Partly allowed

M/S Jupiter Marines Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Nayaks Finance & Investment (R) Kota

Karnataka HC13 Apr 2022RFA/567/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First Appeal against a money recovery decree was disposed of by allowing the parties’ compromise petition. The appellants deposited part of the settled amount and issued a demand draft for the balance, which was accepted by the respondent in full and final settlement, with consequent decree.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is partly allowed based on the compromise; funds deposited are released to the respondent and a decree to that effect is drawn.

M/S Jupiter Marines Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Nayaks Finance & Investment (R) Kota — Karnataka HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

¶8

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.567 OF 2015 (MON)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

1 . M/S JUPITER MARINES PVT LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE

¶11

COMPANIES ACT, 1956

¶12

HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT MANOOR

FISHERIES ROAD

KOTA-576 221

UDUPI TALUK

REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶17

2 . SRI.K.C. KUNDER S/O.SRI.CHIKKAYYA MARKALA

¶18

AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

¶19

MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶20

JUPITER MARINES PVT.LTD.,

¶21

REGD. OFFICE:MANOOR FISHERIES ROAD KOTA-576221

¶22

UDUPI TALUK.

¶23

3 . SMT. RADHA KUNDER AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS W/O SRI. K.C.KUNDER DIRECTOR JUPITER MARINES PVT.LTD., REGD. OFFICE:MANOOR FISHERIES ROAD, KOTA-576221, UDUPI TALUK.

¶24

¶25

4 . SRI SURESH KUNDER AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O SRI.K.C.KUNDER DIRECTOR JUPITER MARINES PVT.LTD., REGD. OFFICE:MANOOR FISHERIES ROAD KOTA-576221. UDUPI TALUK.

¶26

5 . SRI DINESH KUNDER AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O SRI.K.C.KUNDER DIRECTOR JUPITER MARINES PVT.LTD., REGD. OFFICE:MANOOR FISHERIES ROAD KOTA-576221. UDUPI TALUK.

¶27

….APPELLANTS

¶28

(BY SRI. K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

M/S NAYAK’S FINANCE & INVESTMENT (R) KOTA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.K. LAXMINARAYAN NAYAK AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O SRI. K.BABURAYA NAYAK R/AT KOTA-576 221. UDUPI TALUK.

¶31

….RESPONDENT

¶32

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA M.S. FOR HOLLA & HOLLA ADVOCATE)

¶33

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.03.2015 PASSED IN OS No.38/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUNDAPURA, DECREED THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

¶34

¶35

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, G. NARENDAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the sole respondent.

¶38

It is submitted that first appellant was an

¶39

incorporated entity and on account of certain violations came to be struck off from the roles of Registrars of

¶40

the Companies and that the debt having been admitted, the parties having negotiated and arrived at settlement namely, appellants/judgment debtors have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.40,00,000/and respondent/plaintiff has agreed to receive the same in full and final settlement.

¶41

The parties have reduced to writing their terms of understanding. The same reads as under;

¶42

“a. The Respondent has agreed to receive an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Fourty Lakhs Only) as the full and final settlement of its claim and in full satisfaction of the decree passed in O.S. No.38/2004 by the Court of

¶43

¶44

the Sr. Civil Judge, Kundapura dated:06.03.2015.

¶45

b. The Appellants have no-objection for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.15,00,000/deposited by them before the Hon’ble High Court and for transfer of the said amount to the account bearing No.01312200081511 at Canara Bank, Saligrama Branch (IFSC Code:CNRB0010131) of Sri. K. Laminarayana Nayak, Managing Partner, M/s. Nayak Finance & Investment.

¶46

c. The Appellant Nos. 3 to 5 hereby agree to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft No.324985 drawn on Canara Bank, Thekkatte Branch, dated:01.02.2022 in favour of Sri. K. Laxminarayana Nayak, Managing Partner, M/S. Nayak Finance & Investment. The Appellant Nos. 3 to 5 have agree to handover the said Demand Draft to K. Laxminarayana Nayak, before the Hon’ble High Court, at the time of recording of this compromise.

¶47

d. The Respondent acknowledges the receipt of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only) and acknowledges that it has received the total agreed amount of Rs.40,00,000/(Rupees Forty Lakhs Only) from the Appellants Nos.3 to 5.

¶48

e. The Respondent has no other claim against the Appellants.

¶49

f. The Appellants 3 to 5 have paid the court fee of Rs.1,77,125(Rupees One Lakh Seventy Seven Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Five) on the appeal. The Court fee paid in the appeal may be transferred to the account of Appellant No.4.”

¶50

¶51

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that appellants have deposited a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) before this Court. Today, they have handed over Demand Draft bearing No.324985, drawn on Canara Bank, Thekkatte Branch dated 01.02.2022 for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only). The respondent acknowledges the receipt of the said Demand Draft. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that they have no objection to release the amount deposited by them before this Court and transfer the said amount to the account of the respondent. His submission is taken on record.

¶52

Office shall release the amount in deposit in

¶53

favour of respondent after following due process.

¶54

The appeal is partly allowed in terms of the Compromise Petition.

¶55

¶56

Office shall draw decree accordingly. Registry to look in and refund the permissible Court Fee.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

M/S Jupiter Marines Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Nayaks Finance & Investment (R) Kota

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jupiter Marines Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Nayaks Finance & Investment (R) Kota

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Jenifer Lolita.C Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ganapathi Bajanthri Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sarvothama Rao N Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri P S Suryavamshi Vs State of Karnataka

The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Sathish M.R. Vs State of Karnataka