Back
MANMOHAN, MINI PUSHKARNA
Shiju Jacob Varghese – Appellant
Versus
Tower Vision Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. infructuous appeal due to settlement (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. consent order effectives on rights of parties. (Para 6 , 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J.
CM APPL.39987/2017
1. Present application has been filed on behalf of the Respondents under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that it has become infructous.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS - RESPONDENTS
2. Mr. Dayan Krishan and Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned senior counsel for the Applicants-Respondents contended that the present appeal was infructuous in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties as recorded in the consent order dated 11th May, 2017 passed by the Tel Aviv District Court. In support of their contention, they relied on the following facts and submissions:
2.1 A document entitled Share Entitlement was executed in favour of Appellant No.1 by Respondent No.2 i.e. Tower Vision Limited Partnership through Respondent No.1 i.e. Tower Vision Limited in its capacity as the general partner of Respondent No.2 on 17th October, 2006. The Share Entitlement dated 17th October, 2006 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"To:
Mr.Shiju Varghese
Re: Share Entitlemen
An appeal becomes infructuous if a subsequent event resolves the underlying dispute, and continuation constitutes an abuse of process as it leads to forum shopping and re-litigation.
Point of law : Applicants have been able to make out more than a prima facie case for grant of leave to appeal. The applicants could be said to be prima facie prejudicially affected by the consent de....
(1) Appeal – A stranger cannot be permitted to file appeal in any proceedings unless he satisfies court that he falls with category of aggrieved persons.(2) Appeal – Expression ‘person aggrieved’ doe....
An appeal against a consent decree is barred under Section 96(3) of the CPC; aggrieved parties must contest the decree's validity in the same court that issued it.
Consent decree is not binding on non-parties to proceedings.
A consent judgment is considered a contract and can only be set aside on grounds applicable to contracts, such as fraud or new evidence, which must be clearly demonstrated.
A consent decree obtained through fraud is challengeable by a third party, and such a challenge does not require an independent suit.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
