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

2001 Supreme(SC) 1667

K.T.THOMAS, D.P.MOHAPATRA
RAMESH NARANG (1) – Appellant
Versus
RAMA NARANG – Respondent


ORDER

1. The following cases are pending between the parties who are parties in the present proceedings before us in one way or the other. We are told that all the parties have settled their disputes in respect of all the litigations specified below.

1. as No. 3535 of 1994 before the Bombay High Court.

2. as No. 3578 of 1994 before the Bombay High Court.

3. as No. 1105 of 1998 before the Bombay High Court.

4. as No. 3469 of 1996 before the Bombay High Court.

5. as No. 1792 of 1998 before the Bombay High Court.

6. as No. 320 of 1991 before the Bombay High Court.

7. Company Petition No. 28 of 1992 before the Principal Bench, Company Law Board, New Delhi.

8. Arbitration Suit No. 5110 of 1994 before the Bombay High Court.

2. Today they filed a document styled as "Minutes of Consent Order" signed by all the parties. Learned counsel appearing on both sides submitted that all the parties have signed this document. Today except Mona Narang a and Ramona Narang (two ladies), all the rest of the parties are present before us when these proceedings are dictated. As for Mona Narang and Ramona Narang, learned counsel submitted that Mona Narang had affixed the signatures and the power-of-attorney hol







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