Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2590 (MAD)

Maimoona Badsha v. Shinu J. Pillai

2017-08-10

M.SUNDAR, T.S.SIVAGNANAM

body2017
JUDGMENT : M. SUNDAR, J. 1. When these intra-court Original Side Appeals came up for admission on 27.07.2017, at the joint request of learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the aforesaid contesting respondents (who was present in Court voluntarily), we referred the matter to Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre under the aegis of this Court to settle their disputes. 2. The report of the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre dated 02.08.2017 is before us today. 3. Mr. Vineet Subramani, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.P. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents 1, 3 and 6 are before us. 4. From the report of the Mediation Centre as well as the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side before us, it is seen that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The terms of the compromise have been captured in a Joint Memorandum of Compromise dated 02.08.2017, which is also before us. We deem it relevant/pertinent to extract the same which reads as under: "JOINT MEMORANDUM OF COMPROMISE 1. Respondent 1, Mr. Shinu Pillai, represents himself, Respondent 3, who is his wife and Partner in the 6th Respondent firm and the 6th Respondent Firm. 2. Respondent 1 states that Respondents 1, 3 and 6 have stopped using the name Badsha & Co. since 01.01.2017. 3. Respondent 1 undertakes that Respondents 1, 3 and 6 shall not hereafter use the name Badsha & Co. 4. Appellant, Ms. Maimoona Badsha, states that this is acceptable to her. 5. The parties pray that this Joint Memorandum of Compromise may be taken on record." 5. From the Joint Memorandum of Compromise and the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, it is evident that the parties (Appellant and Respondent No. 1, for himself and for and on behalf of his spouse-Respondent No. 3 and partnership firm-Respondent No. 6) who are signatories to the Joint Memorandum of Compromise, i.e. contesting respondents/defendants, were present before the Mediation Centre and therefore, we deem it appropriate to dispense with the presence of the parties before this Court for recording the Joint Memorandum of Compromise. 6. We are informed by the learned counsel on both sides that the aforesaid contesting respondents alone are contesting the main suit too. 7. 6. We are informed by the learned counsel on both sides that the aforesaid contesting respondents alone are contesting the main suit too. 7. In view of the above, these Original Side Appeals stand disposed of in terms of the Joint Compromise Memo dated 02.08.2017. Suit file is called for and this Joint Compromise Memo is recorded in the main suit also with a direction that the same shall form part of the decree in the suit, a copy of which shall be retained in these appeals. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. Nos. 11160 to 11166 of 2017 stand closed.