Nirmal Lifestyle Ltd. vs Nitin S. Doshi, HUF and Others

S.J. Kathawalla, J.—The above Suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for an order and decree against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to specifically perform the Agreement entered into in or about June 2012, between the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, for sale and transfer of 19 per cent shares of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in Defendant No. 3 Company, as per the terms set out in paragraph 6 of the Plaint. The Plaintiff in the alternative has also prayed for an order and decree against the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to refund to the Plaintiff an amount of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five crores only) together with interest thereon at the rate of 24 per cent per annum and a further order and decree against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to pay to the Plaintiff Rs. 300,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three hundred crores only) as and by way of damages together with interest thereon at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till payment. The Plaintiff in the said Suit has also taken out the above Notice of Motion seeking an injunction against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from in any manner dealing with, selling, transferring, assigning or parting with possession of the said 19 per cent shares in the Defendant No. 3 Company. Briefly set out the facts in the matter are as under:

The Plaintiff is a Company carrying on the business of real estate development. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are 19 per cent equity shareholders of the Defendant No. 3 Company, which is also engaged in the business of development, building and construction of residential and commercial complexes.

The Defendant No. 3 Company had acquired development rights in respect of 86 acres of land situate at various villages in Taluka Kalyan, District Thane and had also acquired further 87.91 acres of land in Taluka Kalyan, District Thane ("the said lands").

By and under a Memorandum of Understanding dated 17th January, 2007 ("MoU"), executed by and between Defendant No. 3 and one Nirmal Infrastructure Private Limited ("NIPL") (in which the Plaintiff holds 50 per cent shareholding), Defendant No. 3 had agreed to transfer and assign development rights in respect of certain lands aggregating to 375 acres in favour of the said NIPL. Pursuant to the said MoU, a Development Agreement dated 31st March, 2008, registered under Sr. No. 2672 of 2008, was executed between Defendant No. 3 and NIPL whereby Defendant No. 3 transferred and assigned development rights in respect of the said lands in favour of NIPL. The Plaintiff has stated in the Plaint that the transaction of transfer and assignment of development rights in favour of NIPL is a separate and independent transaction between Defendant No. 3 and the said NIPL. There are certain outstanding obligations under the said Development Agreement and under the MoU which are yet to be performed and completed by Defendant No. 3. The transactions covered by the MoU and the said Development Agreement are not the subject-matter of the present Suit.

According to the Plaintiff, in or about June 2012, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (holding 19 per cent shares) and one Nitin Mansukhlal Shah representing his group of shareholders (Shah Group holding 33 per cent shares) approached the Plaintiff for sale of the said 52 per cent shares in the Defendant No. 3 Company. Pursuant to the negotiations which ensued between the Plaintiff on the one hand and Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and the said Shah Group of shareholders on the other hand, the same fructified into an Agreement (set out in Clauses (a) to (e) of Paragraph 6 of the Plaint and referred to as "the Suit Agreement") whereby, the Plaintiff agreed to purchase 19 per cent shares of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The purported Suit Agreement reads thus:

(a) Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 shall sell and transfer their 19% shares in Defendant No. 3 to the Plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 65,76,92,308/- (Rupees Sixty five crores seventy six lakhs ninety two thousand three hundred and eight only) to be paid within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of execution of a formal Agreement between the parties;

(b) prior to the execution of a formal Agreement, the Defendants shall make out a clear and marketable title to the said Lands at their own costs, charges and expenses including obtaining clearances under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and payment of unearned income payable in respect of the said lands;

(c) that the Company shall be free of all undisclosed and hidden debts and liabilities including taxes on the Effective Date i.e. the date of execution of a formal Agreement between the parties;

(d) that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 shall indemnify and hold the Plaintiff harmless in respect of any defect in title to the said Lands or if any undisclosed or hidden liability or debt arises;

(e) that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 shall obtain consent of the other shareholders for transfer of the said 19% shares in view of the Right of First Refusal contained in favour of the other shareholders in the Articles of Association of Defendant No. 3.

According to the Plaintiff, a separate Agreement was arrived at between the Plaintiff and the said Shah Group, which is not the subject-matter of the present suit.

According to the Plaintiff, pursuant to the Suit Agreement, the Plaintiff commenced due diligence and audit in respect of Defendant No. 3. In pursuance of the meeting held on 4th July, 2012, between Mr. Dharmesh Jain, Managing Director of the Plaintiff, Nitin Shah of Shah Group and Defendant No. 1, the Plaintiff by its e-mail dated 20th July, 2012, requested the Defendants to forward certain documents for the purpose of due diligence. The said e-mail dated 20th July, 2012, forwarded by the Plaintiff to Defendant No. 1 reads as follows:

Dear Sir

Historical financial data including statutory accounts, detailed for past 3/5 years.

Management accounts and reports and income tax returns for past 3/5 years.

Current financial data (year-to-date).

Summary of all debt/bank lines/guarantees with key terms and conditions.

Any other relevant information.

