Disposed

Jayanti Lal Bhansali v. Kailash Chandra Mehta

Rajasthan HC2 Feb 2023CFA/354/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a civil first appeal arising from a suit decree, based on an amicable settlement. The appellant agreed to pay the remaining balance to the respondents, releasing funds deposited with the trial court in their favor.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of on the terms of the compromise. The amount of Rs. 5,31,148/- lying in fixed deposit with the District Court, Pali, to be released in favor of Respondent No. 1.

Jayanti Lal Bhansali Vs Kailash Chandra Mehta — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/003582]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 354/2018

¶4

Jayanti Lal Bhansali S/o Shri Mohan Lal Bhansali, Aged About 46 Years, By Caste Bhansali, R/o Kolkata, Proprietor Bhansali Agencies, 73 Cotton Street, First Floor, Kolkata-7

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Kailash Chandra Mehta S/o Shri Kewal Chand Mehta, By Caste Jain, R/o B-3, Arint Mansion Mahaveer Nagar, Pali, Proprietor Sri Rajasthan Print, Address - F-253, Mandiya Road, Pali (Raj.)

¶8

Shriji Cargo Movers (Transport Company), through Branch Office Pali, Tranport Nagar, Pali (Raj.)

¶9

N.E.C.C. (Transport Company), through Branch Office Pali, Transport Nagar, Pali (Raj.)

¶10

Inland Transport Company, through Branch Office Pali, Transport Nagar, Pali (Raj.)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Prateek Surana with
	Mr. Himanshu Bumb

¶13

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶14

Order

¶15

02/02/2023

¶16

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2018 whereby the suit was decreed for an amount of Rs.5,31,148/- with interest @ 12%.

¶17

Vide interim order dated 06.10.2018, the appellant was directed to deposit the entire decretal amount before the learned Trial Court and it was directed that the aforesaid amount shall not

(2 of 4)

[2023/RJJD/003582]

[CFA-354/2018]

be disbursed to the respondent-plaintiff till further orders by this Court.

¶22

An application under Order XXIII Rule 3 r.w. Section 151 CPC has now been preferred jointly by both the parties with the submission that the parties have entered into an amicable settlement on certain conditions.

¶23

The conditions of compromise as entered into between the parties have been detailed out in the application and a prayer has been made for disposal of the present appeal in light of the compromise.

¶24

The terms of compromise as entailed in the application read as under:

¶25

"(A) That the Appellant and Respondent has agreed to settle the dispute for once and for all and put the controversy at rest for the payment of sum of Rupees 9,00,000/- (Nine Lakh Rupees only) to the Respondent by the Appellant.

¶26

(B) That since out of the aforesaid Rupees 9,00,000/- (Nine Lakh Rupees), the amount of Rupees 5,31,148/- (Five Lakh Thirty-One thousand One hundred and Forty-Eight) has already been deposited by the Appellant before the learned Court below in light of interim order dated 06.10.2018 passed by this Hon'ble Court, thus the Appellant shall pay remaining sum of Rs. 3,68,852/- (Three Lakh Sixty-Eight thousand Eight hundred fifty-two) to the Respondent by way of two separate Demand Drafts which are (i) . Demand draft dated 30.01.2023 Bearing no 000147 for the amount of Rs 1,00,000/- and (ii) . Demand draft dated 30.01.2023 Bearing no. 00148 for the amount of Rs 2,68,852/- both of HDFC Bank.

(3 of 4)

[2023/RJJD/003582]

[CFA-354/2018]

(C) That the Appellant has no objection as to amount of Rs. 5,31,148/- (Five Lakh Thirty-One thousand One hundred and Forty-Eight) which is lying in Fixed Deposit before the Learned District Court, Pali be ordered to be released in Favour of the Respondent No.1 along with the interest accrued over the amount deposited in the Fixed Deposit before the learned Trial Court.

¶31

(D) That since the parties have entered into the Compromise, the Respondent No.1 shall not claim any further amount or liability with regards to present dispute or in pursuance to impugned Judgement & Decree dated 17.03.2018 passed by the learned District Court, Pali in Civil Original Suit No 223/2011.

¶32

(E) That the parties to the litigation have also agreed that in light of amicable settlement, both the parties shall put the instant controversy at rest for once and for all in light of above settlement and shall not take any recourse to litigation against each other after the settlement, with regards to present dispute before any Court of law."

¶33

As agreed between the parties, the amount of Rs.3,68,852/has been paid to the respondents today vide two demand drafts as detailed out in clause (B) above mentioned. The said demand drafts have been handed over by learned counsel for the appellant to learned counsel for the respondents today before the Court which have been accepted by learned counsel for the respondents.

¶34

In view of the compromise as entered into between the parties, the present appeal is disposed of on the terms and conditions as agreed into between the parties. The amount of Rs.5,31,148/- lying with District Court, Pali in a fixed deposit be released in favour of respondent No.1 with immediate effect on an application being preferred by respondent No.1 for the said

(4 of 4)

[2023/RJJD/003582]

[CFA-354/2018]

purpose. The application comprising of the conditions of the compromise as entered into between the parties would be treated to be a part of the present order.

¶39

Stay petition and all pending applications also stand disposed

¶40

of.

¶41

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶42

80-Sachin/-

Jayanti Lal Bhansali v. Kailash Chandra Mehta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayanti Lal Bhansali v. Kailash Chandra Mehta

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

Shriram G.I.C.Ltd. Vs Ganpat Singh and Ors.

Banshi Lal and Anr. Vs Ganpat Singh and Anr.

Banshi Lal and Anr. Vs Manohar Kanwar and Ors.

Jayanti Lal Vs State and Ors.

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Kamla Devi Alias Kmaa

Jagdish Kumar and Ors. Vs Prema Ram and Anr.