IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RFA.No. 337 of 2004()
1. M/S. ANANDA ENGINEERING WORKS PVT. LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S. LLOYD INSULATIONS INDIA LTD.,
... Respondent
2. M/S. KOCHI REFINERIES LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.ASP.KURUP
For Respondent :SRI.R.PADMARAJ
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.K.SHAMSUDDIN (RETD. JUDGE)
Dated :23/01/2009
O R D E R
JUSTICE P.K.SHAMSUDDIN
(RETD.JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
AND
SRI.N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
(DISTRICT JUDGE)
===============================
R.F.A.No.337 of 2004
===============================
Dated this the 23rd day of January,2009
AWARD
Counsel on both sides are present. Appellant and Additional
General Manager of the 1st respondent-company are also present.
After discussion, appellant and first respondent agreed that the
appellant will pay a further amount of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees six lakh
only) to the 1st respondent in full and final settlement of of all the
disputes, in the following manner:
Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakh only) will be paid on or before
23.04.2009 and the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three
lakh only) will be paid on or before 23.7.2009. It is also agreed that if
the payment is not made within the specified period, the 1st
respondent will be entitled to execute the decree and the appeal will
stand dismissed.
The R.F.A. is settled as above. The court fee paid by the
appellant on the appeal memorandum shall be refunded to him.
P.K.SHAMSUDDIN
(RETD.JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
(DISTRICT JUDGE)
dvs
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+CRP.No. 2956 of 2001(E)
#1. K.S.E.BOARD
… Petitioner
Vs
$1. T.V.KRISHNAN
… Respondent
! For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB
^ For Respondent : No Appearance
*Coram
The Hon’ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
% Dated :22/01/2009
: O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
——————————————-
C.M.P.No.6199 of 2001 &
C.R.P.No.2956 of 2001
——————————————
Dated, this the 22nd day of January, 2009
ORDER
In spite of granting sufficient time, the petitioner has
not taken any step to cure the defects. The defects still subsists.
Therefore, the petition to condone the delay in filing the revision
petition is dismissed for default.
2. Consequently, the revision petition also stands
dismissed.
HARUN-UL-RASHID
(JUDGE)
vns