Thanks & Regards.

In response thereto, Defendant No. 3 by its letter dated 3rd August, 2012, forwarded the following documents to the Plaintiff:

(a) Audited Balance Sheets for the period ended March, 2011, March 2010 and March 2009.

(b) Copy of Income Tax Return Acknowledgment for A.Y. 2009-10, A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12.

(c) Copy of Revision Application before the Revenue Minister.

(d) Copy of the consent terms with Premier Automobiles is already given to you earlier.

(e) Copy of Order dated 17/02/2012 by Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division in the matter of Appeal.

According to the Plaintiff, pursuant to the discussions between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, Defendant No. 1 forwarded a copy of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Defendant No. 3 to the Plaintiff vide his e-mail dated 1st September, 2012. Vide e-mail dated 1st October, 2012, the Plaintiff forwarded requisitions to Defendant No. 1 for due diligence and audit of the Defendant No. 3 Company.

On 3rd October, 2012, Defendant No. 1 forwarded an e-mail to the Plaintiff, inter alia, recording that in the meeting held on 4th July, 2012, it was agreed that Mr. Dharmesh Jain, Managing Director of the Plaintiff, will within seven days of the meeting, give the schedule of the payment to be made, and further assured that the entire consideration will be paid to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 within six months i.e. on or before 3rd January, 2013. It is further recorded that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have handed over copies of various land documents, explanation regarding title and various clarifications relating to the land acquisition from time to time along with the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association and other papers as required by the Plaintiff. By the said e-mail, Defendant No. 1 has also recorded that basically 52% of the shareholding will be changing hands from Nitin M. Shah and Mr. Nitin Doshi Group. Hence, the transaction will be amongst the shareholders who would like to exit and the shareholders who would like to acquire the shares. In such an event, the documents already handed over would suffice the purpose. Defendant No. 1 has also further recorded that since the Plaintiff has been involved in the said transaction since 2004, their list of requirements are mere repetitions of earlier details sent and several points which are not applicable to the Defendants. Defendant No. 1 has concluded the said e-mail with a request to let the Defendants know the schedule of the payment to be made by the Plaintiff. Admittedly, there is no response from the Plaintiff to the Defendants.

According to the Plaintiff, in pursuance of the Suit Agreement, at the request of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the said Shah Group (under their Agreement with the said Shah Group), the Plaintiff on 10th October, 2012, made part payment of Rupees Five crores to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 towards purchase of the said shares and on 11th September, 2012, paid Rs. 2 crores to the Shah Group.

According to the Plaintiff, in anticipation of the Defendants complying with the obligations under clauses (b), (c) and (e) of the "Suit Agreement" set out in para 6 above, a Draft Agreement for transfer of shares was prepared by the Plaintiff through their Advocates some time in or about August 2012. After certain discussions between the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the said draft was revised and again circulated on or about 6th March, 2013. According to the Plaintiff, the said drafts were prepared "in the format of completion of the Suit Agreement" by placing an effective date in the draft prior to which the Defendants would have complied with and fulfilled the obligations under the Suit Agreement in terms of Clauses (b), (c) and (e) of paragraph 6 of the Plaint (reproduced in paragraph 6 hereinabove). According to the Plaintiff, the preparation and execution of the Agreement was not a condition of the Suit Agreement, but was merely a desire on part of the parties to give the transaction a formal shape.

According to the Plaintiff, with a view to eliminate the requirements of obtaining letters of No Objection from other shareholders, the shareholders of Defendant No. 3 in an Extraordinary General Meeting ("EoGM") held on 12th March, 2013, passed a Resolution replacing the existing Clause No. 20(a) of the Articles of Association of Defendant No. 3, which contained a right of first refusal and the valuation, and accordingly the existing clause 20(a) of the Articles of Association was amended. According to the Plaintiff, the finalization of the said drafts remained incomplete inasmuch the Defendants in the meantime had not achieved and performed their obligations in terms of para 6(b) and (c) above. Unless the said obligations were fully performed and completed in terms of the Suit Agreement, the completion of transfer of the shares and payment could not be achieved.

According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants under the Suit Agreement had agreed to transfer their 19 per cent shares in the Defendant No. 3-Company to the Plaintiff for the price and on the conditions set out in paragraph 6 above. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had received part consideration under the Suit Agreement. The Suit Agreement had been duly arrived at and is evidenced by the correspondence, exchange of e-mails and the drafts prepared by the Plaintiff as also by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The Suit Agreement is therefore valid, subsisting and binding between the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the Plaintiff is accordingly entitled to a declaration to that effect. Though formal drafts were exchanged, the same were not the condition of the Suit Agreement and were merely a desire of the parties to give the transaction a formal shape. According to the Plaintiff, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in breach of the Suit Agreement are attempting to sell and/or transfer the said 19 per cent shares to third parties. It is therefore submitted that the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree directing Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to specifically perform the Suit Agreement set out in paragraph 6 of the Plaint.

The Plaintiff therefore filed the above Suit on 10th June, 2013, and took out the above Notice of Motion therein, seeking an injunction against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from selling, transferring and/or assigning the suit shares.

Interestingly, in the course of arguments at the time of seeking urgent ad interim reliefs, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Plaintiff, submitted that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had also forwarded draft Agreements to the Plaintiff in which though they have not mentioned anything about making out a marketable title in respect of the said lands, they have themselves provided that the balance consideration would be paid in installments starting from the date of execution of the Agreement and that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are now wrongly contending that the entire amount was payable on or before the execution of the Agreement. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 pointed out that no Agreements as alleged or otherwise are forwarded by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to the Plaintiff. In response, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Plaintiff tried to tender copies of two Agreements which are marked "Privileged and Confidential for discussion purposes only draft without prejudice". The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Plaintiff was therefore informed by the Court to put the said Agreements on record by filing an affidavit stating therein who had forwarded the disputed Agreements and when and where they were forwarded. Pursuant thereto, an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff alleging that the said Agreements were handed over by Defendant No. 1 to Mr. Dharmesh Jain of the Plaintiff on or around 20th March, 2013, when he visited the office of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also relied on an e-mail dated 20th March, 2013, addressed by the Plaintiff to their Advocates and further alleged that by the said e-mail, the Agreement was forwarded by the Plaintiff to their Advocates for their perusal. Instead of hearing the Notice of Motion at the ad interim as well as the interim stage, when an application for urgent ad interim reliefs was made on behalf of the Plaintiff on 12th June, 2013, this Court placed the Notice of Motion for hearing and final disposal within a period of six days i.e. on 18th June, 2013.

In the meantime, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed their affidavit dated 15th June, 2013. In the said affidavit, they have clearly stated that in view of paucity of time they were not dealing with the contents of the Suit, the Notice of Motion and the Affidavit in support in a parawise manner, and have in the limited time available attempted to deal with the key issues raised by the Plaintiff in the Suit, the Notice of Motion and the affidavit in support of the Motion. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have in their affidavit-in-reply, inter alia, reiterated that by a registered Development Agreement dated 31st March, 2008, Defendant No. 3 granted full development rights in favour of NIPL in respect of 86 acres land and 87.91 acres of land more particularly described therein. As part of the Agreement, Defendant No. 3 had provided all title certificates, thereby certifying the clear and marketable title free from all encumbrances in respect of the said lands to NIPL, which has been recorded in recitals ''F'' and ''I'', clause 7 as well as other clauses of the said Development Agreement. NIPL had investigated the title to the said lands and were satisfied with the same. Pursuant to the said Agreement, Defendant No. 3 also handed over possession of the said lands to NIPL vide a possession letter dated 31st March, 2008. Defendant No. 3 also executed an irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of NIPL on 31st March, 2008. By virtue of the said documents, NIPL acquired all rights, title, interest and benefits (which earlier belonged to Defendant No. 3) in respect of the development rights in respect of the said lands. It is submitted that NIPL is an associate of the Plaintiff Company such that the Plaintiff holds 50% shareholding in NIPL and is controlled/managed by common group of Promoters/Directors and therefore the Plaintiff cannot feign ignorance of the clear title made out in respect of the said lands way back in the year 2008 itself. It is submitted that aggrieved by the delaying tactics adopted by the Plaintiff''s associate NIPL in carrying out the development of the said lands, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 decided to exit from Defendant No. 3 by selling/transferring their entire shareholding viz. 19 per cent in Defendant No. 3. The Plaintiff''s group evinced their interest in acquiring the shareholding of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in Defendant No. 3. Accordingly, the parties met in June and July 2012. During the discussions held on 4th July, 2012, it was agreed and decided that the Plaintiff will acquire the 19 per cent shareholding of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in Defendant No. 3 by paying a total consideration of Rs. 65,76,92,308/- within a period of six months i.e. on or before 3rd January, 2013. Thus, the deal between the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 was a pure and simple transaction relating to sale of 19% shares of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the Defendant No. 3 Company against receipt of the said consideration. However, now the Plaintiff with a mala fide intention of wriggling out of its own obligation to pay the said consideration and complete the transaction, is seeking to connect the transaction of sale of shares with that of the said lands held by Defendant No. 3.

Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have in their affidavit stated that the alleged terms (in paragraph 6 of the Plaint) are a mere figment of the imagination of the Plaintiff and is a ruse created by the Plaintiff itself in an attempt to wriggle out of its own obligation to pay the said consideration to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. There were no conditions precedent that were to be performed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 prior to the payment of the said consideration by the Plaintiff in respect of the transfer of the said shares as alleged or at all. The agreed transaction was a simple sale of shares against receipt of consideration on or before 3rd January, 2013. The question therefore, of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 being obliged to perform the alleged acts and deeds set out in paragraphs 6(b), 6(c) and 6(d) of paragraph 6 above does not arise. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had never agreed to any precondition to carry out and/or perform any act for making a clear and marketable title and/or for payment of any unearned income in respect of the said lands as alleged by the Plaintiff. It is submitted that it is impossible to imagine that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who hold merely 19 per cent of the share capital of Defendant No. 3, should be deemed or be made to bear the burden of making out a clear and marketable title of the said lands at their own costs, charges and expenses as alleged. The obligation to make out a clear and marketable title, pay the unearned income liability, etc. were all, if applicable, the liabilities of Defendant No. 3 and not Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and were towards NIPL and not towards the Plaintiff. The Agreement is recorded in the e-mail dated 3rd October, 2012, (Exhibit-D to the Plaint) and is not refuted but is an admitted position by the Plaintiff itself. The Plaintiff has failed to provide a single shred of evidence/proof to show where all the terms as set out in paragraph 6 of the Plaint have been recorded between the parties. It is submitted that the draft Agreement signed by the Plaintiff by way of an e-mail dated 6th March, 2013 has not been approved, signed or agreed to by any party and as such it cannot form the basis of the present Suit.

The Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 further submitted in their reply that the Plaintiff was required to pay the said consideration to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 latest by 3rd January, 2013. However, since the Plaintiff missed the deadline the parties once again met on 21st January, 2013, when Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were again assured that the entire consideration would be paid by the Plaintiff at the earliest. Based on such an assurance, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to grant some more time to the Plaintiff to make good the payment. On perusal of the alleged draft Suit Agreement, it became obvious that the Plaintiff was not serious about completing the transaction. As per the alleged draft Suit Agreement, the Plaintiff wanted the said shares transferred to it immediately while the said consideration would be paid at a later stage i.e. after a period of 6 months from the transfer of the said shares to the Plaintiff. However, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 never agreed that the Plaintiff can make the payment of the said consideration to them within a period of six months after transferring the said shares to the Plaintiff. It is impossible to believe that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 would have agreed to transfer the shares upfront and the Plaintiff pay the said consideration within six months from the transfer of such shares. It is submitted that such a suggestion is not only absurd and fallacious, but the same is also not recorded in any document, signed or accepted by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have in their affidavit in reply admitted that a sum of Rs. 5 crores was received from the Plaintiff by way of a token advance of the said consideration towards the proposed transfer of the said shares. The Plaintiff has not paid more than 90 per cent of the said consideration and by this Suit is trying to hold Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to ransom by seeking an injunction against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 restricting them from transferring/selling the said shares to any third party. It is submitted that since Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were not agreeable to receive the said consideration in installments over a period of six months after the transfer of the said shares, Defendant No. 1 contacted Mr. Dharmesh Jain, a representative of the Plaintiff and informed him about the same and also offered to return the token amount of Rs. 5 crores. Mr. Dharmesh Jain informed Defendant No. 1 that he would contact Defendant No. 1. However, in this regard Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not hear anything thereafter from Mr. Dharmesh Jain. On 25th April, 2013, Defendant No. 1 once again prepared 2 cheques for a sum of Rs. 2.5 crores each and once again contacted Mr. Dharmesh Jain requesting him to collect the same. Thereafter, the Plaintiff did not do anything in the matter until filing of the present Suit.

Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have in their affidavit further explained that pursuant to the discussions held by the parties on 4th July, 2012, and as Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (along with other existing shareholders of Defendant No. 3) wished to exit Defendant No. 3 and wanted to sell/transfer their respective shareholding to third parties, if need be; Defendant No. 3 sent a notice for the purpose of convening an EoGM of its shareholders on 12th February, 2013. The meeting was held on 12th March, 2013, at which a Resolution was passed amending the Articles of Association of Defendant No. 3 to remove the provision granting the shareholders of Defendant No. 3 a right of first refusal in case any shareholder wishes to transfer its shares. It is submitted that this was done for the purpose of simplifying the exit option which the existing shareholders were contemplating. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have denied that such steps were taken by them, acting in pursuance of or for the purpose of substantially implementing the alleged Suit Agreement. Further, the fact that the notice of this Meeting was sent on 12th February, 2013, shows that this was done well in advance of the alleged draft of the Suit Agreement sent by the Plaintiff on 6th March, 2013, by way of an e-mail.

Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have in the affidavit in reply also dealt with the additional affidavit filed by the Plaintiff, alleging that Defendant No. 1 had on 20th March, 2013 handed over draft agreements to Dharmesh Jain at his office. Defendant No. 1 has denied that he has visited the office of the Plaintiff on 20th March, 2013, and has handed over any Agreements/draft to Mr. Dharmesh Jain or anyone else from the Plaintiff''s Company. Without prejudice to the said contention, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have submitted that even if the Plaintiff''s averments as set out in the Additional Affidavit were to be accepted at face value, the same militates with their own case made out in the Plaint. Their entire case as set out in the Plaint was based on the allegation that the so called Suit Agreement was concluded between the parties based on the terms as set out in paragraph 6 of the Plaint and the alleged draft Agreement (Exhibit-E to the Plaint) which was sent by the Plaintiff on 6th March, 2013 (i.e. before the alleged drafts sent by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on 20th March, 2013 as alleged in the Additional Affidavit). It is submitted that based on the Additional Affidavit, this contention has proved to be completely false on their own showing. It is therefore submitted that on the Plaintiff''s own showing, there was no concluded contract/agreement between the parties which would indicate the alleged terms of the agreement, as set out in Paragraph 6 of the Plaint or as set out in the draft Agreement (at Exhibit-E of the Plaint). Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have therefore submitted in their affidavit-in-reply that the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief and the Notice of Motion deserves to be dismissed with costs.

Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have also filed an Affidavit of Mr. Nitin Shah, who according to the Plaintiff has agreed to sell 33% of shares of the Shah Group to the Plaintiff. In his said Affidavit, Mr. Nitin Shah has stated that the payment referred to in Paragraph No. 11 of the Plaint was by way of a loan to the Plaintiff repayable with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and was not by way of payment for the purchase of shares in Defendant No. 3 as alleged by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff has filed its affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 17th June, 2013, wherein, they have annexed copies of e-mails exchanged between the representatives of the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 and contended that it is incorrect to state on the part of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that NIPL had investigated the title to the said lands and were satisfied with the sale as alleged.

Mr. Samdani, the Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Plaintiff, has submitted that a contract can be oral or in writing and specific performance of such contract can be obtained. The oral contract in the instant case is evidenced by contemporaneous record and admissions in the affidavit-in-reply.

Mr. Samdani has submitted that the Plaintiff had agreed to purchase 52 per cent shares of Defendant No. 3 (19 per cent from Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and 33 per cent from the Shah Group). The price payable to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is admitted. The property namely shares to be transferred are identified and admitted. On the mode of payment, the Defendants have contended six month ending by January, 2013. Contemporaneous record (additional affidavit of Plaintiff) indicates installments spread over six months ending up to July, 2013. Though the said documents are disowned by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the circumstances and contemporaneous record support the Plaintiff''s case. There is no reason for the Plaintiff to rely on a document which does not record the warranties nor does it make out a marketable title for the land. Relying on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Kollipara Sriramulu Vs. T. Aswathanarayana and Others, , Mr. Samdani has submitted that even if the mode of payment is treated as not having been agreed, that will still not affect the contract. Mr. Samdani has further submitted that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the Shah Group had agreed to make out a clear and marketable title to the said lands. This assertion of the Plaintiff is denied by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by alleging that the Defendant No. 3 had made out a title and had issued a title certificate to the Infrastructure Company under the Development Agreement. An attempt is also made to contend that 19 per cent share-holders cannot be expected to make out a title. Both the contentions are untenable for the following reasons:--

(i) The Plaintiff was purchasing 52% shares i.e. a controlling interest;

(ii) Defendant No. 3 had admittedly assigned all its rights in the said lands to the Infrastructure Company and had outstanding obligations to perform;

(iii) Defendant No. 3 would be entitled to receive under the Development Agreement 21% of the gross revenue only on development, and the development could only begin on Defendant No. 3 fulfilling its obligations;

(iv) If the transaction was one of pure and simple transfer of shares, there is no reason for the Defendants to forward to the Plaintiff documents concerning the liabilities towards unearned income, labour dues and title to the said lands;

(v) The contention of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, that Defendant No. 3 had made out a marketable title to the Infrastructure Company has been established to be incorrect.

Mr. Samdani has further submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff that the Suit Agreement has been acted upon and implemented by removal of the right of first refusal in the Articles, and part payment of Rupees Five Crores. Mr. Samdani has therefore submitted that the Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case. The balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff. If the Defendants are allowed to transfer the Suit shares during the pendency of the Suit, it would cause tremendous prejudice to the Plaintiff.

Mr. Madon, the Learned Senior Advocate appearing for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, has repeated, reiterated and confirmed the submissions made by the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in their affidavit-in-reply which are already set out hereinabove. Mr. Madon has submitted that the Plaintiff has failed to make out even a prima facie case of a concluded contract qua the sale of 19 per cent shares of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the Defendant No. 3 Company in favour of the Plaintiff. Mr. Madon has also submitted that the Plaintiff for reasons best known to it has admittedly till date not filed any suit against the Shah Group seeking specific performance of the Agreement in regard to sale of their 33% shares in Defendant No. 3 Company, to the Plaintiff. The balance of convenience is also in favour of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and against the Plaintiff. In view thereof, the Notice of Motion deserves to be dismissed with costs.

