Full Text
AUTODESK INDIA PW LD & ORS Plaintiffs
Through Mr. Nischal Aaand, Adv.
Through Mr. Gaurav Kumar Singh and Mr. P.V.
Saravana Raja, Advs.
13.10.2011 lANo. 16.^4.0/2011 (Under Order 2.^ Rule .q CPC)
ORDER
1. This appHcation has been jointly filed by the plaintiffs and defendants under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC placing a settlement arrived at between them on record.
2. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the application is signed by Mr. Achuthan Sreekumar, constituted attorney of the plaintiff nos. 1 to 6 and supported by his affidavit. On behalf of the defendants, the application is signed by Mr. K. Suresh Kumar in his own behalf as defendant no.i, and Mr. Uday Chander who is the authorized representative on behalf of defendant no.2 company. Their supporting affidavits accompany the application.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have identified the signatures of Mr. Achuthan Sreekumar, constituted attorney of plaintiff nos. 1to 6; Mr. K. 2011:DHC:15532 -2- Suresh Kumar, defendant no. i; and Mr. Uday Chandfer, authorized representative of defendant no. 2 company respectively.
4. The defendants have placed a copy of the extract of the Minutes and I Resolution dated March, 2006 passed by the Board of Directors of the defendant no. 2 company authorizing Mr. Uday Chander to enter into settlement and to do all acts on behalf of defendant no. 2 company. The parties have also placed before the court software licence purchase inventory by defendants as Annexure 'A' with this application.
5. The terms of settlement between the parties have been set out in paras 1 to 8 of the apphcation.
6. The parties have given undertakings in the apphcation to remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
7. Perusal of the application and the affidavits would show that the settlement between the parties is in writing and signed by the parties. It appears to be voluntary, bona fide and entered into without any kind of force, pressure or undue influence. There is no legal impediment for taking the same on record.
8. A prayer is made on behalf of both parties that the suit of the plaintiffs be decreed in terms of para 1 to 8 of the apphcation and paras 64(a) to 64(c) of the plaint which shall form part of the decree.
9. In view of the above, it is directed as follows:- -3-
(i) The settlement between the parties detailed in para i to 8 of this application is accepted and taken on record.
(ii) The defendants shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement and undertaking given to this court.
(iii) This application is allowed in the above terms.
10. In view of the settlement between the plaintiffs and defendants placed on record by way of lA No. 16340/2011, which has been allowed I today, it is directed that the suit against the defendants shall stand decreed on terms and conditions set out in para 1 to 8 of the application and paras 64(a) to'' 64(c) of the plaint which shall form part of the decree. The remaining prayers detailed in paras^^(,d') and ^Xe)'are abandoned by the plaintiffs.
11. As per the settlement, learned counsel for the defendants has handed over the demand draft for a total sum of Rs. 6.[5] lakhs in terms of para 5 of the settlement to learned counsel for the plaintiff in court today.
12. A direction is issued to the Reserve Bank of India for processing the foreign remittance application which may be made by the plaintiffs for forwarding the amount received pursuant to the settlement on behalf of the plaintiff companies which are located abroad. / -4-
13. The parties shall remain bound by their undertakings and terms of settlement.
14. The decree interms oftheabove shall bedrawn upby theRegistry. TANos. 62Q0-62Qq/2011
15. In view of the suit having been decreed, nothing survives for adjudication in these apphcations and thesame are disposed ofas such. GITAIVj TTAL,J OCTOBER 13, 2011 sd $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS (OS) 945/2011 AUTODESK INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS. Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Nishad Anand, Adv.
VERSUS
K. SURESH KIJMAR & ANR. Defendants
JUSTICE GITA MITTAL ORDER % 17.02.2012
1. This matter has been placed by the Registry pointing out that there are clerical errors in the order dated 13.10.2011 whereby the plaintiffs' suit was decreed in terms of a settlement before the Court by way of lA No.16340/2011. A perusal of the application would show that prayers made by the plaintiff in paras 64(b) to 64(d) were abandoned by the plaintiff While recording the order on 13.10.2011, this aspect has been overlooked and the decree has been erroneously directed to be drawn up in terms of paras 64(a) to 64(c).
2. In view ofthe above, it is directed as follows:-
(i) The suit of the plaintiff shall stand decreed in terms of paras 64(a) and
(ii) Para 10 ofthe order dated 13.10.2011 shall read as follows:-
"In view of the settlement betweenthe plaintiffs and defendants placed on record by way oflA No.16340/2011, which has been allowed today, it is directed that the suit against the defendants shall stand decreed on terms and conditions set out in para 1 to 8 ofthe application and paras 64(a) and 64(e) ofthe plaint which shall form part ofthe decree. The remaining prayers detailed in paras 64(b) to 64(d) are abandoned by the plaintiffs."
3. The Registry to draw up the decree sheet accordingly. GITA mXTAL, J FEBRUARY 17, 2012 ^ mm