Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 14174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J
K.Devarajan – Appellant
Versus
K.Nataraj – Respondent
A.S.No.35 of 2007|O.S.No.352 of 2001
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.V.Sankar for Mr.R.Kannan
For the Respondents: Mr.R.Darshan for Mr.N.Manokaran for R2
Court emphasizes mediation for dispute resolution, affirming compromise terms as binding.
Headnote:The High Court examined the dispute settled through mediation, referring to the terms of compromise submitted by the parties as a resolution to the appeal. The court disposed of the second appeal in accordance with the compromise, maintaining proper records. The issue of costs was also addressed without imposing any burden. Final decision reflects a harmonious resolution.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. mediation leads to resolution. (Para 1) |
| 2. court's final disposition per settlement. (Para 2) |
ORDER
Mr.V.Sankar, learned counsel representing Mr.R.Kannan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.R.Darshan, learned counsel representing Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the dispute has been settled before the Mediation Centre attached to this court and that compromise terms have been entered into. A copy of the compromise memo is placed before this court.
2. In the circumstances, the second appeal shall stand disposed of in terms of the terms of compromise. The copy of the compromise memo shall form part of the record. No costs. Consequently, connected applications, if any, shall stand closed.
