Madras High Court
K.Jayalakshmi Rao vs Dasaprakash Paradise Mysore on 4 February, 2025
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Appeal (CAD) No.45 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
APPEAL(CAD) NO. 45 of 2024
and CMP No.25342 of 2024
1.K.Jayalakshmi Rao
2.K. Gangaprasad
3.Usha Rao
4.Kandhi Chandrasekar : Appellants
Vs
1.Dasaprakash Paradise Mysore
a Partnership firm having its office at No.
10 Raja Anna Malai Road Chennai - 084 and
is rep. herein by its partner K. Ram Vittal Das.
2. K. Ram Vittal Das
K.Vijaya Das (Died)
3. K. Mathwamuni Das
4. A. Shavijaya Das
5. K.Vikram Das
6. K.Viswanath Das
7. Madhavi Ballal
8. Kamala : Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed to set aside the Judgement and decree dated
09.07.2024, in COS No.1828 of 2022 on the file of District Commercial
Court, Egmore, Chennai.
Page 1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Appeal (CAD) No.45 of 2024
For Appellants : Mr.Srinath Sridevan,
Senior Counsel,
for Mr.Vishnu Ramu
For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Krishnan,
Senior Counsel,
for Mr.P.Giridharan
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered
by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Parties have amicably settled the matter out of Court. Parties have
entered into a joint memorandum of compromise dated 04.02.2025.
2. The memorandum of compromise signed by second appellant for
himself and constituted attorney of appellants 1, 3, 4; and the second
respondent for himself, as partner of first respondent; third respondent
through his constituted attorney i.e. second respondent; and respondents 5
and 6, is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Respondents 7 and 8 have not signed. It is stated in the
memorandum of compromise that signature of respondents 7 and 8 is not
required since they are not partners of first respondent firm.
4. Advocates appearing for the respective parties identified the
signatures. The signatories are also present before us and are identified by
their respective advocates.
5. Advocates also state that the authority of the signatories have been
verified by them and they are satisfied.
6. The appeal is decreed in terms of the memorandum of
compromise. Drawn-up decree dispensed with.
7. For ease of reference, the memorandum of compromise is scanned
and reproduced below :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. All statements are accepted as undertaking to this Court and all
undertakings given separately are also accepted.
9. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim
application also stands disposed of.
10. Refund, if any, of Court fees, in accordance with rules.
(K.R.SHRIRAM, CJ.) (SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.)
04.02.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
tar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
(tar)
APPEAL(CAD) NO. 45 of 2024
04.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
