New LIVE Course: Learn the Practical Nuances of IPR Drafting by Adv. Gautam Matani. Register Now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Swami Sadashiva Brahmendra Sar (Nil)     16 February 2010

Compromise application

In a Second Appeal, parties have entered in to compromised  out side the court. All parties have signed the compromise deed. All parties have sworned joint affidavit in the High Court. Application to decide the appeal in terms of compromise has been filed jointly by advocates of appellants and all respondents except one who has  has sworn the affidavit  inperson i.e. not represented by the counsel. He has sworn the affidavit but has not signed the application.

Is he bound by the application and order made thereupon?


 2 Replies

g s pandey (advocate)     17 February 2010

In my view the compromise cannot be completed without the consent of all the parties in a suit or appeal, the question can be decided whether the person who is denying it, would have any adverse result towards his right or not? 

Daksh (Student)     17 February 2010

Respected Dr.V.N.Tripathi, By his conduct i.e being a party to the out of court settlement modalities, tendering duly sworn affidavit that person (albiet individually)and filing/presenting the same in registry/across the bar has adopted a certain modus jointly with other parties. Merely not signing of the application can be a technical reason which can be cured at any time by the descretion available with the presiding officer. Presumably if subsequently that person tries to come out of the same this fact has to be brought to the notice of the concerned court. In the instant case if subsequent to the tendering of sworn affidavit along with not signed application any order has been passed that means that the person has actively participated in the proceeding and on the basis of sworn affidavit along with non signed application has submitted himself for the verdict based on the compromise proceeding and any such order WILL NOT ONLY BE BINDING BUT IS ALSO UNCHALLENGEABLE. The fact of procedural lacuna will not be a deterrent in view of the sworn affidavit in this regard which ipso facto says and suggest that pursuant to the request of joint representation the court allowed the request and resultantly the concerned parties filed affidavits and application in this regard - any deviation from the sworn affidavit will ipso facto invite ire of the court - "CONTEMPT PROCEEDING" Best Regards Daksh

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register