1 s2576-11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.2576 OF 2011 Shapoorji Pallonji & Co Ltd .. Plaintiff versus P R S Enterprises & Ors .. Defendants Mr.Chirag Balsara a/w Mr.Z.A.K Nijam E. Saini i/by Maneksha & Sethna for the plaintiff. Mr.Sachin Dhakephalkar a/w Ms.Suvarna Avhadvasta for defendant Nos.1 to 4. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 19th October 2011. P.C.: . Mentioned. Not on board. 2} The plaintiffs and defendants tender the consent terms under which the defendants readily and willingly submit to a decree in terms of the prayer clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (d1), (e), (e1) and (f) of the plaint, to the extent indicated in the consent terms. It is stated that both sides mutually discussed the proposals of amicable settlement and the 2 s2576-11.doc defendants have, therefore, agreed to submit to a decree in terms that are drawn by the parties. 3} It is stated that the suit has been filed on 6th September 2011. It has been extensively amended before the writ of summons was prepared and served on 12th October 2011 and immediately thereafter, the terms are presented. Yet, it is confirmed that there is no collusion between the parties and that the suit has been filed on the basis that there was a valid, subsisting and enforceable agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs have proceeded on the basis that the title to the property vests with the defendants. Upon the defendants attention being invited to the allegations in the plaint, particularly the correspondence and the agreement between the parties, that they came forward to settle the matter and agreed to submit on their own, to a decree. 4} In terms of the reciprocal obligations, which both sides are aware of and the plaintiffs stating that they have complied with the same but the defendants having failed to comply therewith, that the suit had to be instituted and now the defendants state that the agreement which has 3 s2576-11.doc been reached, is fully and properly reflected in these consent terms. The consent terms do not affect the rights of any third parties. Similarly, from the purview of the consent terms agricultural lands and rights wherein are covered by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and such other legislation, are excluded they may be forming part of the agreement between the parties. The plaintiffs give up their claims in relation to the properties other than those covered by clause (1) of the consent terms. The defendants, therefore, have stated that they would comply with each of their obligations and particularly as set out in the consent terms. These consent terms put an end to the private dispute between the parties and having perused the same and satisfying myself, that they do not contravene any provisions of law or public policy, that they are taken on record and marked “X” for identification. The consent terms have been signed on behalf of the plaintiffs by their duly authorised signatories and their signatures are confirmed. They are present in the Court. The resolution authorising them is annexed to the consent terms. On the other hand, the defendants and their duly authorised signatories/attorneys are present and their signatures are also confirmed by their advocate. 4 s2576-11.doc 5} In these circumstances, there will be an order in terms of the consent terms. The suit stands decreed accordingly. Refund of court fees as per the rules. No order as to costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)