High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 12 SHI CK 0253

Nathpa Jhakri Project Corporation, Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation Limited, Jhakri, District Shimla and The Land Acquisition Collector, Nathpa Project Corporation Delhi, Shimla-12 vs Shalu Ram, Smt. Shami and Smt. Phagi

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 14 December 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.K. Sharma, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Regular First Appeal No. 163 of 2001

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 292 words

V.K. Sharma, J.—Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants has filed a communication dated 13.12.2011 addressed to him on behalf of the appellants by DGM (P&A), alongwith copies of affidavits of the respondents, namely, Shalu Ram, Shami Devi and Phagi Devi and three cheques each dated 11.11.2011 in the sum of Rs. 1,59,973/- each issued on behalf of the appellants favoring the respondents and receipts in token thereof issued by the respondents. The learned counsel states that the parties have settled the inter se dispute amicably pursuant to which the aforesaid payments have been made by the appellants to the respondents. This position is also admitted to be correct on behalf of the respondents as stated at the bar by Mr. B.S. Attri, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents and respondent No. 1, who is present in person.

2.

In view of amicable settlement between the parties, as reflected in the above communication dated 13.12.2011 and the accompanying documents, as above, which are taken on record as Ex. C-1 (Colly.) (eight leaves), the appeal is dismissed as not pressed. The amount lying deposited in the Registry alongwith up to date interest is ordered to be released to the respondents in equal shares. The respective amounts be remitted to their bank accounts, particulars whereof shall be supplied to the Registry by their learned counsel. As the appeal has been compromised, the appellants shall be entitled for refund of court fee in accordance with rules.

3.

In view of disposal of the main appeal, Cross Objections No. 173 of 2002 shall also stand dismissed as not pressed.

4.

The appeal, as also Cross Objection and pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of pursuant to compromise between the parties in the above terms.