Madras High Court
Unknown vs Vishnu Nivethan on 10 October, 2025
A.S.No.895 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
A.S.No.895 of 2025 and CMP No.21871 of 2025
M/s Rakindo Kovai Township Ltd.,
Rep by its CEO, Karthik Subramanian,
No.1014/2,3, VLB Janakiyammal Engineering College Road,
Kovaipudur, Coimbatore-641 042.
(Cause Title accepted vide Court Order dated
30.07.2025 made in CMP No.18196 of 2025 in
A.S.SR No.97440 of 2025) .... Appellant
vs
1.Vishnu Nivethan
2.K.B.Sivasurya
3.K.P.Balakrishnan ... Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of Civil
Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2025 passed by
the learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore in O.S.No.164 of 2008.
For Appellant : Mr.M.K.Elangovan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Saravanan
For RR.1 and 2
R.3 – Not ready in notice
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:06:56 pm )
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for
the respondents.
2. The appeal suit has been filed by the defendant in O.S.No.164 of
2008, challenging the decree passed in the said suit. Pending appeal, the
appellant and the respondents 1 and 2 have amicably resolved their disputes
and arrived at settlement.
3. The terms of settlement is also reduced to writing, in and by a
compromise dated 07.10.2025. The authorised representative of the appellant
Company has represented the appellant and executed the compromise memo.
4. The Resolution of the Board of Directors of the appellant Company
dated 02.09.2024 is also produced to evidence the legal authority of the
representative to enter into the compromise on behalf of the appellant
company and bind the appellant company. Such authorised representative is
present in person and the respondents 1 and 2 are also present in person today
and all the parties affirmed the compromise reached between themselves.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:06:56 pm )
5. Insofar as the third respondent, the appeal suit is not pressed since he
is only a formal party having alienated the property belonging to the
respondents 1 and 2, which was the subject matter of the suit before the trial
court.
6. In furtherance of the compromise, the appellant has paid a sum of
Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty lakhs only) (Rs.10,00,000/- each) which is
acknowledged in the compromise memo. Today cheques for Rs.35,00,000/-
(Rupees Thiruty Five Lakhs Only) each favouring respondents 1 and 2 have
been handed over to the respondents 1 and 2, the receipt of which is duly
acknoweldged by the respondents 1 and 2 subject to the cheques being
realised on deposit.
7. The parties have also undertaken that further amount of
Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs
only) each shall be paid as full and final settlement by the appellant
Company to the respondents 1 and 2 at the time of the respondents 1 and 2
withdrawing the final decree application.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:06:56 pm )
8. The terms of the compromise memo has been read over and
explained to the parties and they have also affirmed to the terms agreed
thereunder. There no impediment for this Court to record the said
compromise.
9. In view of the compromise memo entered into between the parties
dated 07.10.2025, the appeal suit is dismissed as settled out of court. The
comprmise memo shall form part and parcel of the decree.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.10.2025
Index: Yes/No
Website:yes/no
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
sr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:06:56 pm )
To
The I Additional District Court, Coimbatore
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:06:56 pm )
P.B.BALAJI.,
sr
10.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 03:06:56 pm )
