M/S Vestas Wind Technology India ... vs M/S Ramgad Minerals And Mining ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1013 Kant

                           1




            IN THE HIGH COU RT OF KARNAT AKA
                    DHARWAD B ENCH


       DATED THIS THE 16 T H DAY OF JANUARY, 2021


                        PRESENT

 THE HON'B LE MR. JU ST ICE SREENIV AS HARISH KUMAR

                          AND

          THE HON'B LE MR. JU ST ICE P.N.DESAI

          REGU LAR FIRST A PPEAL NO.4144/ 2012

B ETWEEN:

M/S. VESTAS WIND T ECHNOLOGY
INDIA PVT LTD.,
# 298, OLD MAHAB ALIPU RAM ROAD
SHOL INGANALLU R, CHENNAI
REP. B Y ITS AUT HORIS ED SIGNAT OR Y
MR. D. T . B ABU (ASST. MANAGER - LEGAL)
                                           ...APPELLANT .
(B Y SHRI SU NIL S DESAI, ADVOCATE.)


AND:

M/S.RAMGAD MINERALS & MINING PV T. LTD
NOW HAVING OFFICES AT
B ALDOTA ENCLAVE,
ABHERAJ B ALDOT A ROAD, HOSPETE,
REP. B Y ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
                                           RESPONDENT
(B Y SHRI G K HIR EGOU DAR, ADVOCAT E.)


     THIS REGU LAR F IRST A PP EAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 OF CPC, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.7.2012, PASSED B Y
THE PR L. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSPETE, IN
O.S.NO.49/ 2005, ETC.,.
                                        2




     THIS   AP PEAL COMING    ON    FOR   REPORTIN G
SETTLEMENT    T HIS DAY,  SRI   S REEN IVAS  HARIS H
KUMAR, J, DELIVERED THE FOLL OWING:


                                 JUDGMENT

The appellant and the respondent are the

comp anies. App ellant comp any is rep resented by

Shri Dileep Gaonkar, site manager/site in-charge.

Letter of authority d ated 13.1.2021 is produced to

show that he is authorized to represent on behalf of

the company. The respondent comp any is

rep resented by Shri Praveen Singhal, Vice Presid ent

(Power). He too has p roduced the letter of authority

for rep resenting the comp any. Advocate for the

app ellant Shri Sunil S. Desai is present.

Shri G.K.Hiregoudar, ad vocate for the respond ent is

present.

2. The p arties have presented a compromise

petition under Ord er 23 Rule 3 of Code of Civil

Procedure. In parag raph No.12 of the comp romise

petition it is stated that the app ellant and the

respondent have entered into a settlement

ag reement d ated 15.12.2020. Copy of the said

ag reement is produced. According to this ag reement,

the appellant has withd rawn the alleg ations ag ainst

the respondent and vice-versa. They have settled

the mutual claim between themselves. This is purely

an out of Court settlement. Therefore we treat this

comp romise p etition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of

Code of Civil Proced ure as a report mad e to the

Court reg arding the out of Court settlement. In view

of this settlement between the parties outsid e the

Court, accep tance of comp romise as envisag ed under

Ord er 23 Rule 3 of CPC does not arise and it may not

be necessary.

3. The app eal d oes not survive for

consideration on merits and it is disposed of.

Refund the entire Court fee to the app ellant.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE Mrk/-