant Singh

Sanjeev Joshi & Anr. Vs Manas Kumar Chatterjee & Ors.

Smt Jaswant Kaur & Another Vs Shri Ravi Manchanda & Another

M/S Sag Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Urmila Rani Chadha & Anr.

Reliance Industries Vs Vijay Cable Industries

M/S Executive Access (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Unitech Limited & Others

Deepak Verma & Anr. Vs Naresh Khurana & Anr.

M/S St. Ives Laboratories Inc. Vs M/S Ives Drugs (I) Pvt. Ltd.

Microsoft Corporation & Anr. Vs Manish Pateria & Ors.

Chander Wati Vs Babita & Ors.

S Sbs Biotech (Unit Ii) & Anr. Vs Mr. M.P. Gupta & Ors.

Escorts Construction Vs Action Construction

M/S St. Ives Laboratories Inc. Vs M/S Ives Drugs (I) Pvt. Ltd.

Ashland Licensing and Intellectual Property Llc & Anr. Vs Dinesh Mahajan & Ors.