Full Text
FAO(OS) 293/2015
JUDGMENT
Through Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath with Mr. Mayanlc Sapra, Advocates along with
Mr.Ravinder Goyal, petitioner in person.
Respondents Mr. Dayan Krishjian, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate for respondents no.l to 3 alongwith respondents no.l to 3 in person.
Mr. Sanjiv Bahl with Mr. Ajay Shelciiar, Advocates for respondent no.5.
Mr. Sonal Jain with Ms. Heena Sharma, Advocates for respondents no.9(i) (ii) & respondent no.lO(i) (ii) & (hi).
Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate for respondents no.l3(i) to (iv)
Mr. Asheesh Jain, Advocate for respondents no. 16 to 18.
HON'BLEMS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI. J {ORAL)
1. Counsel have appeared on behalf of the caveators. The Caveats are disposed of accordingly. CM.APPL.10285/2015
2. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
3. The application stands disposed of.
VERSUS
4. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 30 days in filing the application is condoned.
5. The application stands disposed of. CM.APPL. 12954/2015 in FAQtQSh293/2m<;
6. This is an application under Order XXIII Rule 3CPC which has been filed by the appellant and respondents no.l to 3in the present appeal. This application is opposed by the other respondents who are represented in Court on the grounds firstly, that they cannot be bound by the terms of the settlement arrived at between the appellant and respondents no.1to 3 and secondly, that the parties to the settlement cannot seek astamp of approval from the Court as it would adversely affect them in the present suit proceedings and in connected proceedings which are pending. There is another apprehension which has been expressed by the learned counsel for the respondents who are not party to the settlement and that is that the settlement would be used by the appellant and respondents no.l to 3 in collateral proceedings and also create an impression that the Division Bench ofthis Court has approved the settlement even if a decree is not passed. Counsel for the applicants i.e. appellant and respondents no.l to 3, who are signatory to the settlement, submit that the present application may be dismissed as withdrawn but the memorandum of settlement dated 16.07.2015 which has been annexed and which only records the inter se settlement between the appellant and respondents no.l to 3 be kept on record and the statement of those parties who are signatory to this settlement be recorded to the extent that they shall remain bound by the teims ofthe settlement. This prayer has been made so that the signatories to the settlement do not resile as certain monetaiy transactions would result after this statement has been signed. It is also prayed that the FAO(OS)No. 293/2015 p„g^ 2of[4] piesent application be dismissed as withdrawn.
7. We make it clear that merely by placing the inter se memorandum of settlement on lecord would not be treated as an approval granted by this Court in any manner whatsoever, neither the Court has put a seal of approval with respect to the terms of the settlement or the rights which may have been decided inter se between the parties. However, as agreed during the course of hearing, the plaintiff hereby withdraws the stay application being LA. No.20519/2014 and appellant withdraws I.A.No.22219/2014 which led to the passing of the interim injunctions dated 17.10.2014 and 27.11.2014 and continued on 29.01.2015. The parties to this settlement being Sh. Ravinder Kumar Goyal, Sh. Dhimv Goyal, Ms.Ritika Goyal and Mi"s. Neera Goyal are present in Court. They are identified by their respective counsel. The parties to the memorandum identify their signatures on the memorandum of settlement dated 16.07.2015. They further state that the settlement has been signed without any coercion and state that they would remain bound what they have stated. They state and undertake that they will abide by the terms ofthe settlement dated 16.07.2015 in view of their statement recorded today. Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath, counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate for respondents no.l to 3, on instructions, state that passing of this order will be treated as the consent order as per the memorandum of settlement dated 16.07.2015 and the memorandum of settlement shall not bind such persons who are not signatory to the settlement. The injunction orders dated 17.10.2014 and 27.11.2014 continued by the order dated 29.01.2015 are hereby vacated in view of withdrawal of the applications being LA. Nos.20519/2014 and LA. No.22219/2014 with the consent ofappellant and respondents no.l to 3. Any reference to "S.K. Goyaf'in the memorandum of settlement dated FAO(OS)No. 293/2015 Page3of[4] 16.07.2015 means Shri Suresh Kumar Goyal, son ofLate Shri A.P. Goyal. The parties to the memorandum of settlement dated 16.07.2015 have in Court made corrections to the memorandum of settlement dated 16.07.2015 and have signed the same in consent.
8. We again make it clear that placing this settlement on record and recording the statement of the parties to the settlement would mno way bind any of the parties who are not party to the settlement in any manner nor determines the shares of such contesting parties. Mr. Ankit Jam, Advocate submits that any settlement recorded even inter se between the appellant and respondents no.l to 3is illegal and against the status quo order passed by the Court at Dehradun, while counsel for the appellant submits that there is no status quo order.
9. The application stands disposed of.
10. Dasti under the signature ofCourt Master to all the counsel for the parties. FAOrOSJ 293/2015
11. Counsel for the parties submit that since the application has been disposed of, the appeal has become infructuous. In view ofthe above, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. All the interim orders are vacated. G.S.SISTANI,T SANGITi! LV SEHGAL, J AUGUST 05, 2015 pst