CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2013 › P. Thiagarajan v. Rajam Sreerangum .

P. Thiagarajan v. Rajam Sreerangum .

Supreme Court of India · 9 April 2013

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
9 April 2013
Case no.
C.A. No. 2840 of 2007
Bench
H.L. Dattu, Jagdish Singh Khehar
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

JUDGMENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2840 OF 2007

P. THIAGARAJAN APPELLANT

VERSUS

RAJAM SREERANGUM & ORS. RESPONDENTS

ORDER

1. This civil appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madras, Bench at Madurai in A.S.No.237 of 1993, dated 22.01.2007.

2. During the pendency of the lis, another Bench of this Court vide earlier orders dated 09.03.2011 had thought it fit to refer the matter to a Mediator for adjudication and decision in view of the fact that both the learned counsel for the parties had agreed for an amicable settlement of the dispute between themselves.

3. In compliance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the learned Mediator has mediated the dispute between the parties and thereafter has sent his report, dated 31.03.2012 which was received by this Court on 09.04.2012. Both the parties have arrived at a settlement amicably before the learned Mediator. The report of the learned Mediator is taken on record and the same would form part of the decree.

JUDGMENT

:2:

4. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties before the learned Mediator, we dispose of this civil appeal, in the terms as suggested by the learned Mediator in his report.

Ordered accordingly.

......................J.

(H.L. DATTU)

......................J.

(JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)

NEW DELHI;
APRIL 09, 2013.

Ask CaseMinister about P. Thiagarajan v. Rajam Sreerangum .

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp