M/S Canbank Factors Ltd vs M/S Uniword Telecom Ltd And Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 2651 Del

$~3.
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CS(OS) 3066/2011
       M/S CANBANK FACTORS LTD                  ..... Plaintiff
                     Through: Mr. Yogesh Swroop, Advocate with
                     Mr. P.K. Mittal, Advocate

                         versus

       M/S UNIWORD TELECOM LTD AND ORS            ..... Defendants
                     Through: Mr. Sumit Purohit, Advocate for D-1
                     to D-5.
                     Mr. Amit Dayal, Advocate for D-6.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                         ORDER

% 27.03.2015

1. On the last date of hearing, a Settlement Agreement had been

forwarded by the Mediation Centre. However, as none was present on

behalf of the plaintiff, in the interest of justice, the case was adjourned

for today.

2. Today, when the case was taken up on the first call, counsel for

the plaintiff was absent. Even on the second call, he did not present

himself. In the post lunch session, Mr. Yogesh Swroop, Advocate

enters appearance and states that the arguing counsel, Mr. P.K. Mittal

was present in the court complex in the pre-lunch session but has had

to go home.

3. The Court does not see any justification for the absence of the

counsel for the plaintiff, particularly, when he is aware of the fact that

a Settlement Agreement has been placed on record and he had

remained absent even on the last date of hearing. While declining to

adjourn the case once again, the case is proceeded with further.

4. As per the Settlement Agreement dated 06.02.2015 executed in

the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, the parties

have arrived at a settlement, whereunder a sum of `1,60,00,000/- has

been paid by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff in full and final

settlement of all its claim against the defendants. Counsel for the

defendants states that the entire amount stands paid to the plaintiff

and nothing further is due and payable by the defendants.

5. The Settlement Agreement has been signed by the authorised

representatives of the plaintiff, defendant No.1, 6 and 7 and the

defendants No.2 to 5 through their power of attorney holder, by the

respective counsels for the parties as also the learned Mediator.

Enclosed with the Settlement Agreement are the copies of the

authorizations/power of attorney executed in favour of the signatories

to the Agreement.

6. As the parties have arrived at the aforesaid settlement of their

own free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion

from any quarters, there appears no legal impediment in accepting the

same. The Settlement Agreement is taken on record. The parties shall

remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived at

between them.

7. The suit is decreed in terms of the settlement, while leaving the

parties to bear their own expenses.

8. At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiff states that in view

of the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement through court

annexed mediation and the suit is at the stage of completion of

pleadings, the plaintiff is entitled to claim refund of the court fee in

terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act.

9. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the counsel for the

plaintiff, the Registry is directed to issue a certificate in favour of the

plaintiff for refund of the court fees, as per law.

10. File be consigned to the record room.

HIMA KOHLI, J MARCH 27, 2015 rkb