abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Delhi High Court Xcellance Medical Technologies ... vs Hll Infratech Services Ltd. & Anr. on 5 October, 2021 $6 * Judgment reserved on: 11.08.2021 % Judgment delivered on: 05.10.2021 + W.P.(C) 6643/2021 XCELLANCE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Senior Advocate Along with Mr. Aman Varma, Mr. Abhishek Adke, Mr. Vikrant Zunzarrao and Mr. Huzan Bhumgara, Advocates. versus HLL INFRA TECH SERVICES LTD. & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Nikhilesh Krishnan, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. Vijay Joshi and Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, Advocates for respondent No. 2 / UOI. Ms. Taru Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 3 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH J U D G M E N T OF THE COURT 1. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the following substantial prayers: "(a) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing & setting aside the decision dated 17th June, 2021 (Annexure K) rejecting the Technical Bid of the Petitioner; W.P.(C.) No.6643/2021 Page 1 of 37 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:06.10.2021 16:28:40 (b to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing Respondent No.1 to reject the technical bid of Respondent No.3; (c) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing & setting aside the decision dated 30th June, 2021 (Annexure Q) accepting the Financial Bid of Respondent No.3; (d) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No.1 to open and evaluate the Financial Bid submitted by the Petitioner in accordance with the Domestic Tender Inquiry Document dated 12th March, 2021 bearing tender ID 2021_HLL_73064_1‖ 2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are as under: 3. The Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and has its registered office at Plot No. W239, MIDC, Rabale, TTC Industrial Area, Navi Mumbai, Thane 400701. The Petitioner is an MSME registered with the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and is engaged in the business of development and manufacturing of medical devices under the brand name „Shalya‟. The Petitioner has a manufacturing and R&D facility located at Navi Mumbai. 4. Respondent No.1 that is HLL INFRA TECH SERVICES Ltd. (HITES) is a wholly owned subsidiary of HLL Lifecare Limited, is a Public Sector Undertaking under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. 5. Respondent No. 2 is the Union of India and Respondent No. 3 is a subsidiary company of Karl Storz Endoskope, a company incorporated under the laws of Germany. W.P.(C.) No.6643/2021 Page 2 of 37 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:06.10.2021 16:28:40 6. The Respondent No. 1 issued a Domestic Tender Inquiry Document on 12th March, 2021 bearing tender ID 2021_HLL_73064_1 on behalf of
Corporation Limited, 2(1), Paryavas Bhawan, Bhopal. Jail Road, Bhopal. Appellant Respondent PAN NO. : AACCM5763B I.T.A.No.94/Ind/2008 A.Y. : 200304 Dy. CIT, Vs. M.P.State Civil Supplies 2(1), Corporation Limited, Bhopal. Paryavas Bhawan, Jail Road, Bhopal. Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri S.C.Saini, Assistant Accounts Officer Department by : Shri V.K.Karan, DR. : 2 : PAN NO. : AACCM1081C I.T.A.No.03/Ind/2009. A.Y. : 200506 ACIT, Vs. M.P.Rajya Van Vikas Nigam, 2(1), 5th Floor, Bhopal. Panchanan Building, Malviya Nagar, Bhopal. Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri V.K.Karan, Addl. CIT DR Respondent by : Written submissions PAN NO. : AABCN1732G I.T.A.No. 485 & 486/Ind/2008. A.Y. : 200405 & 200506 ACIT, Vs. M/s.Narmada Hydroelectric 2(1), Development Corpn. Limited, Bhopal.. NHDC Square, Paryavas Bhawan, Block No.2, 5th Floor, Arera Hills, Bhopal. Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri V.K.Karan, Addl. CIT DR 2 : 3 : Respondent by : Shri M. C. Mehta & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, CAs ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, A.M. The above captioned Appeals of the assessee filed in I.T.A.Nos. 122/Ind/2008 and 01/Ind/2009 are directed against the orders of CIT(A)I, Bhopal, dated 19.12.2007 and 24.10.2008 and relate to assessment years 200304 & 200405 respectively and cross appeal filed in I.T.A.No. 94/Ind/08 is directed against the order of the ld.CIT(A)I, Bhopal dated 19.12.2007 relating to assessment year 200304. Appeal filed by the Revenue in I.T.A.No. 03/Ind/09 is filed against the order of CIT(A)I, Bhopal, dated 20.10.2008 relating to assessment year 200506 and appeals filed by the Revenue in I.T.A.Nos. 485 & 486/Ind/08 are directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 11.9.2008. Different assessees are there in all these appeals. 