I have perused the pleadings as well as the annexures thereto. I have also considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

According to the Plaintiff, the Suit Agreement arrived at between the Plaintiff" and the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is as set out in clauses (a) to (e) of paragraph 6 of the Plaint and reproduced also in paragraph 6 herein. It is alleged by the Plaintiff that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had agreed to sell and transfer 19 per cent shares in Defendant No. 3 to the Plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 65,76, 92,308/-, which consideration would be paid for at a later stage i.e. after a period of six months from the transfer of the said shares to the Plaintiff. This contention of the Plaintiff is vehemently disputed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. According to the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, though in the meeting held on 4th July, 2012, it was agreed that the consideration for the sale of 19 per cent shares of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to the Plaintiff would be Rs. 65,76,92,308/-, it was also agreed between the parties that the said amount would be paid within a period of six months i.e. on or before 3rd January, 2013. Since the Plaintiff failed to make the said payment, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on the basis of the assurance given by the Plaintiff at the meeting held on 21st January, 2013, to pay the entire consideration at the earliest, agreed to give some more time to the Plaintiff but certainly not over a period of six months after the date of execution of the formal agreement between the parties and the transfer of the subject shares to the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff forwarded a draft Agreement to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on 6th March, 2013, wherein it was provided that consideration would be paid within a period of six months from the date of execution of a formal Agreement between the parties, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 realised that the Plaintiff was not serious about completing the transaction and therefore Defendant No. 1 contacted Mr. Dharmesh Jain, representative of the Plaintiff and informed him that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were not agreeable to receive the said consideration in installments over a period of six months after the transfer of the said shares and also offered to return the token amount of Rs. 5 crores. On 25th April, 2013, Defendant No. 1 also prepared two cheques for a sum of Rs. 2.5 crores each and once again requested Mr. Dharmesh Jain to collect the same which Mr. Dharmesh Jain failed to do.

The first issue which this Court is therefore required to determine is whether the Plaintiff has even prima facie established that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had agreed to accept the sale consideration qua their 19% shares in the Defendant No. 3 Company within six months after the date of execution of the formal agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the transfer of the subject shares to the Plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 had by his e-mail dated 3rd October, 2012, recorded that there was a meeting held on 4th July, 2012 between the parties and further clearly recorded that, "In the meeting it is agreed that Mr. Dharmesh Jain will give within 7 days of the date of this meeting the Schedule of the payment to be made by him and further assured that the entire consideration will be paid to us within six months i.e. 3rd January, 2013". The said e-mail is once again concluded by Defendant No. 1 by stating: "We request you to let us know the Schedule of the payment to be made by Mr. Dharmesh Jain (Nirmal Groups)." Despite such clear recording as to what transpired at the meeting held between the parties on 4th July, 2012 qua the payment to be made towards sale consideration of the shares, the Plaintiff has admittedly not refuted the contents of the said e-mail by any response to the said e-mail from their end. In fact, the Plaintiff has in the plaint relied on the said e-mail sent by Defendant No. 1, but has not contended that the contents of the said e-mail were incorrect. It is therefore established that in the meeting held on 4th July, 2012, between the parties, it was agreed that the consideration for sale of shares would be paid by the Plaintiff to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 within six months from the date of the said meeting and therefore not later than 3rd January, 2013. The contention of the Plaintiff in paragraph 6(a) of the Plaint reproduced in paragraph 6 hereinabove, that it was agreed that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 would be paid sale consideration for their shares six months after the date of execution of a formal agreement between the parties therefore cannot be accepted and the said contention is rejected.

I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has therefore, without there being any agreement between the parties to pay the sale consideration in respect of the 19 per cent shares of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the Defendant No. 3 Company, provided in the draft Development Agreement (Exhibit-E pg. 61 of the Plaint) that the sale price would be payable by the Plaintiff to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 within six months from the date of execution of the Agreement. Interestingly, in clause 2.1.1 of the draft Agreement, it is provided by the Plaintiff that on the date of execution of the Agreement (i.e. the effective date), Defendant No. 2 shall transfer all the shares in the name of the Plaintiff and the original share certificates denoting the duly transferred shares standing in the name of the Plaintiff shall be handed over to the Plaintiff. It is further provided in Clause 2.1.3 that from the date of the execution of the Agreement, the Plaintiff shall be the absolute owner of the shares, shall have all the rights and powers in respect thereof and shall be entitled to have control over the day-to-day affairs and overall management of the Defendant No. 3 Company, as is proportionate to the current shareholding of the sellers in the Company, including the rights to take any decision on the reserved matters, without any interference from the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 at any time after the execution of the Agreement. It is also clarified in the said clause that as and when from the date of execution of the Agreement (Effective date), Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 shall not be entitled to exercise any rights nor take any decisions in respect of the Defendant No. 3 Company, and the Plaintiff shall be entitled to all rights incidental to the said shares. What is most interesting is clause 7.3 of the Draft Agreement which provides that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, have agreed that after the execution of the Agreement, the Plaintiff shall have full freedom and discretion to create pledge/lien on the shares standing in the name of the Plaintiff in the Company in favour of any lender/financer/banker and such other financial institutions as may be deemed necessary in its sole and absolute discretion, without any approval of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Thus, according to the Plaintiff, from the date of execution of the Development Agreement, the shares of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the Defendant No. 3 Company would stand transferred in the name of the Plaintiff; the Plaintiff would take over the control of the Defendant No. 3 Company and take all decisions qua the Company to the extent of their entitlement as shareholders of the suit shares without interference of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3; and to top it all, the Plaintiff will also be entitled to create pledge/hen on the shares standing in the name of the Plaintiff in the Company in favour of any lender/financer/banker in its sole and absolute discretion, without any approval from Defendant Nos. 1 and 2; however, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 will be paid the sale consideration within six months from the date of execution of the Agreement and transfer of the shares to the Plaintiff. As submitted by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, such a suggestion is not only absurd and fallacious, but no reasonable and prudent person would transfer his shares in the name of the buyer, allow him to gain all powers in a Company on the strength of the said shares and also allow him to encumber the said shares without receiving a single paisa from the buyer. The Plaintiff has therefore made a very bold attempt of seeking specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale consideration to be paid within six months from the date of transfer of shares by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to the Plaintiff, which agreement is not only belied by the e-mail of Defendant No. 1 dated 3rd October, 2012, to the Plaintiff, which is not disputed by the Plaintiff, but is also unacceptable to common business sense and prudence.

