Dismissed

Smt S Shantha v. M/S Food Center

Karnataka HC26 Jul 2012RFA/2072/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two regular first appeal cases arising from a money suit and a dismissed counter-claim, the appellant and respondent entered into a compromise during pendency to settle the claim. The High Court accepted the compromise, modified the decree accordingly, disposed of the appeals, and directed a refund of court fees.

What did the court decide?

Modified decree per compromise; Rs.1.50 Lakhs paid in cash; balance to be paid within three months; accorded appeals dismissed; court fee refunded.

Smt S Shantha Vs M/S Food Center — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

¶6

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2072/2011 C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2073/2011

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. S.SHANTHA, W/O. SRI SREEDHAR POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT: NO.966, RAJAPALYA, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560 048

¶9

... APPELLANT (COMMON IN BOTH THE APPEALS)

¶10

(BY SRI D.R.RAJASHEKHARAPPA, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

M/S FOOD CENTER, BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI.G.GOPA KUMAR @ GOPALA KRISHNA GOPAKUMAR, SRI. G. GOPA KUMAR @ GOPALA KRISHNAN NAIR, (IN RFA. NO. 2073/11) S/O. GOPALA KRISHNA NAIR,

¶13

¶14

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT: NO.302, 19TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALROE-560 096 REPRESENTED BY HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI E.BIJAYAN, S/O.SRI GOVINDAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, NO.302, 19TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 096.

¶15

… RESPONDENT (COMMON IN BOTH THE APPEALS)

¶16

(BY SRI B.S. JEEVAN KUMAR, ADV.)

¶17

THESE RFA's ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH O-XXXXI, RULE-1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.08.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5127/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVER OF MONEY.

¶18

THESE RFA’s ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The appeal in RFA. No. 2072/2011 is filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 5127/2009 against the decree passed therein. The appeal in RFA. No. 2073/2011 is by the same defendant from the very said suit

¶21

¶22

against the dismissal of the counter claim. During the pendency of these appeals, the parties have entered into a compromise.

¶23

As per the compromise, the respondent herein has agreed to receive the total sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in full and final settlement towards the claim made in the suit. The appellant namely the defendant has consequently given up the counter claim which had been made in the suit. Out of the said sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is paid by cash before this Court. The GPA holder of the respondent, who is identified by the learned counsel for the respondent has received the said sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. The balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is agreed to be paid within a period of three months, failing which the parties have also agreed that the decree presently passed would be executed without the benefit of the concession being granted.

¶24

The parties being present before the Court having accepted the terms have signed the compromise petition filed under

¶25

¶26

Order 23, Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure. The respective learned counsel have also signed the petition. Having noticed the terms, there is nothing contrary to law and as such the compromise is accepted. The compromise memo is made a part of the records. The decree shall now be modified in terms of the compromise petition.

¶27

The appeals are accordingly disposed of in terms of the compromise.

¶28

In view of the compromise entered into between the

¶29

parties, the appellant is entitled to refund of the entire Court fee paid. The registry is directed to refund the same.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

ST*

Smt S Shantha v. M/S Food Center

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt S Shantha v. M/S Food Center

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M R Raghuram Vs M/S Intel Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Smt Muniyamma Vs Sri Yadugiri Yathiraja Mutt

Yellappa Vs Narayana Reddy

B Lakshmi D/O Late Smt. K.Siddamma, Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Kumari Varalakshmi Vs the Deputy Director

Smt Janet Vs Smt Rathnamma