9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (2) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant and Respondent; A.K Nag, Advocate, for the Appellant. P.K Mukherjee, Advocate, in Person. JUDGMENT A. Alagiriswami, This is an application by the first respondent in the appeal to set aside the compromise decree dated February 7, 1972. The Memorandum of Compromise on the basis of which the appeal was disposed of was signed by the counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eptember 25, 1967 and also to the General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Union, of which the petitioner is a member, on September 26, 1967. Mr Mukherjee entered appearance on behalf of both of them on October 25, 1967. Ext. P-1, the copy of the telegram dated February 5, 1972 sent to Mr Mukherjee reading Not agreed for four thousand: Kindly do not proceed with settlement itself shows that the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y authorised to appear on behalf of the petitioner and the petitioner knew that Mr Mukherjee was his Advocate. His present averment to the contrary shows the length to which he is prepared to go. 3. The next question is whether the compromise is binding on the petitioner. From what has been stated above it would be clear that the petitioner was not averse to the idea of compromise. He onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent. In the circumstances and the idea of the compromise not being unacceptable to the petitioner it was the right and indeed the duty of his Advocate Mr Mukherjee to do the best for his client. We are not able to see any lack of authority in the action taken by Mr Mukherjee. We are of opinion that there are absolutely no merits in this application and it is dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
