*1* s.793.09.910.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.793 OF 2009 Indian Overseas Bank. ..Plaintiff -versus- Shakti Construction Company Ltd.. ..Defendant ............ Ms.Usha Shrivastava i/b Consulta Juris, for the Plaintiff. Mr.M.P.Vora, for the Defendant. ............ CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 21st October, 2011. P.C.: 1 The learned counsel appearing for the respective parties confirm that the consent terms are signed by their clients and they are present in the Court. They state that the claim of the Plaintiff has been settled inasmuch as the Plaintiff is confirmed as owner of the immovable property and the claim and dispute in relation to the additional FSI is settled as per these terms. The terms fully record the understanding between the parties. 2 In these circumstances and when I am satisfied that a nationalized bank has settled the dispute in relation to the immovable property with a private owner, the consent terms are in public interest and do not contravene any provisions of law. The consent terms are, therefore, taken on record and marked as “X” for identification. There will be an order in terms of these consent terms. The suit is, accordingly, disposed of. There will be refund of the court fees as per rules. No order as to costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)