Allowed

Navikran Engineering Enyerprise, v. M/s. Kanodia Udyog

Telangana HC5 Aug 2009AS/2436/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of Civil Appeal No.1386 of 2009 and the underlying O.S. No.174 of 1999 based on a compromise petition. The appellant paid Rs.1,00,000 to the respondent in open court, and the court allowed the appeal and disposed of the original suit accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed and the underlying suit was disposed of in terms of the compromise petition; Rs.1,00,000 paid by appellant.

Navikran Engineering Enyerprise, Vs M/s… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶2

A.S. MP. No.1386 of 2009

¶3

and A.S. No.2436 of 1999

¶4

JUDGMENT:

¶5

A.S. M.P. No.1386 of 2009 is filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC seeking to record the compromise and pass the judgment and decree in terms of the compromise petition in A.S. No.2436 of 1999.

¶6

The present appeal has been filed aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 01.07.1999 passed in O.S. No.174 of 1999 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District at Saroornagar.

¶7

The sole appellant in the present appeal is died and his legal representatives were brought on record.

¶8

At the out set, the said suit was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,88,301/- with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The said suit was decreed only for Rs.3,48,301/- with proportionate costs with interest at 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.3,02,975-30 ps., from the date of the suit till the date of decree and at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realization. Assailing the same, the present appeal is filed.

¶9

During the pendency of the appeal, the 2^nd defendant, Smt. S.Sarojini, who was brought on record as one of the legal representatives of the deceased 1^st appellant, also died.

¶10

The learned counsel on either side have submitted that both the parties have settled the matter in terms of the compromise and a copy of the same is filed. Therefore, they requested this Court to dispose of the appeal in terms of the compromise.

¶11

Both the parties have appeared before this Court and they have been identified by their respective counsel. According to the terms of compromise petition, the appellant required to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent in the open Court and the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) is paid by the appellant to the respondent in the open Court and the same is received by the respondent.

¶12

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, A.S. M.P. No.1386 of 2009 is allowed. Consequently, the appeal is also disposed of in terms of the compromise petition. A copy of the compromise petition shall form part of the decree. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶14

Date: 05.08.2009 LSK

Navikran Engineering Enyerprise, v. M/s. Kanodia Udyog

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navikran Engineering Enyerprise, v. M/s. Kanodia Udyog

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

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.Mahaboob Bee

Gokulamatam China Appa rao ( died ) Vs Thokada Mutyalamma

Badguna Muthenna Vs The District Collector

Brahminipalli Pullaiah Vs Brahminipalli Kistaiah died

Md Hussainmiya Vs P.Satyanarayana

J.Bapuji Vs J.Kavitha