I am also satisfied that at the time of filing of the suit, the Plaintiff was conscious of the fact that its contention, that it was agreed by and between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 that the sale consideration of shares would be payable to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by the Plaintiff six months from the date of execution of the Agreement and transfer of shares to the Plaintiff is belied by the afore-stated e-mail of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 dated 3rd October, 2012. The Plaintiff therefore thought of a novel idea, of alleging that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 themselves, had in a purported Draft Agreement forwarded by them to the Plaintiff stated that the said consideration would be paid upon and after the execution of the Development Agreement. The Plaintiff did not make any specific mention of the purported draft Agreement allegedly sent to them by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the plaint. Instead, the Plaintiff very slyly mentioned in paragraph 15 of the plaint that: "the Suit Agreement has been duly arrived at and is evidenced by the correspondence and by exchange of mails and the drafts prepared by the Plaintiff as also by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2". Not only copies of the purported drafts allegedly forwarded by the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to the Plaintiff are not annexed to the Plaint, but the Plaintiff has not even stated in the Plaint that it wishes to crave leave to and/or rely upon the same. It is pertinent to note that this is so, despite almost all documents which are relevant according to the Plaintiff are annexed to the Plaint and as regards two documents, the Plaintiff has craved leave to refer and rely upon the same in the Plaint. When the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Plaintiff, in the course of his argument, tried to introduce the said two purported Agreements, allegedly forwarded to the Plaintiff by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 correctly opposed the same by stating that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have not only not forwarded any Draft Agreements to the Plaintiff and/or their Advocates, but there is no mention of any such Agreements even in the Plaint. At this point of time, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Plaintiff relied on the afore-stated statement in the plaint and produced copies of the purported two Agreements. The learned Senior Advocate for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 submitted on instructions, that the purported Agreements were prepared by the Plaintiff itself and it was wrongly alleged by the Plaintiff that the same were forwarded by it by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The Plaintiff was therefore informed by the Court to place the said Agreements before the Court by filing an affidavit explaining from whom and when the said two Agreements were received by the Plaintiff. It is only thereafter that the Plaintiff filed an additional Affidavit alleging that the said Agreements were handed over to Mr. Dharmesh Jain of the Plaintiff by Defendant No. 1 at the office of Mr. Dharmesh Jain on or about 20th March, 2013. Interestingly in the said Additional Affidavit, though the Plaintiff has stated that the said Additional Affidavit is filed to narrate the "crucial and relevant facts", it is not explained in the said affidavit as to why the said "crucial and relevant facts" were kept away by the Plaintiff from the Plaint. Along with the Additional Affidavit, the Plaintiff now annexed an alleged e-mail dated 20th March, 2013, addressed to the Partner of the Firm of Advocates attending to the above Suit on behalf of the Plaintiff, recording that the Plaintiff has allegedly enclosed the share sale and purchase agreement received from Defendant No. 1 and that the concerned partner may go through the same. The Plaintiff as well as the Partner of the Advocates on record for the Plaintiff attending to the matter will surely have to explain at the time of hearing and final disposal of the Suit as to why the said "crucial and relevant facts" were not made part of the Plaint by either giving its particulars in the Plaint or annexing copies of the same to the Plaint or by at least seeking leave to refer to and rely upon the same.

In view of the afore-stated facts and conduct of the Plaintiff, I am prima facie satisfied that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are correct in their contention, that they have not forwarded copies of any such Draft Agreements to the Plaintiff and the purported Agreements are nothing but a creation of the Plaintiff, who at all relevant times was conscious of the fact that not only did Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 not agree to receive the sale consideration within six months from the execution of the Agreement and transfer of shares to the Plaintiff, but the alleged Agreement is belied by the e-mail dated 3rd October, 2012, addressed by Defendant No. 1 to the Plaintiff, the contents of which are not refuted by the Plaintiff at any time thereafter, including in the Plaint. Under the circumstances, in my view on this ground alone, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any interim reliefs.