2. We have heard the parties. It is noticed that in these appeals, the assessees are Government undertakings/concerns,wherein Committee 3 : 4 : on Disputes' permission is required. Similar issue has been decided by this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 17.07.09 in I.T.A.No.221 & 269/Ind/2009 in the case of M.P.Rajya Van Vikas Nigam, Bhopal, for the assessment years 199899 and 200607 and relevant finding has been given in paras 2 & 3, which read as under : 2. During the course of hearing before us, it was admitted by both the parties that the assessee is a State Government Undertaking. Since the parties are Government Undertaking, therefore, these are required to seek permission of the Committee on Disputes, but it was brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the assessee that no permission to pursue these appeals had been accorded till now by the Committee on Disputes. In view of the above, both these appeals by the Departm
1 of 16 dtd.24.5.2010/k 2 some advertisements published in newspaper in 1997 regarding payment of dues of Birla Textiles Mills; d. Concerned Clerk from ESIC regarding records pertaining to the accused; e. Concerned Clerk from EPFO regarding records pertaining to the accused; f. Concerned Patwari regarding records of Old Birla Lines and Birla Mills and; g. Concerned Clerk from the department of Archives, Delhi. 3. It is not mentioned in the application as to what point the accused wants to prove from these witnesses. This application is vehemently opposed by the complainant. 4. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that the complainant company filed the present complaint u/s.630 of the Companies Act against the accused claiming that the accused was an employee of M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and by virtue of a scheme of arrangement, the complainant company acquired one Birla Mill Unit of the said company alongwith all its employees and properties. The accused was provided with a residential accommodation as a licensee, by virtue of his employment, which he was to vacate upon cessation of his services, but despite cessation of services, the accused failed to vacate the property and was wrongfully withholding the same. Order in Texmaco Vs. Vijender Kumar/Case no.1949/3 Page no. 2 of 16 dtd.24.5.2010/k 3 5. The complainant, M/s. Texmaco Ltd. filed the present complaint u/s. 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, against the accused, alleging that the complainant company is duly incorporated under the said Act and, the complainant company is the proprietor of Birla Textile Mill, located at Post Office Birla Lines, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. It claims that the complainant company has various employees and housing colonies such as Old Birla Lines, New Birla Lines, Roshanara Building (Shivaji Lines), Birla Lines Officer's Flats and Birla Flats, and Khilona Wala Bagh etc. It claims that these housing colonies are located near the vicinity of the mill and they were allotted to employees for the greater convenience of the employees due to exigencies attached with their job and, so that the work of the mill is done effectively. It is also claimed that the complainant company acquired proprietary rights in respect of the mill, as well as, the
Delhi High Court Tata Projects Kalindee (Jv) & Ors vs Rail Vikas Nigam Limited on 20 May, 2025 $~ * Reserved on: 12 August 2024 Pronounced on: 20 May 2025 + ARB.P. 432/2024 & I.A. No. 35382/2024 TATA PROJECTS KALINDEE (JV) & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Naveen Chawla, Advocate versus RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Udit Seth and Mr. Roshan Roy, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT % 20.05.2025 1. This is a petition under Section 11(6)1 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19962, for reference of the disputes, stated to have arisen between the petitioners on the one hand and the respondent on the other, to arbitration. 1 11. Appointment of arbitrators (6) Where, under an appointment procedure agreed upon by the parties, (a) a party fails to act as required under that procedure; or (b) the parties, or the two appointed arbitrators, fail to reach an agreement expected of them under that procedure; or (c) a person, including an institution, fails to perform any function entrusted to him or it under that procedure, [the appointment shall be made, on an application of the party, by the arbitral institution designated by the Supreme Court, in case of international commercial arbitration, or by the High Court, in case of arbitrations other than international commercial arbitration, as the case may be] to take the necessary measure, unless the agreement on the appointment procedure provides other means for securing the appointment. 2 "the 1996 Act" hereinafter Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified ARB.P. 432/2024 Page 1 of 31 Digitally Signed By:AJIT Digitally Signed KUMAR By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date:21.05.2025 Signing Date:21.05.2025 12:15:28 12:14:48 Rival Pleadings Case of the Petitioners 2. The petitioners set up the following case, to support the prayer for reference of the disputes to arbitration: (i) Petitioner 1, Tata ProjectsKalindee (JV)3 is an unincorporated joint venture between Petitioner 2 Tata Projects Ltd.4 and Petitioner 3 Kalindee Rail Nirman (Engineers) Ltd.5 TPL is the lead partner of the JV. (ii) The respondent Rail Vikas Nigam Limited6 is a 100% owned Public Sector Undertaking of the Ministry of Railways. (iii) On 27 July 2016, RVNL floated a tender for carrying out railway electrification works in NorthEast India. The JV participated and submitted its bid on 3
