IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY R.F.A.No.389 OF 2015 C/W R.F.A.No.388 OF 2015 In R.F.A.No.389 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
M/s. Shree Parshwa Chemicals, No.137/2, Kallegowda Estate, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore-560 079, Represented by its Proprietor, Sri. Rajesh Jain.
(By Sri. Harish T, for Sri. C. Parameshwarappa, Advocate) AND:
Smt. Kiran Mehta W/o. U.S. Mehta, Aged about 47 years, Proprietrix of M/s. Mehta Dye Chem, No.1, Krishna Naik Lane, Hospital Road Cross, …Appellant B.V.K. Iyengar Road, Bengaluru-560 053, Rep. by her PA Holder Sri. Love Mehta.
(By Sri. H.S. Prashanth, Advocate) **** …Respondent This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated:10.09.2014 passed in O.S.No.3142/2012 on the file of the XXX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, decreeing the suit for recovery of money.
In R.F.A.No.388 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
M/s. Shree Suchem Industry, Plot No.4, C-2, Sumanahalli, Industrial Area, Maddur, Mandya District – 571 429, Represented by its Proprietor, Sri. Rajesh Jain.
(By Sri. Harish T, for Sri. C. Parameshwarappa, Advocate) AND:
Smt. Kiran Mehta W/o. U.S. Mehta, Aged about 47 years, …Appellant Proprietrix of M/s. Mehta Dye Chem, No.1, Krishna Naik Lane, Hospital Road Cross, B.V.K. Iyengar Road, Bengaluru-560 053, Rep. by her PA Holder Sri. Love Mehta.
(By Sri. H.S. Prashanth, Advocate) **** …Respondent This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated:10.09.2014 passed in O.S.No.3143/2012 on the file of the XXX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, decreeing the suit for recovery of money.
These Regular First Appeals coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Two Original Suits, i.e. O.S.No.3143/2012 and O.S.No.3142/2012 were filed by the present respondent against the present appellants herein in the Court of the learned XXX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “Trial Court”) for recovery of money from the defendant with interest thereupon.
2. Both the suits were decreed by the Trial Court in its judgment and decree dated 10-09-2014, whereunder, the plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of `8,20,242/- in O.S.No.3143/2012 and a sum of `2,05,600/- in O.S.No.3142/2012 from the defendant therein together with interest thereupon at the rate of `10% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation. Being aggrieved by those two judgments and decrees, the defendant therein who is the very same establishment/proprietorship concern has preferred these two appeals.
3. When this matter has come up for final hearing today, learned counsel from both side keeping present their respective clients, as identified by them, filed a joint memo before this Court, reporting settlement between the parties.
4. A perusal of the joint memo would go to show that the parties have amicably settled the matters as per which the appellants herein(defendant) in both these appeals (both suits) put together have agreed to pay a sum of `16,80,000/- as full and final settlement towards the plaintiff’s claim in those two suits.
It is further agreed to between the parties that, after deducting a sum of `11,69,241/-, which is said to be deposited by the appellants in both these appeals put together, in the registry, at the time of admission of this appeal, the balance amount of `5,10,759/- is tendered to the respondent herein (plaintiff) vide Demand Draft No.031098 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Vijayanagar Branch, Bengaluru dated 11-12-2019.
It is further agreed that the sum of `11,69,241/- said to have been deposited by the appellant in the registry in both these appeals put together is also requested to be released in favour of the respondent in these appeals.
5. With the above terms, the parties have submitted through their joint memo that they have entered into settlement out of their free consent and their own volition and the appeals be disposed of as settled out of Court. They have also sought for refund of the court fee for which they are entitled to.
6. Learned counsels from both side make their supporting submissions on the lines of the joint memo. The parties as identified by the respective learned counsels were also inquired by the Court, who also have made their supporting submissions on the lines of the joint memo.
7. After enquiry with the parties, the Court is convinced that both the parties have understood the contents of the joint memo and out of their free will and volition, they have settled the matter amicably.
8. In view of the same, both the appeals stand disposed of as settled between the parties amicably.
It is directed that as per the terms of settlement between the parties, the amount of `9,78,500/- said to have been deposited in R.F.A.NO.388/2015 and an amount of `1,90,741/- said to have been deposited in R.F.A.No.389/2015 by the appellants herein be released in favour of the respondent in accordance with law.
9. In view of the disposal of these appeals as settled between the parties, the refund of the court fee to the appellant by the registry is to be as per the law.
Accordingly, both the appeals stand disposed of as settled between the parties.
In view of the disposal of the main appeal, I.A.No.1/2015 for stay filed in R.F.A.No.388/2015 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/- JUDGE BMV*