SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 180

G.T.NANAVATI, K.RAMASWAMY
Jaywantraj Punamiya – Appellant
Versus
H. Choksi And Companympany Private LTD. – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated January 10, 1997 passed by the Bombay High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 9/97. It is not in dispute that while the appeal was pending an application under Order XXIII, Rule 3, CPC was filed for recording the compromise. The appellate Court refused to record the compromise and on revision, it was dismissed. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

3. The compromise memo annexed as Annexure A at page 21 of the paper book records that "We, the undersigned Shri Harshan A. Mehta, Director of H. Choksey & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Jayavantraj Punamiya, Director of M/s. Sundeep Plastics Pvt. Ltd. do hereby appoint Shri Mohanlal S. Mehta to sell 2 galas being No. D/8 and AB/14, situate at Nandanvan Co-operative Industrial Estate Ltd. at Thane." The High Court recorded the finding that it being a compromise contingent upon the parties appointing Shri Mohanlal S. Mehta as a mediator, it cannot be recorded under Order XXIII, Rule 3, CPC. Shri Sitaramaiah, learned senior counsel for the appellants, contends that once parties have agreed to refer the matter to a third party to settle their disputes, it c






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top