9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (2) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate, for the Appellant and Respondent; A.K Nag, Advocate, for the Appellant. P.K Mukherjee, Advocate, in Person. JUDGMENT A. Alagiriswami, This is an application by the first respondent in the appeal to set aside the compromise decree dated February 7, 1972. The Memorandum of Compromise on the basis of which the appeal was disposed of was signed by the counsel for the appellants as well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neral Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Union, of which the petitioner is a member, on September 26, 1967. Mr Mukherjee entered appearance on behalf of both of them on October 25, 1967. Ext. P-1, the copy of the telegram dated February 5, 1972 sent to Mr Mukherjee reading "Not agreed for four thousand: Kindly do not proceed with settlement" itself shows that the petitioner was not unaware of the proposa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner and the petitioner knew that Mr Mukherjee was his Advocate. His present averment to the contrary shows the length to which he is prepared to go. 3. The next question is whether the compromise is binding on the petitioner. From what has been stated above it would be clear that the petitioner was not averse to the idea of compromise. He only wanted the amount to be paid to him to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