1. M/s Golden Jubilee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Resolution Professional Mr. Subodh Kumar Agarwal IBBI/IPA001/IPP00087/2001718/10183 Having its registered office at: Survey No. 64, Beside Shiparamam, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana 500081. ...Respondent No. 1 Email: [email protected] 2. Committee of Creditors M/s Golden Jubilee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Survey No. 64, Beside Shiparamam, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana 500081. Email: Not Available ...Respondent No. 2 3. Telangana State Tourism Corporation Limited Government of Telangana DBlock, 2nd floor, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana 500081 Email : [email protected] ...Respondent No. 3 4. Shilparamam Arts, Crafts & Cultural Society Hi Tech City Main Road, Hitec City, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana 500081. 2 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 426, 430, 432 &710 of 2020 Email: [email protected] ...Respondent No. 4 5. BREP Asia II Indian Holding Co. II (NQ) Pte. Ltd. 77, Robinson Road #1300 Robinson 77, Singapore 068896 Email: [email protected] ...Respondent No. 5 Present For Appellants: Ms. Priya Kumar & Mr. Shivam Goel, Advocates For Respondents: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Mr. Aviral Singhal, Mr. D. Kapila, Adv. for SRA. Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate for R2. PCS, Manoj Kumar Koyalkar, Adv. for R3. Mr. Swapnil Gupta, Mr. Abhinav Mishra, Mr. Vaibhav Mendirata, Advocates for R4. With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 430 of 2020 (Arising out of the Order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, in I.A. No. 960 of 2019 in I.A. No. 32 of 2019 in C.P. (IB) No. 248/7/HDB/2017.) IN THE MATTER OF: Consolidated Engineering Company Through its Partner, Office at KBlock, Chaudhary Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110001. ...Appellant Versus 3 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 426, 430, 432 &710 of 2020 1. Subodh Kumar Agrawal Former Resolution Professional of Golden Jubilee Hotels Private Limited, 1, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 3rd Floor, Room No. 301, Kolkata 700013. ...Respondent No. 1 2. Golden Jubilee Hotels Private Limited Through Successful Resolution Applicant Survey No. 64, Beside Shilpakalavedika,, Shilparamam, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana 500081. ...Respondent No. 2 3. BREP Asia II Indian Holding Co. II (NQ) Pte. Ltd. 77, Robinson Road #1300 Robinson 77, Singapore 068896 ...Respondent No. 3 Email: [email protected] 4. Committee of Creditors Golden Jubilee Hotels Private Limited Survey No. 64, Beside Shilpakalavedika, Shilparamam, Madhapur, Hyderabad 500081. ...Respondent No. 4 Present For Appellants: Mr. Uddyam Mukherjee & Mr. Swapnil Pattanayak, Adv. For Respondents: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Mr. Aviral Singhal, Mr. D. Kapila, Adv. for SRA Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate for R4 4 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 426, 430, 432 &710 of 2020 With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 432 of 2020 (Arising out of the Order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, H
Delhi High Court M/S Delhi Paper Products Co Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India on 13 January, 2023 2023/DHC/000255 % Judgment delivered on: 13.01.2023 + FAO(OS) (COMM) 356/2019 M/S DELHI PAPER PRODUCTS CO.PVT. LTD ..... Appellant versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Sandeep Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr Ravinder Singh, Ms Raveesha Gupta, Mr Srisatya Mohanty, Ms Kanchan Semwal, Mr Sanjeev Kaushik and Mr Shreyas Awasthi, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Mr Gokul Sharma, Advocate CORAM HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J 1. The appellant has filed the present intracourt appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the A&C Act') impugning a judgement dated 01.11.2018 (hereafter 'the impugned judgement') in OMP 1195/2012. The respondent had filed the said application (OMP 1195/2021) impugning