fa)
No.126, Reservoir Street,
Basavanagudi
Bangalore 560 004.
..._ . V
(By Sri. i.P.Subbaiah, Adv. for R 1 is A C' 9
Sri VB. Ravishankarj Adv. .forR4A1
R 2 81 R 3 notice dispensed ; 4'
This MFA filed unde1'.'_Orde'r_43 R1.;~le;l.__[d) :;0fVtC}3"C
against the order dated'--._,2@_,O3.200'7--._p'ass--ed"'in Misc.
N079} / 2004 by the 9"'? Addl';u_City Civi-ldtidgeg. Bangalore
City {CCH«10) disIntssingA..rthellpetition flied'-'against the
judgment and decree -_d2.ted'~~.._'».2'5..O6.1999 in o.s.
No.4706/1986.
This appeal. _hejaring, this day, the
Court, deliyerecrthe.foIlowing..: 1:.'
. . ' ' N T
Jain and Sri BK. Sampath
Kurnar. Manager's-.of'the'"Corporation Bank were present in
V' _ per.s:o1"=;~an'dA.theirvvere heard in the matter.
"alétliLjrespondent. M Bank filed a suit in OS.
against M/s Srinidhi Boreweti Company.
Sri B..K,.l\/l.Dutt. and Sri Dinesh Jain who were defendants
3 in the suit. The 2″‘? defendant B.K.l\/l.Dutt
ll …_r:§ontested the suit on his behalf and on behalf of the first
@_
defendant partnership firm. The suit was decreed against
all the defendants. The appellant. who is the 3.!’j<t.de.fe*ndant
in the suit aggrieved by the judgment. an..d:–oit–.the
trial Court directing the defendants to CI.ailm
with interest and costs filed Petition' 'A it
for seeking to set aside of
trial Court on the grotind 'Was notfseervied with the
notice of the suit The said
petition was, "of delay as well as
on merit; has preferred the
abOV¢..appé-agL»-jg , _ . .
3. the appeal granted stay
subjeet tola Voond-itilonlthat the appellant should deposit a
Rs.2,50;”O’OO/– with the 18′ respondenbbank.
hehas deposited the same. When the matter
listedgfor hearing on the previous date this Court
suggested the parties to settle the dispute under the
_sche;;ne of one time settlement. In response to the same
appellant and the is? respondentwbank after due
deliberatioiis settled the matter under the scheme of one
time settlement where under the entire decret:al:”«alr’aQunt
was settled for a total sum of Rs.3.95,000_,§”‘%—-
the appellant has already dep.0sit.eCi
the respondent–bank as per
today the appellant. has bearing
No. 285045 dated flR’s;-l,~4b,0OO/~ to
Sri BK. Sampathkti_rr;a2<;Vie' of the first
resp0ndent~ba~n;1<_~..
4. and decree passed in the
suit m_0d.ified«.anci”ti:i’7e~–.entire decretal amount is settled
for Rs. to eneashment of the cheque.
If Cheque ‘islinotpencashed the let resp0ndent–bank is
» at._libe1*ty-,tC-.rec0ve1* the balance of decretal amount in
‘aiee~a’1’dan(‘:–e Wilth law.
efforts made by the appellant and
S:’i.. Sampathkumar. manager of the respondentabank.
— 2E:nls”et,tli.ng the dispute by availing the benefit of one time
@.