Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 17222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.Karthikeyan, K.Kumaresh Babu, JJ
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd (TANGEDCO) – Appellant
Versus
M/s.Engineering Projects (India) Ltd – Respondent
OSA No. 207 of 2023|CMP No.24554 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.C.Ramesh, Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Sivaprakasam, G.Dhyaneshwar
For the Respondents: M/s.Hema Srinivasan
The court dismisses an appeal as settled out of court following an agreement between parties.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The appeal was filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of O.S.Rules r/w clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Facts of the Case: The appellant sought to set aside the arbitral award and the order confirming it, asserting various claims and counterclaims.
Findings of Court:
The court acknowledged the out-of-court settlement, allowing the withdrawal of the appeal.
Issues: The main question framed was whether to allow the withdrawal of the appeal given the settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that, as the matter was settled out of court, the appeal stands dismissed as such.
Result: The appeal stands dismissed as settled out of Court.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. premise for appeal withdrawal after settlement (Para 1) |
| 2. appeal dismissed based on the parties' settlement (Para 2) |
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)
The learned counsel for the appellant had filed a memo stating that the matter had been settled out of Court and seeks permission to withdraw the Appeal. Additionally, he has also addressed a letter to the Registrar Judicial dated 16.02.2026 seeking to withdraw the Appeal.
2.In view of the fact that the parties had settled the issues out of the Court, the appeal stands dismissed as settled out of Court. The appellant is entitled for refund of the Court fees in accordance with the Rules.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
