Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1764 (BOM)

Polytronic Corporation v. Tukaram S. Loliencar

2012-09-14

F.M.REIS

body2012
Judgment Heard Shri P. A. Kamat, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1(b). 2. Admit on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Margao could have decreed the suit when the respondent had not produced the accounts book to prove the payment of amount and establish the liability? (2) Whether the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Margao could have granted interest @ 20% per annum when the law provides existing rate of interest which could not have been more than 6% per annum? 3. Heard forthwith by consent of the learned Counsels. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1(b) waives service. 5. The above appeal challenges the judgment passed in Special Civil Suit No. 156/1999 dated 12.03.2001 whereby the suit filed by the respondents was decreed and the appellants were inter-alia directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,77,975/-with further interest thereon at the rate of 20% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit until actual payment. An appeal preferred by the appellants before the learned District Judge along with the application for condonation of delay came to be rejected by order dated 18.02.2010 whereby the application for condonation of delay was dismissed and consequently, the appeal preferred by the appellants came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Courts below, the Second Appeal is admitted on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 6. During the course of the hearing of the above appeal, both the learned counsels have pointed out that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and arrived at the settlement whereby a specific amount was agreed to be paid by the appellants to the respondents together with interest as stipulated in the consent terms which have been duly signed by both the parties. The consent terms which have been duly signed by the appellants and the respondents along with their respective advocates are taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. The managing partner of the appellants as well as the managing partner of the respondents who are present in Court admit the contents of the consent terms. The parties have also signed the said consent terms along with their respective advocates as a token of acceptance of the consent terms. The managing partner of the appellants as well as the managing partner of the respondents who are present in Court admit the contents of the consent terms. The parties have also signed the said consent terms along with their respective advocates as a token of acceptance of the consent terms. The appellants have also furnished an undertaking which is marked 'Y' for identification duly executed before the Section Officer of this Court. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason not to accept the consent terms as well as the said undertaking and dispose of the above Second Appeal. 8. In view of the above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The above Second Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the consent terms marked 'X' for identification. The undertaking given by the appellants marked 'Y' for identification stands accepted. (ii) Appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (iii) Decree to be drawn accordingly.