Karnataka High Court
Pebble Bay Developers Pvt Ltd vs Siddharth Shekar on 11 March, 2013
Bench: N.K.Patil, C.R.Kumaraswamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013
: PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R.KUMARASWAMY
M.F.A.NO. 748 OF 2011 (AA)
Between:
Pebble Bay Developers Pvt., Ltd.,
A Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956,
Having its registered office at Raheja Chambers,
Linking Road and Main Avenue Santacruz West,
Mumbai-400 054 and its branch office at
Onxy Center, 4th Floor, No.5, Museum Road,
Bangalore-1.
Rep. herein by its Director
Mr. Aditya Raheja.
... Appellant
(By Shri. Ajesh Kumar.S, for AKS Law Associates)
And:
Siddharth Shekar,
S/o. Mr. Jitendra Tyagi,
Major,
R/at. A-1, Metro Enclave Pushpa Vihar,
Sector-7, 41, Press Enclave Road,
New Delhi and also at 43, 14th Main,
15th Cross, HSR Layout,
4th Sector, Bangalore-34.
... Respondent
(By Shri. Ashwin.C, for B.M.Shyamprasad & Associates)
2
This MFA is filed U/S 37(1) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, against the Order dated 18/12/2010
passed in A.A.No.25022/2010 on the file of the IV Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore
City (CCH-21), allowing the petition filed U/s. 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
This MFA coming on for Reporting Settlement, this
day, N.K. PATIL. J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the appellant is directed against the impugned Order dated 18th December 2010, passed in A.A.No.25022/2010, by the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore City (CCH-21).
2. We had heard this matter for considerable length on several occasions. The matter was being adjourned from time to time on the ground that there is possibility of amicable settlement between the parties.
3. Today, during the course of submission, learned counsel appearing for both the parties have filed the compromise petition dated 11th March, 2013, under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure code, with certain terms and conditions as 3 per the settlement deed dated 7th March 2013, annexed to the compromise petition at Annexure A, duly signed by the appellant and the respondent and attested by their respective counsel. Both the appellant and respondent are present before the Court and their presence is placed on record.
4. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties submitted that this appeal may be allowed, in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties as per the settlement deed dated 7th March 2013, annexed to the compromise petition dated 11th March 2013, in the interest of justice and equity.
5. The statements made in the compromise petition dated 11th March 2013 are placed on record. The said Compromise petition reads thus:
"1. It is submitted that a settlement has been reached with regard to the dispute prevailing between the appellant and the respondent and the terms of the settlement have been recorded as per the Settlement Deed, copy of which is annexed hereto as Annexure-A. 4
2. It is submitted that the settlement mentioned supra and the terms of the settlement have been communicated to the Hon'ble Arbitrator on 07/03/2013 for the passing of the Final Award.
Wherefore, in view of the foregoing it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the present Appeal with regard to the terms of the settlement as per Annexure A in the interest of justice and equity."
6 In the light of the terms and conditions of the settlement deed dated 7th March 2013, annexed to the compromise petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code and the submission of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the appeal filed by appellant is disposed of, and the impugned Order dated 18th December 2010, passed in A.A.No.25022/2010, by the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore City (CCH-21), is hereby modified as per the terms and conditions of settlement deed dated 7th March 2013, 5 vide Annexure A to the compromise petition dated 11th March 2013, at the risk of both the parties and their respective counsel.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE BMV*