- (1.)THE plaintiff, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 has filed the present suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 24th July, 2002, alternatively and/or for damages to the tune of Rs. 15 crores as set out in the particulars of claim with interest. The plaintiffs have prayed for a declaration that the termination of the aforesaid agreement viz. , the Memorandum of Understanding (M. O. U.) dated 24th July, 2002 is illegal, void and contrary to the terms of the contract and law. The plaintiffs have further sought declaration that the said agreement is valid, subsisting and binding on the defendants. There are other incidental prayers including the interim reliefs that have been prayed for by the plaintiffs.
(2.)IN the present Notice of Motion, the plaintiffs have prayed for appointment of Court Receiver for the suit property and also an injunction against the defendants from creating any third party interest of any nature in the suit property and also injunction against the defendants from transferring any tenancy right or creating any new tenancy in respect of the existing tenements as set out in Exhibit C to the plaint. An affidavit of the Director of the plaintiffs Shri H. N. Shah is filed in support. The defendant has filed affidavit in reply dated 4th February, 2003.
(3.)I may mention that I have proceeded to dispose of the Notice of Motion finally realising the tendency of the matters consuming equal time even for ad interim orders. In the beginning, when I asked Shri Samdani the learned Counsel for the defendant, whether he would like to file an affidavit in reply, he submitted that he would proceed on the basis of denials. He further submitted that he would convince the Court on the basis of the pleadings and documents on record filed by the plaintiffs that their suit is not maintainable and that no interim reliefs can be granted in such suits. I was inclined to grant some time to the defendant to file her affidavit in reply but Shri Samdani proceeded on the basis of denials. During the course of hearing Shri Samdani has filed the affidavit in reply dated 4th February, 2003 of the defendant. I may, however, further mention that Shri Samdani has valiantly made efforts to make his submissions against the plaintiffs from the record and from the various documents which he cited across the bar.