← Library
Bombay High CourtS/307/2015consent term

Sanofi India Limited v. Medipaams India Private Limited And ANR.

2016-04-01Hon'Ble Shri Justice G.S. Patel2 pages

901-S307-15.DOC Atul

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 307 OF 2015 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 2806 OF 2014 Sanofi India Limited ...Plaintiff

Versus

Medipaams India Private Limited & Ors.

...Defendants Mr. Ramesh Gajria, i/b Mr. Gajria & Co., for the Plaintiff. Mr. Rajiv Singh, Director of Defendant No. 2, present. CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED:

1st April 2016 PC:- 1.

The Suit is settled. Mr. Rajiv Singh, a Director of the 2nd Defendant is present in Court. Mr. Singh produces his PAN Card as proof of identity. Consent Terms are drawn between the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant. These are signed by Mr. Singh for the 2nd Defendant and by Mr. Pankaj Khanna, the Constituted Attorney of the Plaintiff.

2.

The Consent Terms provide inter alia for a decree on admission in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). There are also declarations contained in clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Consent Terms.

901-S307-15.DOC Mr. Singh confirms that he has signed the Consent Terms and that he accepts what is stated in these Consent Terms. 3.

Being satisfied that the Consent Terms are not contrary to law and that they have been executed by the parties in reflection of their true intention and without any coercion, the Consent Terms are taken on record and marked "X" for identification. The undertakings in the Consent Terms are accepted as undertakings to the Court.

4.

The Suit as against the 2nd Defendant is now disposed of in these terms. It only needs to be noted that as against the 1st Defendant the Suit was previously disposed of in view of the Consent Terms between the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant dated 18th December 2014.

5.

The Suit is finally disposed of. Refund of court fee, if any, in accordance with Rules.

6.

In view of disposal of the Suit, nothing survives in the Motion and it is disposed of as against Defendant No. 2. As against the 1st Defendant, the Motion was already disposed of on 18th December 2014.

(G. S. PATEL, J.)