- (1.) Mr. Mookherjee, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of plaintiff in CS 23 of 2018. Said plaintiff is applicant in GA 1068 of 2018. He submits, there has been settlement between his client and defendant no.1. In view of such settlement, he wants to withdraw his client's suit against said defendant and also the application. He submits, his client is permitted to do so in law as under rule 1 in order XXIII, Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Bachawat, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of defendant no.1. He submits, his client has had settlement with Mr. Mookherjee's client. His client filed CS 155 of 2018, which, he has instruction to submit, is also to be withdrawn. His client is also applicant in GA 2165 of 2018, also to be withdrawn. Mr. Mookherjee submits, his client has filed two applications in the suit of defendant no.1. They too are to be withdrawn.
(2.) Mr. Mitra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of defendant no.2 in CS 23 of 2018. He submits, his client has no objection to the suits and applications being withdrawn on submissions made in regard thereto. However, money deposited as security should remain deposited in CS 23 of 2018, as that is pending for adjudication on issues between plaintiff therein and his client.
(3.) He draws attention to order dated 1st October, 2018, wherein, inter alia, following was said: "In this application the petitioner has prayed for an injunction restraining the respondent no.1 from raising unconditional claim of the petitioners for usage of the VAS content as provided by the respondent no.1 under the several agreements entered into between the petitioner and the respondent no.1. Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the suit is an interpleader suit in which there are rival claims between the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.2 and in order to determine the respective liabilities which the petitioner is willing to discharge under agreements this suit has been filed in which this application has been taken out for interim reliefs...." "Without entering into the merits of the matter, it is clear that the plaintiff has an obligation to discharge. The defendant no.1 has contended that the agreements under which the plaintiff was allowed to exploit the musical rights have expired and without a fresh agreement the use of the musical songs by the plaintiffs would be unauthorized. It is submitted that the claim of the defendant no.2, if any, would be independent of the obligation that the plaintiffs would be required to discharge to such society and it is no way connected with the rights of the defendant no.1. Before these issues are decided, in order to show bona fide, the plaintiffs shall deposit a sum of Rs.3.50 crores with the Registrar High Court, Original Side within 31st October, 2018 upon intimation to the advocate on record of the defendants...." 3. Mr. Bachawat responds to submit, by said order dated 1st October, 2018, the amount also stands security in his client's suit. He reiterates his client's intention to withdraw the suit. As such, the money should be paid out to his client on withdrawal of the suit. He submits, his client is also agreeable to a direction for the cash security to be paid out to Mr. Mookherjee's client. Mr. Mookherjee submits, there has been settlement in his client's suit, with defendant no.1. Parties have worked out, who of them will receive the money but for purpose of withdrawal of the suits and applications, the security be refunded to his client. ;