Disposed

J. Rajasekar v. V.S. Gunaseelan

Madras HC14 Dec 2024APPEAL(CAD)/29/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross-appeals between a developer and land owners over a theatre construction and income-sharing arrangement were settled before a National Lok Adalat. The parties arrived at a written compromise and the appeals were disposed of in terms of the compromise dated 14.12.2024.

What did the court decide?

All appeals disposed of in terms of compromise dated 14.12.2024; miscellaneous petitions closed; court fee to be refunded to parties.

J. Rajasekar Vs V.S. Gunaseelan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, CHENNAI

¶3

National Lok Adalat organised by the High Court Legal Services Committee

¶4

Saturday, the 14th day of December 2024

¶5

LOK ADALAT AWARD

¶6

(Chapter VI and u/s 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987)

¶7

Presided over by

¶8

The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶9

and

¶10

Members

¶11

Mr.N.Balasubramanian, District Judge (Retd.) Mr.S.Pushpakaran, Advocate

¶12

Appeal (CAD) Nos.29, 31, 32 & 38 of 2024 and C.M.P.Nos.16871, 16875, 18150, 18152 of 2024

¶13

Appeal against the common judgment and decree passed in C.O.S.Nos.22 to 24 of 2024 on the file of the Court of Judge, Commercial Court (District Judge Cadre), Coimbatore dated 18.07.2024.

¶14

J.Rajasekar ... Appellant in Appeal (CAD) Nos.29 & 31/2024 1.V.S.Gunaseelan 2.Brundhadevi 3.Dr.G.Om Prakash ... Appellants in Appeal (CAD) Nos.32 & 38/2024

¶15

Vs .

¶16

1.V.S.Gunaseelan 2.Brundhadevi 3.Dr.G.Om Prakash ... Respondents in Appeal (CAD) Nos.29 & 31/2024

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis J.Rajasekar ... Respondent in Appeal (CAD) Nos.32 & 38/2024

¶18

¶19

This case came up for settlement before the National Lok Adalat. Both the parties are present. The learned counsel for the appellant in A.Nos.29 & 31/2024 and the learned counsel for the respondent in A.Nos.32 & 38/2024 Mr.A.Jayaraman for Mr.N.Nithianandam and learned counsel for the appellants in A.Nos.32 & 38/2024 and the learned counsel for the respondents in A.Nos.29 & 31/2024 Ms.R.Priyadharshini for Mr.L.Palanimuthu are present. After mutual discussion, negotiation, mediation and conciliation between both parties, they arrived at a compromise to settle the matter as follows:

¶20

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

¶21

Both the parties and their respective counsel are present.

¶22

The appellant in A.Nos.29 & 31/2024 is the developer and the appellants 1, 2 & 3 in A.Nos.32 & 38/2024 are the land owners. The appellants 1 and 2, who were the original land owners, have authorized the third respondent/their son namely Mr.G.Om Prakash, to represent the case. It is reported that the appellants 1 and 2 have settled the property in favour of the third respondent. This fact is not disputed by the developer.

¶23

It is seen from the records that the appellants and the respondents in all the appeals had originally entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 07.10.2015, by which the land owners had handed over possession of land to the the developer for constructing and running a theatre and share the income in

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis a certain proportion. The dispute arose between the parties and suits were filed

¶25

¶26

by both the parties before the Commercial Court District Judge Cadre, Coimbatore. Challenging the common judgment and decree in the suits, the land owners preferred two appeals and the developer has preferred two appeals. Now the parties have arrived at a compromise and reduced the terms of compromise on 14.12.2024 and the scanned copy is hereunder:-

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

¶43

Therefore, the parties prayed that the above appeals may be disposed of in terms of the above compromise.

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

¶46

Accordingly, all the Appeals are disposed of in terms of compromise

¶47

dated 14.12.2024. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are

closed.

J.Rajasekar

Dr.G.Om Prakash

Counsel for the appellant in A.Nos.29 & 31/2024/respondent in A.Nos.32 & 38/2024

¶52

Counsel for the appellants in A.Nos.32 & 38/2024/respondents in A.Nos.29 & 31/2024

¶53

This National Lok Adalat award is passed in terms of the above settlement.

¶54

The Court fee paid shall be refunded to the parties in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 as provided for under sub Sec.1 of Section 21 r/w 25 of LSA Act 1987 as amended in 1994.

Judge

Member

Member

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

¶60

¶61

The parties/Advocate concerned

¶62

Copy to:

¶63

The Court of Judge, Commercial Court (District Judge Cadre), Coimbatore. 2.The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Chennai. 3.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

¶64

4.The Section Officer, Lok Adalat Section, High Court, Madras.

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

Sni

Appeal (CAD) Nos.29, 31, 32 & 38 of 2024

¶70

14.12.2024

¶71

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

J. Rajasekar v. V.S. Gunaseelan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J. Rajasekar v. V.S. Gunaseelan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sampath Vs State Represented by

Raju @ Rajubai Vs State Rep.by

Sekar Alias Mani Vs the State Rep by Its, the Inspector of Police

The Branch Manager Vs Eswaran @ Hemanth Kumar

The Branch Manager Vs Lakshmi

L.Sarasu @ Saraswathi Vs M.Kumari