M/S. Mspl Ltd., vs M/S. Vestas Wind Technology India ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 998 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.4141/ 2012

B ETWEEN:

M/S.MSPL LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED U NDER
THE COMPANIES A CT 1956 AND
HAVING ITS REGIS TERED OFFICE
AND CORPORAT E OFFICE
AT NEHRU CO-OPERATIVE COLONY,
HOSP ETE-58 3203.
                                          ...APPELLANT .
(B Y SHRI G K HIR EGOU DAR, ADVOCAT E.)


AND:

M/S. VESTAS WIND T ECHNOLOGY
INDIA PR IVATE LIMITED,
# 298, OLD MAHAB ALIPU RAM ROAD
SHOL INGANALLU R, CHENNAI
REP. B Y ITS AUT HORIS ED SIGNAT OR Y
                                           RESPONDENT
(B Y SHRI SU NIL S DESAI, ADVOCATE.)


      THIS REGU LAR F IRST A PP EAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
PORT ION OF T HE JU DGMENT A ND DECREE DA TED
13. 7.20 12, PASS ED BY THE PRL. S ENIOR CIV IL J UDGE
AND JMFC, HOSPETE, IN O.S.NO.50/ 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 company is rep resented by

Shri Praveen Singhal, Vice Presid ent (Power). Letter

of authority d ated 21.7.2020 is produced to show

that he is authorized to represent on behalf of the

comp any. The respondent company is rep resented by

Shri Dileep Gaonkar, site manag er/site in-charg e. He

too has p roduced the letter of authority for

rep resenting the comp any. Advocate for the

app ellant Shri G.K.Hiregoudar is present. Shri Sunil

S. Desai, advocate for the respondent 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 petition 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/-