*1* s.2720.09.2763.09.2883.09.907.group.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.2720 OF 2009 WITH JUDGE’S ORDER NO.116 OF 2011 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.957 OF 2011 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2671 OF 2011 Prabhat India Ltd.. ..Plaintiffs -versus- Karm Yogi Property Developers Pvt.Ltd.. ..Defendants ............ Mr.R.B.Jain a/w Mr.Arvind Jaiswar i/by Legal Juris, for the Plaintiffs. Ms.Saumya Srikrishna a/w Mr.Rohit Shetty, for the Defendant Nos.1 and 2. Ms.M.S.Parasnis, for the Respondent Nos.13, 14 and 16. Ms.Priyanka P. Choksi i/by M/s Mansukhlal Hiralal & Company, for the Respondent No.9. ............ CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 30th November, 2011. P.C.: 1 The Plaintiffs and the Defendants tender the consent terms which are duly signed by them and their Advocates. The signatures of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are identified by the respective Advocates on record. Both sides are present in the Court as well. In their presence, it is stated that the claim has been settled inasmuch as both sides agree that the consent terms which were earlier tendered could not be complied with and now they will be amended and complied with in terms of the consent terms tendered today. The agreement has been reduced into writing after discussions and negotiations. It is stated that what has been reduced into *2* s.2720.09.2763.09.2883.09.907.group.sxw writing properly records their understanding and obligations. Both sides have no objection to the phraseology and wording of the consent terms. They are aware of the consequences of the undertakings recorded in the consent terms. 2 Having perused the consent terms and satisfied myself that they amicably put an end to the dispute between the parties, that there is no impediment in law in taking the consent terms on record. The consent terms do not contravene any provisions of law nor are they contrary to public policy. In such circumstances, the consent terms are taken on record and marked “X” for identification. There will be an order in terms of the consent terms. The undertakings given by both sides in the consent terms are accepted as undertakings to this Court. The suit stands disposed of accordingly. Refund of the Court fees as per rules. No costs. All interlocutory proceedings do not survive and are also disposed of. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J) *3* s.2720.09.2763.09.2883.09.907.group.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.2883 OF 2009 WITH JUDGE’S ORDER NO.115 OF 2011 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.956 OF 2011 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2670 OF 2011 Suraj Prakash Bhagat. ..Plaintiff -versus- Karm Yogi Property Developers Pvt.Ltd.. ..Defendants ............ Mr.T.K.Cooper, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Vineet Malhotra i/by S.J.Khera, for the Plaintiffs. Ms.Saumya Srikrishna a/w Mr.Rohit Shetty, for the Defendant Nos.1 and 2. Ms.M.S.Parasnis, for the Respondent Nos.13, 14 and 16. Ms.Priyanka P. Choksi i/by M/s Mansukhlal Hiralal & Company, for the Respondent No.9. ............ CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 30th November, 2011. P.C.: 1 The Plaintiffs and the Defendants tender the consent terms which are duly signed by them and their Advocates. The signatures of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are identified by the respective Advocates on record. Both sides are present in the Court as well. In their presence, it is stated that the claim has been settled inasmuch as both sides agree that the consent terms which were earlier tendered could not be complied with and now they will be amended and complied with in terms of the consent *4* s.2720.09.2763.09.2883.09.907.group.sxw terms tendered today. The agreement has been reduced into writing after discussions and negotiations. It is stated that what has been reduced into writing properly records their understanding and obligations. Both sides have no objection to the phraseology and wording of the consent terms. They are aware of the consequences of the undertakings recorded in the consent terms. 2 Having perused the consent terms and satisfied myself that they amicably put an end to the dispute between the parties, that there is no impediment in law in taking the consent terms on record. The consent terms do not contravene any provisions of law nor are they contrary to public policy. In such circumstances, the consent terms are taken on record and marked “X” for identification. There will be an order in terms of the consent terms. The undertakings given by both sides in the consent terms are accepted as undertakings to this Court. The suit stands disposed of accordingly. Refund of the Court fees as per rules. No costs. All interlocutory proceedings do not survive and are also disposed of. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J) *5* s.2720.09.2763.09.2883.09.907.group.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.2763 OF 2009 WITH JUDGE’S ORDER NO.114 OF 2011 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NOs.955 & 967 OF 2011 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2669 OF 2011 Bhagat Housing and Development Pvt.Ltd.. ..Plaintiffs -versus- Karm Yogi Property Developers Pvt.Ltd.. ..Defendants ............ Mr.T.K.Cooper, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Vineet Malhotra i/by S.J.Khera, for the Plaintiffs. Ms.Saumya Srikrishna a/w Mr.Rohit Shetty, for the Defendant Nos.1 and 2. Ms.M.S.Parasnis, for the Respondent Nos.13, 14 and 16. Ms.Priyanka P. Choksi i/by M/s Mansukhlal Hiralal & Company, for the Respondent No.9. ............ CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 30th November, 2011. P.C.: 1 Both Mr.Cooper and Ms.Srikrishna, learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs and Defendants, respectively state that the consent terms in this suit could not be tendered today as the matter is scheduled to appear on 05.12.2011. However, the claim in this suit has also been settled and the terms reducing into writing would be tendered on the returnable date. For the present, the Defendants will pay to the Plaintiffs a sum of Rs.1,11,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Eleven Lacs only) on or *6* s.2720.09.2763.09.2883.09.907.group.sxw before 15th January, 2012 and also hand over the possession of two flats in the building Prathamesh Residency as more particularly described in the consent terms tendered today in Suit No.2720/2009. 2 The figure stated by Ms.Srikrishna on instructions from the Defendants is agreed and acceptable to the Plaintiffs and Mr.Cooper confirms the said fact. 3 Both sides agree that the Contempt Petition No.23/2010 which is pending in this Court shall not be proceeded till 09th February, 2012. 4 Stand over to 05th December, 2011. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)