Bombay High Court
S. E. INVESTMENTS LIMITEDversusSEZAL GLASS LIMITED AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- CONSENT TERM
Holding
The execution application is disposed of in accordance with the voluntarily executed Consent Terms.
Summary
The applicant S E Investments Ltd (now Paisalo Digital Ltd) filed an execution application against Sezal Glass Ltd and others. Both parties appeared before the Bombay High Court and informed the court that they had amicably resolved the dispute and executed a comprehensive Consent Terms. The court was asked to grant leave to record the Consent Terms, which it did, finding that the settlement was voluntary and free of coercion. The parties, represented by their authorized representatives, affirmed their understanding and acceptance of the Consent Terms. Consequently, the court recorded the Consent Terms as an undertaking and disposed of the execution application and the related interim application in accordance with those terms.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate court procedure for recording and enforcing a voluntarily executed settlement (Consent Terms) in an execution application?
Subjects
- execution application
- consent decree
- settlement
- civil procedure
- High Court of Bombay
- voluntary agreement
Judgment
3-IA-2015-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 1783 OF 2015
S E Investments Limited (Now known as Paisalo ...Applicant
Digital Limited)
Versus
Sezal Glass Limited (Formerly known as Sejal …Respondents
Architectural Glass Limited) (Through its
Directors) & Ors
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2015 OF 2026
IN
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 1783 OF 2015
Mr. Devesh Khara, with Abhinav Kalia, Devesh Dubey, Shoumya Sahu,
Bismit Nayak, Lakshya Bhatia and Devendra Kumar Singh, i/b
DKL Advocates, for the Applicant.
Ms. Shivanee Srivastava, with Henna Daulat and Gunjan Shah, i/b
M/s G. S. Legal, for the Respondents.
Mr. Mandar Chinchwadkar, Authorised Representative of SE
Investment Limited (Now Known as Paisalo Digital Limited).
Mr. Ashwin Shetty, Authorised Representative of Respondent No.1
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
present.
SANKPAL
Mr. Amrut Gada, Authorisied Representative of Respondent No.2
Digitally signed by
ARUN RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
present.
Date: 2026.09.11
19:21:09 +0530 Mr. Mitesh Kanji Gada, Respondent No.4 present.
Mr. Dhiraj Shivaji Gada, Respondent No. 5 present.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.:
ARS 1/3
3-IA-2015-2026.DOC
1. Heard Mr. Devesh Khara, the learned Counsel for the Applicant
and Ms. Shivanee Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the Respondents.
2. The learned Counsel for the parties submit that the parties have
amicably resolved the dispute and the Consent Terms have been
executed. The learned Counsel for the parties seek leave to tender the
Consent Terms.
Leave granted. Consent Terms are taken on record.
3. Mr. Mandar Chinchwadkar, the Authorised Representative of the
Applicant, Mr. Ashwin Shetty and Mr Amrut Gada, the Authorised
Representative of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Amrut Gada,
Respondent No. 3, Mr. Mitesh Kanji Gada, Respondent No.4 and Mr
Dhiraj Shivji Gada, Respondent No. 5, are present before the Court.
They submit that they have read and understood the contents of the
Consent Terms. They admit the execution of Consent Terms and
contents thereof. They agree to abide by the same. They are identified
by their respective Advocates.
4. It appears that the parties have worked out a comprehensive
settlement of the dispute. The Consent Terms appear to have been
executed voluntarily and there is no coercion or duress.
5. The Consent Terms are thus taken on record and marked “X”.
6. The Execution Application stands disposed in accordance with the
Consent Terms ‘X’.
ARS 2/3
3-IA-2015-2026.DOC
7. The undertakings in the Consent Terms are accepted as
undertakings to the Court.
8. In view of the disposal of the Execution Application, the Interim
Application stands disposed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
ARS 3/3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.