AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—The parties have settled the disputes between them. However, there is some vagueness in the matter of reducing the terms into writing. We accordingly heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The vagueness in the settlement as reduced into writing has been clarified. Therefore in the presence of the counsel for the parties, we re-draft the settlement arrived at between the parties as follows:
Without admitting any of the allegations made in the review petition, impleading petition and delay petition filed with reference to L.A.R. 11 of 2001, those applications can be allowed.
Following the aforesaid, the decree in O.S. 29 of 2007 will stand modified by ordering apportionment of the amount covered by the award in L.A.R. 11 of 2001 in terms of the award in L.A.R. 17 of 1998.
Following this, this appeal is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid settlement and the Sub Court, Ottappalam is directed to take up L.A.R. 11 of 2001 and re-open it and pass an award afresh by making it in favour of all parties in terms of this judgment and decree.