https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170991 The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of a decree made against the defendant based on a compromise signed by counsel, finding it in accordance with the amended Order XXIII rule 3, C.P.C. The court interpreted the rule to include signatures by counsel, emphasizing counsel's implied authority to compromise unless expressly limited by the client. The judgment highlighted the legislative intent to expedite case disposal. The court deemed the consent decree valid and final, dismissing the appeal due to delay, estoppel, and res judicata. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with no costs awarded. en-us Fri, 20 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jul 2015 11:17:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170991 The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of a decree made against the defendant based on a compromise signed by counsel, finding it in accordance with the amended Order XXIII rule 3, C.P.C. The court interpreted the rule to include signatures by counsel, emphasizing counsel's implied authority to compromise unless expressly limited by the client. The judgment highlighted the legislative intent to expedite case disposal. The court deemed the consent decree valid and final, dismissing the appeal due to delay, estoppel, and res judicata. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with no costs awarded. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 20 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170991