VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2013 › High Court of Delhi

Master Vaayun(Minor) & Anr v. Sushma Jagota and Ors

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
15 July 2013
Bench
Mx. Mehtaauthor
Case no.
CS(OS) 1708/2011

Judgment

ORDER %

15.07.2013 I.A.10898/2013 (under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC) This joint applicationhas been filed by the parties statingthat they have arrived at a settlement in the mediation conducted on 31.05.2013 before Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation. Copy of the settlement agreement, which is signed by the parties, is received and taken on record. The plaintiffReema Jagota who is the natural mother and guardianof her minor son does not seem to have any interest adverse to that of her son. Thus, she was competentand authorizedto arriveat settlementon behalfof her minor child also. In terms of the settlementarrived at between the parties, a sum of Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. / Rs.1.75 crore is to be paid by Mrs. Sushma Jagota, defendantNo. 1 to the plaintiffs(Reema Jagota and Master Vaayun) through buyer today in the evening. It is statedthatinthe case ofbuyerdefaultingtopay, the defendant No. 1 shall make arrangementof the aforesaidamount of Rs.1.75 crore by evening. It is agreed that out of the said sum of Rs.1.75 crore, a sum of Rs.1.10 core is to be paid to the plaintiffNo. 1 Master Vaayun which amount shall be kept in FDR till Master Yaayun attains majority. Balance amount of Rs.65.00 laldi shall be paid to plaintiff No. 2 Mrs. Reema Jagota by way of a Pay Order. It is agreed that possessionof one room of the premiseswhich is withthe plaintiffswill be given by them to defendantNo. 1todayitselfsimultaneouslyon receiptofpayment. It is furtheragreedthat the partiesshallremainboundby the terms of the settlementagreement. In view of the above, the suit stands disposed as compromised. All interim orders passed in this case stand vacated. The Court fee may be refunded to the plaintiffs as per Section 16 of the Court Fees Act. MX. MEET A, J JULY 15, 2013Ac.

Case details

Parties and counsel

L $-14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + lA 10898/2013 (u/0 23 R3 CPC) in CS(OS) 1708/2011 MASTERVAAYUN(MINOR)& ANR Plaintiff Through: Mr. Arjita, Adv. on behalf of Dr. Sarbjit Sharma, Adv. for plaintiff No. (i) and (ii). Plaintiff Reema Jagota for self and for her minor child Vaayun. versus SUSHMA JAGOTA AND ORS Defendant Through: Mr Manish Kumarand Mr Amit Kumar and Ms Nalini, Advs. for defendant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MX. MEHTA

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.