the arbitral award dated 06.06.2012 (hereafter 'the impugned award') under Section 34 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal FAO(OS)(COMM)356/2019 Page 1 of 15 Signing Date:13.01.2023 2023/DHC/000255 of the A&C Act. By the impugned judgement, the learned Single Judge allowed the said application and set aside the impugned award. Factual Context 2. The appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 19, I.G.I, Gurgaon Road, Kapashera, NewDelhi110037. It is involved in the business of supply of paper products (that is, fax rolls, computer paper, photocopier paper etc.) to various government departments and their ministries in India under annually renewed rate contracts with the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposal (DGS&D). 3. On 08.09.2000, the respondent awarded the appellant a Rate Contract bearing PP3/RC06011800/062000/Photocopier Paper/2000 2001/D0488/DPPC/158 (hereafter 'the contract') for the supply of photocopier paper for the period of 20002001. 4. On 21.03.2001, the Controller of Stores (SF) South Central Railway, Secundrabad (hereafter 'the consignee') placed the following Supply Orders with the appellant: Supply Order No. Date Value in Rs. P.P.83.00.1130.90515 21.03.2001 5,84,100 P.P.83.01.1004.2.90516 21.03.2001 1,37,610 P.P.83.01.1132.2.90517 21.03.2001 4,25,919 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal FAO(OS)(COMM)356/2019 Page 2 of 15 Signing Date:13.01.2023 2023/DHC/000255 5. The contract was shortclosed with effect from 08.08.2001, by an amendment dated 27.07.2001. The appellant had made the supplies against the Supply Order no. 90515. However, the supplies made against the said Supply Order were allegedly found to be defectiv
1.Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Jaipur (Third), Office of Commissioner of Industries, Government of Rajasthan, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan302 005. 2.M/s.Purma Plast Private Limited, Represented by Sri Raghuveer Sharma, B494, RIICO Industrial Area, Phase I, Bhiwadi, Alwar, Rajasthan. ... Respondents 1/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1792 of 2021 Prayer : Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order, dated 08.06.2021 made in W.P.No.11348 of 2021. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Gopinathan For R2 : Mr.Abishek Jenasenan JUDGMENT ************ [Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.DHANABAL, J.] This appeal has been preferred as against the order passed in W.P.No.11348 of 2021 wherein, the appellant herein has filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in Case No.RJ/02/S/RJS/00619 award, dated 23.10.2019 and quash the same. 2/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1792 of 2021 2. The writ petition was filed by this appellant challenging the award, dated 23.10.2019 passed against the petitioner by the Arbitral Tribunal, (i.e.,) Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council on the ground that the procedures under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act have not been followed and no notice was served to the petitioner for commencement of arbitral proceedings. Without serving notice, arbitral proceedings cannot be commenced and the averment of arbitrator itself has not been communicated to the petitioner and without giving opportunity to the petitioner, the ex parte award was passed by the Council. 3. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the sides dismissed the writ petition by holding that the very same award has been challenged by the same petitioner before this Court in O.P.No.443 of 2020 and the said OP was dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 10.12.2020 on the ground of delay in challenging the award and as against the same, 3/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1792 of 2021 O.S.A.No.101 of 2021 is preferred and the same is pending before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the writ petition is not
Delhi High Court Khanna & Annadhanam vs S C Khaneja & Son (Huf) on 24 May, 2023 Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:3624 $~ * + RC.REV. 299/2016 & CM APPL. 20518/2016 KHANNA & ANNADHANAM ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Dhruv Pande and Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Advocates versus S C KHANEJA & SON (HUF) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Devanand Ray, Advocate + RC.REV. 308/2016, CM APPL. 22001/2016, 22004/2016, 42650/2016, 23682/2017, 4256/2018, 29588/2018 & 42851/2022 WHEEL FINANCE INDIA (P) LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Advocates versus S C KHANEJA & SON (HUF) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Devanand Ray, Advocate + RC.REV. 316/2016, CM APPL. 22616/2016, 22619/2016, 42648/2016, 23683/2017, 4252/2018, 29590/2018, 37774/2018, 43052/2022 & 56216/2022 B K SHROFF & CO ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Advocates versus S C KHANEJA & SONS (HUF) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Devanand Ray, Advocate % Reserved on: 03rd March, 2023 Date of Decision: 24th May, 2023 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA JUDGMENT MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAHIMA SHARMA RC.REV. 299/2016 & other connected matters Page 1 of 32 Signing Date:24.05.2023 17:36:28 Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:3624 1. These revision petition(s) have been filed impugning the common order and judgment dated 11.02.2016, passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts in eviction petition bearing nos. E415/14, E417/14 and E419/14, whereby the leave to defend application(s) filed by the Petitioner(s) herein were dismissed and the eviction order was passed in favour of the Respondent. 2. The eviction petition No. E417/14/ (in RC. REV. No. 299/2016) was filed with respect to property No. 3/7 B, 2nd floor, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110002 and the portion is marked as point 'C' in the site plan filed before this Court on 03.02.2023 ('site plan'). The name of the tenant is Khanna and Annadhanam and the premises was let out at statutory rent of Rs. 400/ per month. 2.1. The eviction petition No. E415/14 (in RC. REV. No. 308/2016) was filed with respect to property No. 3/6 B, 1st Floor, Rear Flat, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi and the portion is marked as point 'A' in the site plan. The name of the tenant is Wheel Finance India Pvt. Ltd. and the premises was let out at statutory rent of Rs. 550/ per month. 2.2. The eviction petition No. E419/14 (in RC. REV. No. 316/2016) was filed with respect to property No. 3/7 B, 1st Floor, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi and the portion is and is marked as point 'B' in the site plan. The name of the tenan
Karnataka High Court M/S Indus Towers Ltd vs M/S Mv. Communications on 5 June, 2023 1 RFA No. 1389 of 2020 DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1389 OF 2020 (MON) BETWEEN: 1. M/s. INDUS TOWERS LTD., BUILDING NO.10, TOWERA 4TH FLOOR, DLF CYBER CITY GURGAON HARYANA 2. M/s. INDUS TOWERS LTD., KARNATAKA CIRCLE HEAD OFFICE NO.12, TOWERD SUBRAMANYA ARCADE 7TH FLOOR, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE560 029 3. M/s. INDUS TOWERS LTD., KARNATAKA CIRCLE HEAD OFFICE NO.12, TOWERD Digitally signed by SUBRAMANYA ARCADE ANUSHA V 7TH FLOOR, BANNERGHATTA ROAD Location: HIGH BANGALORE560 029 COURT OF KARNATAKA APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 3 ONE AND THE SAME PARTY AND REPRESENTED BY ITS CIRCLE LEGAL HEAD SRI. ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA ...APPELLANTS (BY SHRI. D.M. GURURAJ, ADVOCATE) 2 RFA No. 1389 of 2020 AND: M/s. MV COMMUNICATIONS M.V.HOUSE NO.323 13TH MAIN, 18TH CROSS NARAYANA NAGAR 1ST BLOCK, BOOHBCS KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD DODDAKALLASANDRA POST BENGALURU560 062 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. KIRAN KUMAR ...RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. M.H. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.01.2020 PASSED IN OS.No.3259/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. THIS RFA, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is filed by defendants in O.S.No.3259/2013 against the judgment and decree dated January 24, 2020 passed by XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH.No.28). 2. Respondent herein filed the instant suit seeking recovery of Rs.73,76,624/. Suit has been decreed. 3 RFA No. 1389 of 2020 3. Heard Shri D.M.Gururaj, learned advocate for the appellants and Shri M.H.Prakash, learned advocate for the respondent. 4. Ms.S.Latha, Assistant Manager (Legal) of the appellantsfirm and Shri Kiran Kumar, proprietor of respondentfirm are present and they are identified by their respective advocates. 5. Learned advocates on both sides jointly submit that during the pendency of the appeal, parties have amicably resolved the dispute. A compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC duly signed by the representatives of appellantsfirm, respondentfirm and their respective advocates has been filed. Parties agree that they have understood the terms of the compromise. They pray that this appeal may be disposed of in terms of settlement recorded in the compromise petition. 4 RFA No. 1389 of 2020 6. The terms of compromise read as follows: "COMPROMISE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 " The appellant and respondent humbly submit as follows: It is submitted that the appellants and respondent have arrived at a compromise at this stage and are desirous of recording the same as hereunder. 1. It is submitted that the appellants have preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 24/01/2020 passed in O.S.No.3259/2013 by Hon'ble XIV Additio