Shell Inn International Pvt. Ltd. And 4 Others v. Tourism Finance Corporation Of India Ltd. And 4 Others

coms 162 of 2016 (912).sxw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION SUIT NO.162 OF 2016 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.41 OF 2016 Shell Inn International Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

...

Plaintiffs versus Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors.

...

Defendants Mr. D.D.Madon, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chirag Mody, Mr. Munaf Virjee, Mr. Nausher Kohli i/by M/s. DSK Legal, for Plaintiffs. Mr. Vinod Kothari with Mr. Merchant i/by M/s. Apex Law Partners, for Defendant No.1.

Mr. Prakash Panjabi i/by M/s. Prakash Panjabi and Co., for Defendant No.2. Mr. Zal Andhyarujina with Mr. Rishi Soni, Ms. Priyanka Fadia i/by Mr. Shashank Fadia, for Defendant Nos.3 and 4.

CORAM: S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.

DATE: 5 th MAY, 2017 P.C.:

1.

The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Plaintiffs states that he is not pressing the Suit against Defendant No.2. The Suit is therefore, dismissed against Defendant No.2 as not pressed.

2.

The learned Advocates for the parties have now tendered Consent Terms dated 4th May, 2017. They submit that the Consent Terms be taken on record and the Suit between Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 be disposed of in terms of the Consent Terms. The Consent Terms are taken on record and marked 'X' for ssp 1/2

coms 162 of 2016 (912).sxw identification. The Consent Terms are signed by Plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 and the Deputy General Manager (Legal) of Defendant No.1. The learned Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 have also signed the Consent Terms. The undertakings recorded in the Consent Terms are accepted. The Suit is disposed of in terms of the Consent Terms, marked 'X'

. Refund of Court Fees, if any, as per rules. Notice of Motion No.41 of 2016 also stands disposed of.

3.

The learned Advocate for Defendant No.2 objects to the Consent Terms being filed between the parties in view of paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 5 of the Consent Terms and in view of the fact that no reliefs were claimed against Defendant No.2 even in the Suit. I see no substance in the objection raised by the learned Advocate for Defendant No.2. In any event, Defendant No.2 shall be at liberty to take out its own independent proceedings against any party if it so choses. 4.

The learned Advocate for Defendant Nos.3 and 4 undertakes to file Vakalatnama within a period of one week from today. The undertaking is accepted. ( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ) ssp 2/2