3-IA-2015-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 1783 OF 2015 S E Investments Limited (Now known as Paisalo Digital Limited) ...Applicant Versus Sezal Glass Limited (Formerly known as Sejal Architectural Glass Limited) (Through its Directors) & Ors …Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2015 OF 2026 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 1783 OF 2015 Mr. Devesh Khara, with Abhinav Kalia, Devesh Dubey, Shoumya Sahu, Bismit Nayak, Lakshya Bhatia and Devendra Kumar Singh, i/b DKL Advocates, for the Applicant. Ms. Shivanee Srivastava, with Henna Daulat and Gunjan Shah, i/b M/s G. S. Legal, for the Respondents. Mr. Mandar Chinchwadkar, Authorised Representative of SE Investment Limited (Now Known as Paisalo Digital Limited). Mr. Ashwin Shetty, Authorised Representative of Respondent No.1 present. Mr. Amrut Gada, Authorisied Representative of Respondent No.2 present. Mr. Mitesh Kanji Gada, Respondent No.4 present. Mr. Dhiraj Shivaji Gada, Respondent No. 5 present. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C.: ARS 1/3 ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2026.09.11 19:21:09 +0530 3-IA-2015-2026.DOC 1. Heard Mr. Devesh Khara, the learned Counsel for the Applicant and Ms. Shivanee Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the Respondents. 2. The learned Counsel for the parties submit that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and the Consent Terms have been executed. The learned Counsel for the parties seek leave to tender the Consent Terms. Leave granted. Consent Terms are taken on record. 3. Mr. Mandar Chinchwadkar, the Authorised Representative of the Applicant, Mr. Ashwin Shetty and Mr Amrut Gada, the Authorised Representative of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Amrut Gada, Respondent No. 3, Mr. Mitesh Kanji Gada, Respondent No.4 and Mr Dhiraj Shivji Gada, Respondent No. 5, are present before the Court. They submit that they have read and understood the contents of the Consent Terms. They admit the execution of Consent Terms and contents thereof. They agree to abide by the same. They are identified by their respective Advocates. 4. It appears that the parties have worked out a comprehensive settlement of the dispute. The Consent Terms appear to have been executed voluntarily and there is no coercion or duress. 5. The Consent Terms are thus taken on record and marked “X”. 6. The Execution Application stands disposed in accordance with the Consent Terms ‘X’. ARS 2/3 3-IA-2015-2026.DOC 7. The undertakings in the Consent Terms are accepted as undertakings to the Court. 8. In view of the disposal of the Execution Application, the Interim Application stands disposed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] ARS 3/3