Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7226 (AP)

SRI KESINENI SRINIVAS v. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD

CMA/99/2019 · 2025-01-24

Ninala Jayasurya, Sumathi Jagadam

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010071352019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3494] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM I.A. No.1 of 2024 IN/AND CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.99 of 2019 Between: 1. Sri Kesineni Srinivas, S/o Ramaswamy, aged 53 years, R/o.48-16-11/3B, Mahanadu Road, Auto Nagar, Vijayawada 2. Sri P.Rambabu, S/o Venkata Rao, aged 52 years, R/o Flat No.514, R.K. Towers, Veternary Colony, Gunadala, Vijayawada. ...Appellants AND 1. M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd, rep. by its Power of Attorney Holder, Mr Y Koteswara Rao S/o Raghavulu, aged about 40 Years, R/o 54-15-5, Dhoom Complex, Vijayawada. 2. Justice Sri Y Venkatachalam (Arbitator), (R2 is not necessary party in the Appeal) ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: 1. C SINDHU KUMARI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. O UDAYA KUMAR 2 The Court made the following ORDER: (per NJS,J) This appeal is filed assailing the Order dated 12.12.2018 dismissing Arb.O.P.No.177 of 2016 delivered by the Learned Arbitrator/ 2nd respondent, on various grounds. I.A.No.1 of 2024: 2. This application is filed by the appellants along with the respondent No.1/Finance Company seeking to record the terms of compromise entered into between them, by stating that the respondent No.2 is not a necessary party. 3. Heard Mr.S.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants. Also heard Mr.O.Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 4. The appellants as well as Mr.Y.Koteswara Rao, Senior Credit Executive/Authorised Signatory of the respondent No.1, who are identified by their respective counsel, are present before this Court and on being specifically asked, both the parties confirmed the appellants paid the amounts in terms of the terms of compromise recorded in the memorandum dated 04.11.2024, which is appended to the application. As the parties voluntarily settled the dispute amicably and the terms and conditions are reduced into writing by way of a compromise memo, this Court is inclined to record the terms of compromise, and accordingly I.A. No.1 of 2024 is allowed. CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.99 of 2019: 5. In view of the orders passed by this Court in I.A. No.1 of 2024, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is closed as compromised. No order as to costs. 3 Registry is directed to annex a copy of the compromise memo to this judgment. __________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J __________________________ SUMATHI JAGADAM,J January 24, 2025. vasu