Full Text
Translation output
o/o 19.O9.2OIL
Present: Mr. Mr. b
Mahir Malhotra, Adv. for the Plaintiff.
K.K. Sharma, Adv. for the Defendants.
.r
+IA NO. 1 20LL R3r c. 151
Ja2oLL
* parties have settled their disputes and the terms and conditions have mentioned in the application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC Mark'C-
1'. Application has been signed by the plaintiff as well as defendants ancl their counsel. Application has also been supported by the affidavits of partner of the plaintiff as also d.efendant no. t himself and also for the sole proprietorship firm i.e. M/s. Vinayak Homes Appliances. I find agreement to be lawful. Accord.ingly, decree is passed in terms of Mark
'C-1'which shall form part of decree.
Since parties have settled their disputes at the initial stage, 50%o court fee.be refunded to the plaintiff in accordance with law'
A.K. PATHAK, J.
September 19, ?OLL rb
- Ad*d n^ d-fh'c,'o- ln'otr'f .' g,olh c^w,^rr-L [.^nna
"t n'^ i-i*"*'{ Cy
*ht &9"rirb6 ^
2011:DHC:15534
$-30
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF
+ CS(OS) No.153Il2}It
MITTAL ELECTRONICS
Through
Present: Mr. Mr. b
Mahir Malhotra, Adv. for the Plaintiff.
K.K. Sharma, Adv. for the Defendants.
.r
+IA NO. 1 20LL R3r c. 151
Ja2oLL
* parties have settled their disputes and the terms and conditions have mentioned in the application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC Mark'C-
1'. Application has been signed by the plaintiff as well as defendants ancl their counsel. Application has also been supported by the affidavits of partner of the plaintiff as also d.efendant no. t himself and also for the sole proprietorship firm i.e. M/s. Vinayak Homes Appliances. I find agreement to be lawful. Accord.ingly, decree is passed in terms of Mark
'C-1'which shall form part of decree.
Since parties have settled their disputes at the initial stage, 50%o court fee.be refunded to the plaintiff in accordance with law'
A.K. PATHAK, J.
September 19, ?OLL rb
- Ad*d n^ d-fh'c,'o- ln'otr'f .' g,olh c^w,^rr-L [.^nna
"t n'^ i-i*"*'{ Cy
*ht &9"rirb6 ^
2011:DHC:15534
$-30
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF
+ CS(OS) No.153Il2}It
MITTAL ELECTRONICS
Through
VERSUS
GOVINDARAJ AND ANR.
Through
DELHT AT NEW DELHI... Plaintiff
: Ms. Neha, Adv. ... Defendants
: None
Through
DELHT AT NEW DELHI... Plaintiff
: Ms. Neha, Adv. ... Defendants
: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
06.01,.2012
Case has been listed on the basis of office noting'
Vide order dated 19d' September, 20Il a compromise decree was passed in terms of mark 'C-1'. In terms of the compromise decree, parties had agreed that the defendants shall pay T5,000/-
(Rupees Five Thousand Only) to plaintiffs in lieu of the damages caused to the plaintiff s goods and reputation. (Refer to para 7 of a Mark ,C-1'). However, in para .12 of Mark 'C-f it has been prayed that decree be passed in terms of para 27 (r), (ii), (iii) and
(vi) of the plaint. Para (iii) is with regard to the damages to the tune of T20 lacs. This is inconsistent with the agreed terms as contained in para 7 which confines the damages to the tune of
T5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only)'
%
-t)
Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the word "(iii)" has been inadvertently included in para 12 of Mark 'C-1' and seeks leave to delete the same. I find that this deletion is in favour of the defendants. Accordingly, the word "(iii)" is permitted to be deleted by the counsel for the plaintiff. Correction has been made by the plaintifPs counsel on the application today itself. t\ t\
Fr
A.K-?ATHAK' J.
JANUARY 06,2012 rb a
"1.
06.01,.2012
Case has been listed on the basis of office noting'
Vide order dated 19d' September, 20Il a compromise decree was passed in terms of mark 'C-1'. In terms of the compromise decree, parties had agreed that the defendants shall pay T5,000/-
(Rupees Five Thousand Only) to plaintiffs in lieu of the damages caused to the plaintiff s goods and reputation. (Refer to para 7 of a Mark ,C-1'). However, in para .12 of Mark 'C-f it has been prayed that decree be passed in terms of para 27 (r), (ii), (iii) and
(vi) of the plaint. Para (iii) is with regard to the damages to the tune of T20 lacs. This is inconsistent with the agreed terms as contained in para 7 which confines the damages to the tune of
T5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only)'
%
-t)
Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the word "(iii)" has been inadvertently included in para 12 of Mark 'C-1' and seeks leave to delete the same. I find that this deletion is in favour of the defendants. Accordingly, the word "(iii)" is permitted to be deleted by the counsel for the plaintiff. Correction has been made by the plaintifPs counsel on the application today itself. t\ t\
Fr
A.K-?ATHAK' J.
JANUARY 06,2012 rb a
"1.
JUDGMENT