M/S Trading Technologies International, Inc. vs. Rikhab Chand Jain Trading As T.T Industries And Anr

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s Trading Technologies International, Inc., filed multiple petitions (C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 241/2021 and others) against Respondent No. 1, Rikhah Chand Jain trading as T.T. Industries, and Respondent No. 2. A joint application was filed by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to record a settlement. The settlement agreement stipulated that the Petitioner would withdraw cancellation petitions filed against Respondent No. 1. The agreement was signed by the Petitioner on May 14, 2024, and by Respondent No. 1 on May 22, 2024. The application was accompanied by affidavits, an authority letter, and GST certificates of Respondent No. 1's signatory.

Held

The Court considered a joint application filed by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to record a settlement agreement. The settlement involved the Petitioner agreeing to withdraw cancellation petitions filed against Respondent No. 1. The Court noted that the application was supported by affidavits, an authority letter, GST certificates, and a copy of the irrevocable co-existence and Settlement Agreement. The terms of the settlement were signed by both parties on May 14, 2024, and May 22, 2024, respectively. In light of this settlement, the Petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the captioned petitions. The Court allowed the application for settlement and, consequently, dismissed the petitions as withdrawn. The ratio decidendi is that where parties to a dispute amicably settle their differences and jointly seek to withdraw proceedings, the Court will permit such withdrawal to give effect to the settlement.

Key Issues

1. Whether the settlement agreement between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1, which involves the withdrawal of cancellation petitions, is valid and binding on the parties, thereby necessitating the withdrawal of the present petitions? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of contract law and Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908). Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner argued that a settlement had been reached with Respondent No. 1, and a joint application was filed to record this settlement and withdraw the petitions. They relied on the executed Settlement Agreement and the accompanying documentation. Respondent No. 1's contention: Respondent No. 1 concurred with the Petitioner, supporting the joint application to record the settlement and withdraw the petitions. Respondent No. 2's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by Respondent No. 2.