- 1 - 901.s.2319.10 skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 2319 OF 2010 Nisha Prakash Nichani & Ors. ..Plaintiffs -Versus- Anees Bazmee & Anr. ..Defendants .......... Mr.Yashodhan Divekar a/w. Mr.Gautam Bhagwat, Ms.Gargi Bhagwat i/b M/s.Divekar & Co. for the Plaintiffs. Mr.V.V.Khemka for Defendant No.1. Mr.B.B.Tiwari i/b A.Q.Motiwala for Defendant No.2. .......... CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 20TH AUGUST 2011. P.C. 1 Plaintiff No.1 is the mother and natural guardian of the minor daughters who are plaintiff nos.2 and 3. The suit is filed to recover an amount of ` 7,12,54,976/- together with interest at 24% per annum on the principal sum of ` 5,00,00,001/- from defendant no.1 and a sum of ` 23,04,283/- together with interest at 24% on the principal sum of ` 16,01,000/- from defendant no.2. 2 The claim arises on account of a transaction entered into between the deceased husband of plaintiff no.1 and the defendants. The said - 2 - 901.s.2319.10 deceased was desirous of producing a film. Defendant no.1 was engaged as a director of the proposed film and defendant no.2 was engaged as a story writer. A writing dated 11th September 2008 was executed by the deceased and the defendants. It was not a formal document which was handwritten. It contained certain heads of the alleged agreement. Pursuant to the agreement a sum of ` 5,00,00,000/- was paid by defendant no.1. The writing does not however reflect the same. The terms and conditions on which the amount was paid is not reflected in any document. Draft agreements were exchanged which were however, never executed. Extensive oral evidence will therefore, be required for establishing the terms and conditions on which the said amount was paid by the deceased to the defendants. The deceased unfortunately expired on 10th March 2009. This being the case the first major hurdle is in establishing the plaintiffs’ case. 3 The defendants’ contention is that the amount paid was non- refundable. The deceased had abandoned the project and the defendants were therefore not responsible for the same. 4 In view of the difficulties in proving and in view of the considerable long period for which this litigation is likely to be pending, the plaintiffs have decided to settle the matter by accepting the sum of ` 2,75,00,000/- from - 3 - 901.s.2319.10 defendant no.1 in full and final satisfaction of their claim. The necessary certificate endorsing the same has been furnished by the advocates. 5 In my view, the settlement is in the interest of the estate of the plaintiffs. The estate has considerable funds and properties. The estate is estimated to be over ` 40,00,00,000/-. The liabilities of the estate are stated to be around ` 21,00,00,000/-. However, much of the estate comprises of properties. A valuable item in the estate are the shares of BJN Hotels Limited. The plaintiffs hold 60% of the issued subscribed and paid up capital of the company. There are various debts of the company. The decision therefore to accept a sum of ` 2,75,00,000/-, at this stage, appears reasonable. Apart from the difficulties in proof and the delay in litigation, it would also save the plaintiffs’ considerable costs which would obviously be involved in prosecuting this litigation. A trial with oral evidence is almost a certainty in this case. 6 In the circumstances, the settlement is for the benefit of the plaintiff nos.2 and 3 who are minors. Plaintiff no.1 and plaintiff no.3 and the defendants are present in Court. 7 In the circumstances, the suit is disposed of in terms of consent terms signed by plaintiff no.1, who is authorized to sign the draft of the - 4 - 901.s.2319.10 consent terms, which are tendered in Court. She has accordingly signed the consent terms on her behalf and on behalf of her minor daughters plaintiff nos.2 and 3. The consent terms signed by the parties/on behalf of the parties and their respective advocates, are taken on record and marked ‘X’. Refund of court fees, if any, as per rules. -