M/S Jay Pee Roadways (Madras) vs M/S Bharath Electronics Limited
2022 Latest Caselaw 10137 Kant

                             1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF JULY, 2022

                          PRESENT

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

                            AND

             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

             REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1621/2018

BETWEEN:

M/S JAY PEE ROADWAYS (MADRAS)
REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR
NO.809,
POONAMALLEE HIGH ROAD,
CHENNAI-600010
                                              ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI S.DHASSAIYA, ADV. - ABSENT.)

AND:

1.     M/S BHARATH ELECTRONICS LIMITED,
       JALAHALLI PO.BANGALORE-560013
       REP BY POWER AGENT/SUBROGEE
       M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       PB NO.6813, III FLOOR,
       DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.II
       IML BUILDING, N R SQUARE,
       BANGALORE-560002
       REP BY THEIR ADMINISTRATION OFFICER
       AMIT MAUN.

2.     M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.II
       PB NO.6813, III FLOOR
       IML BUILDING, N R SQUARE
                               2


     BANGALORE-560002
     REP. BY THEIR ADMINISTRATION OFFICER,
     AMIT MAUN.
                                        ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI P.S.RANGANATHAN, ADV. )

      THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF
CPC., UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED;02.06.2018 PASSED IN
OS.NO.1952/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL   AND   SESSIONS    JUDGE,   (CCH-15)  BENGALURU,
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.


     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR "HEARING
ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION" THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

The memo for withdrawal is preferred by the

respondents on the ground that the decree has been

satisfied. The prayer for withdrawal of the appeal would not

lie in the hands of the respondents.

2. In that view of the matter, memo is rejected.

3. Case is called, there is no representation on

behalf of the appellant. On the contrary, the learned

counsel for the respondents submits that the decree has

been satisfied as the parties have entered into an out of

Court settlement. In that view of the matter, he would

submit that the appeal does not survive for consideration.

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the

respondents is placed on record.

5. The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

6. Office to draw a decree accordingly.

Office to examine and refund permissible court fee to

the appellant.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE Chs CT-HR