Brookefield Hospital Agrees To Vacate Bengaluru Leased Premises By October 2027, With Up To One-Month Grace, In Karnataka HC Settlement

The appellants challenged an order dated 9 February 2026 dismissing their applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC in Com.O.S. No. 1361/2025.

During the appeal, the parties settled their dispute concerning leased premises and filed a joint compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking a consent decree.

The compromise set terms for continued occupation, rent and charges, handover of possession, the security deposit, and withdrawal of related suits.

The Court recorded that the parties were present, identified, and had entered the compromise voluntarily.

Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides the basis for the commercial appeal.

Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC was invoked for recording the parties’ compromise and passing a consent decree.

The Court’s stated approach was to satisfy itself that the compromise was duly authorized and entered into freely, without force, coercion, or undue influence, before granting the requested decree.

The parties filed a jointly signed compromise petition, supported by authorizations for their representatives, and their respective counsel also signed it.

After identifying the parties and interacting with them, the Court was satisfied that they had entered the compromise of their own free will and without coercion or undue influence.

On that basis, it accepted the compromise terms and did not adjudicate the underlying appeal on its merits.

The parties were permitted to seek a refund of court fees, if any, in accordance with the applicable rules.