1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 21 OF 1992 Industrial Tubes Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. ...Plaintiff. Vs. Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board & Anr. ...Defendants. Ms. Priti Tembekar i/by Mr. Vinod Juwale for the Plaintiff. Mr. Vipin R. Kasle for Defendant No.1. Mr. G.V. Parmar for Defendant No.2. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 3rd AUGUST, 2009. P.C.- 1 The parties, i.e. Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 have arrived at settlement and accordingly filed consent terms dated 28th July, 2009. It is already marked as “X” on 28th July, 2009. It is signed by the representatives/officers of Defendant No.2 and the Plaintiff. It is also counter signed by the respective advocates. The Plaintiff is not seeking any relief against Defendant No.1 and in fact undertakes to withdraw the present suit against Defendant No.1, unconditionally. 2 In view of this settlement, the Plaintiff is seeking permission to withdraw the present suit as settled out of the Court. The learned counsel appearing for Defendant No.1 has no objection for the same. The statement 2 is also made that the consent terms so arrived at, is well within the framework of law and the record. The amount as deposited in the Bank by the Court Receiver is permitted to be withdrawn as per this consent terms. However, that will be subject to the usual costs and expenses of the Court Receiver. The Court Receiver is discharged. 2 The suit is accordingly disposed of in view of the consent terms. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)