Karnataka High Court
M/S National Projects Constructions ... vs M/S Thermax Limited on 5 October, 2012
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala, B.S.Indrakala
1
RFA NO.714/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF OCTOBER 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVATSALA
AND
THE HON'BLE Mrs. JUSTICE B.S. INDRAKALA
R.F.A.No.714/2007
BETWEEN:
M/s.National Projects
Construction Ltd.,
Previously known as
Rashtriya Pariyojna Nirman
Nigam Ltd., A Company
Having its registered office
At Raje House, 30-31, Nehru Place,
New Delhi-19, and its
Branch Office at Bangalore,
WTP Unity, Post Bag No.1,
Tavarekere (Magadi),
Bangalore South Taluk,
Rep. by its authorised representative
Rajendra Prasad Agarval,
Aged about 45 years,
R/a.Ravarekere (Magadi),
Bangalore South Taluk,
Working as Assistant
Executive Engineer. ...APPELLANT
(By Sri.S.Vishwajith Shetty, Adv.)
2
RFA NO.714/2007
AND:
1. M/s.Thermax Ltd.,
A Company registered under
Companies Act, 1956,
Having its registered office at
D-13, MIDC Chinchwad,
Pune (Maharashtra),
Rep. by its
Senior Executive (Commercial),
Mr.Pankaj Deshpande.
2. Bank of Baroda,
Corporate Banking Branch,
39, Ambedkar Road,
Mantri Court,
Pune-411 001
(Maharashtra),
Rep. by its Manager. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.N.Rajanna,
for M/s.Holla & Holla, Advs. for C/R-1
R-2 served & unrepresented)
This R.F.A is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the
Judgement & Decree dt.21.12.2006 passed in OS
No.912/1998 on the file of the XXXI Addl. City Civil Judge,
Bangalore city, CCH No.14, partly decreeing the suit for
recovery of money.
This appeal coming on for orders, this day,
Dr.Bhakthavatsala, J, delivered the following:-
3
RFA NO.714/2007
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC by the Defendant No.1 challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 21.12.2006 made in O.S.No.912/1998 on the file of Addl. City Civil Judge at Bangalore city.
2. The suit of the respondent No.1/plaintiff is for recovery of money based on contractual obligation. The suit was partly decreed holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of `19,51,710/- from the defendant No.1 together with future interest over the said principal sum of `12,22,576/- at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of suit till realization etc. An obligation was imposed on the plaintiff to deliver equipments to the Defendant No.1 at the specified spot with usual condition that governed for supply made on the previous application etc.
3. On service of notice, respondent No.1/plaintiff has entered appearance. Respondent No.2/Bank of Baroda was served, but it has not entered appearance. 4 RFA NO.714/2007
4. On referring the matter to Bangalore Mediation Centre for amicable settlement, the parties have got the dispute settled. Bangalore Mediation Centre has sent a letter dated 14.09.2012 with memorandum of settlement made under Section 89 of CPC.
5. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1/plaintiff is present and learned counsel for the appellant submit that the appeal may be disposed off in terms of the memorandum of settlement dated 13.09.2012.
6. As per the terms of the settlement, the appellant/defendant No.1 has agreed to withdraw the appeal since the Respondent No.1/plaintiff has agreed to withdraw all his claims made in O.S.No.912/1998 as against the appellant. From the settlement reached between the parties, it is crystal clear that respondent No.1/plaintiff has given up the entire suit claim in O.S.No.912/1998 as against the appellant. Under such circumstances, the Judgment and Decree made against the defendant No.1 are liable to be set aside. But in the 5 RFA NO.714/2007 instant case, the respondent No.1/plaintiff has agreed to withdraw his claim against the appellant.
6. In terms of the settlement reached between the appellant and respondent No.1/plaintiff, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn as the suit claim itself has been withdrawn by the plaintiff.
Since the matter is settled under Section 89 of CPC, Registry is directed to refund the full Court Fee paid on the appeal to the appellant. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE bnv*