Dismissed

Mr Tharun v. Karnataka State Industrial and

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2023RFA/524/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a regular first appeal concerning a suit for declaration and injunction, the High Court dismissed the appeal as the appellant had settled the matter with the respondent via a One-Time Settlement Scheme and paid the dues, rendering the appeal no longer tenable.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as it was no longer tenable due to the settlement. Original documents were ordered to be returned to the appellant.

Mr Tharun Vs Karnataka State Industrial and — Karnataka HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:40566 RFA No. 524 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 524 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR THARUN S/O SRI K RAMA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.28, DODDAKATAPPA ROAD ULSOOR, BANGALORE-560 008.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI.SANGAMESH R.B., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN NO.36, M S I L HOUSE CUNNINGHAM ROAD

¶12

BANGALORE-560 052

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

K RAMA S/O M KRISHNAPPA

¶15

2(A) DECEASED BY HIS LRS. SMT.PADMAVATHI W/O K.RAMA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

¶16

2(B) KUM.TRIGUNA DEEPIKA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶17

BOTH ARE R/AT No.19/6, NEW No.28, DODDAKATAPPA ROAD, ULSOOR, BANGALORE-08.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. V F KUMBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.RUKHIABI, ADV. FOR R2 (A) AND (B))

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC:40566 RFA No. 524 of 2014

¶22

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 R/W SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.1.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.8265/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Heard Sri Sangamesh R.B., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri V.F. Kumbar, learned counsel for the first respondent. Memo filed by the first respondent reads as

¶26

under:

¶27

“MEMO FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL

¶28

The undersigned counsel for the Respondent No.1, submits that, the Appellant has filed above appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.8265/1999 dated 30.01.2014. During the pendency of above appeal, the Appellant has come forward to settle the issue with Respondent No.1 under one-time settlement Scheme. The said proposal is accepted by the Respondent. Accordingly, the Appellant has deposited the amount with Respondent No.1.

¶29

In view of the same, the matter between appellant and Respondent is settled as per OTS Schedule and Appellant also deposited the amount. The First Respondent also addressed a letter to the Counsel for Respondent No.1 dated 30.10.2023. Hence, the Appeal does not survive for consideration and thus, the same may be dismissed. The letter dated 30.10.2023 is annexed with this memo for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

¶30

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40566 RFA No. 524 of 2014

¶31

Wherefore, it is prayed that, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to receive this memo on record, and to dismiss the appeal as it does not survive for consideration in view of the matter settled between the parties, in the interest of justice and ends of equity.”

¶32

Since, the appellant has accepted for the offer

¶33

made by the first respondent, in availing the benefit of One

¶34

Time Settlement Scheme and paid the amount due as per

¶35

One Time Settlement, the appeal stand disposed off.

¶36

Further the original documents filed by the respondent before the Trial Court is ordered to be returned to the appellant, who is the plaintiff before the Trial Court under due identification, as entire dues are paid by the appellant as per One Time Settlement Scheme and he is entitled to release of the documents in his favour.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

¶39

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Mr Tharun v. Karnataka State Industrial and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Tharun v. Karnataka State Industrial and

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

Sri Y Venugopal Vs Sri Y Ramamurthy

Manjunath M Vs B v Venkatagiriyappa

Sri K Ramakrishna Vs Smt Rangamma

H T Ramanna Gowda S/O Thirumallaiah Vs B S Sonnaulla S/O Late Baji Saheb

Sanaulla Sheriff Vs Sri Dandu Mariamma Temple Trust

Hafeez Shamsul HUDA Vs M/S. Asset Reconstruction