Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 1418 - HC - Indian LawsWhether the compromise recorded by the Single Judge in orders dated 17th March, 2017, 24th March, 2017 and 26th April, 2017, is valid and legal as per the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’, for short), and whether the same was entered into with the consent of the parties? Held that: - On the day when the consent terms were recorded, i.e. 17th March 2017, the appellants were duly represented by their counsel who had filed the petition challenging the award. A perusal of the said order clearly reveals that the 18% interest was to apply with monthly rest till the date of award and thereafter, simple interest of 18% per annum was payable till the date of payment. This order precedes the date when the computation chart was filed i.e. 24th March, 2017 - It is not the case of the appellants that as per order dated 17th March 2017, 18% simple interest was payable. This was not so recorded. The order is categorical and brooks no confusion. Pre-award interest as agreed was 18%, with monthly rests. The stand of the appellant in IA No.5078/2017 is that the terms recorded in the order dated 17th March, 2017 “are not in line with the instructions given by the petitioner to its erstwhile counsel, is obviously wrong and unacceptable”. It is not for this Court, in an appeal, to go behind the terms duly recorded by the Single Judge. A perusal of the order sheets in the OMP 530/2016 clearly reveals that the appellants were always represented by their counsel and in fact a Senior Advocate on most occasions. Order sheets also reveal that the discussions were continuously taking place during the hearings of the OMP 530/2016. After due consideration and deliberations, the respondent had agreed to terms which were less favourable to it. The award was to be modified. It is now not open to the appellant to resile from the terms as recorded by the Single Judge. This would be unjust and unfair. Order dated 17th March, 2017 is lawful and no reason exists for setting aside the same - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|