The learned Senior Advocate appearing for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 repeatedly raised the question as to why the Plaintiff would prepare a Draft Agreement without incorporating the clauses pertaining to the marketable title, unearned income, labour dues, etc., which according to the Plaintiff, also formed part of the alleged Suit. The answer to the question raised by Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 can be best explained only by the Plaintiff. However, it is also not difficult to prima facie respond to the question raised by the Advocate for Defendant No. 2. It appears that the purported agreements are prepared by the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff was aware that there was nothing to show in support of its allegation that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had agreed to receive the sale consideration within a period of six months from the date of execution of formal Agreement between the parties and after transfer of shares to the Plaintiff. In fact this allegation was belied by the e-mail dated 3rd October, 2012. The Plaintiff did not include the clauses pertaining to making out a clear and marketable title, including payment of unearned income payable in respect of the said lands, or any clause pertaining to the Company being free of all undisclosed and hidden debts and liabilities, including taxes on the effective date i.e. the date of execution of a formal Agreement between the parties, because the Plaintiff has in support of these allegations already relied on the contents of the e-mail dated 3rd October, 2012, addressed by Defendant No. 1 to the Plaintiff and also the e-mail dated 8th August, 2012. The Plaintiff has also not included these clauses anticipating that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 would contend that they have not forwarded any such drafts to the Plaintiff and at that point of time the Plaintiff can ask the very question now raised by the Advocate for the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff has further specifically averred and also pleaded before the Court, that there is an Agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as recorded in clauses 6(b) and 6(c) of the Plaint, that prior to the execution of a formal Agreement, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 shall make out a clear and marketable title to the said lands at their own costs, charges and expenses including obtaining clearances under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and payment of unearned income payable in respect of the said lands and further that the Company had to be free of all undisclosed hidden debts and liabilities including taxes.

Clauses 3 and 4 of the said draft Agreement which is admittedly prepared by the Plaintiff, sets out the compliances which are required to be made by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 prior to the effective date. Clause 6 of the said draft Agreement sets out the conditions which are required to be complied with subsequent to the effective date. There is not a whisper about clearances pertaining to the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and payment of unearned income payable in respect of the said lands in the compliances required to be satisfied prior to the execution of the said Agreement. There is also no whisper about the Company required to be shown free of all undisclosed and hidden debts and liabilities including taxes on the effective date in clauses 3 and 4 of the said Agreement. In fact, it is only provided in clause 7.2 of the Development Agreement titled "covenants and undertakings of the sellers" that the seller shall be exclusively responsible for the payment of all undisclosed and hidden debts and liabilities including taxes of the Company (Defendant No. 3) as may be attributed to the seller and as existing on the effective date, and shall not make any claim, set off, counter-claim or claim for reimbursement against the Company or the purchasers for the discharge of these liabilities and that the purchaser and the Company shall at its option be entitled to proceed against any of the sellers for the recovery or reimbursement of such claim. Clause 7 of the draft Agreement completely belies the case of alleged existence of an Agreement between the parties to obtain clearance orders under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 prior to the execution of the Draft Agreement. In the said clause drafted by the Plaintiff themselves it is mentioned that "further the sellers (i.e. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2) undertakes to get the clearance order under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 or any other laws on the said lands for the aforesaid...... acres of land falling under CTS No.....to .... within .... days from the effective date".

Thus, it is once again established that the Plaintiff has approached this Court with a completely false case of existence of an Agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 as pleaded in clause 6 of the Agreement and even on this ground alone the Plaintiff is not entitled to any interim relief from this Court.

The Plaintiff has also contended that it was agreed between the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that prior to the execution of a formal Agreement, the Defendants shall make out a clear and marketable title to the said lands at their own costs, charges and expenses. Though Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have in their affidavit-in-reply stated that Defendant No. 3 has made out and issued title certificates to the Infrastructure Company under the Development Agreement, the Plaintiff has also denied the fact of there being any Agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 viz. that prior to the execution of a formal Agreement, the Defendants shall make out a clear and marketable title to the said lands. The Plaintiff has stated in the Plaint that pursuant to the meeting held on 4th July, 2012, Mr. Dharmesh Jain, Managing Director of the Plaintiff by his e-mail dated 20th July, 2012, requested the Defendants to forward certain documents for the purpose of due diligence. This is admittedly the first e-mail sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendants after the meeting held on 4th July, 2012, in which it was purportedly agreed that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 shall, prior to the execution of the formal Agreement, make out a clear and marketable title to the said lands. Interestingly in the said e-mail, which is reproduced in paragraph 7 above, there is not a whisper about the said land or documents relating thereto. Again, in the e-mail dated 3rd August, 2012 (Exhibit-A to the Plaint), it is recorded by Defendant No. 3 that by the e-mail dated 20th July, 2012, the documents as set out therein (reproduced in paragraph 7 hereinabove), have been forwarded to the Plaintiff/NIPL. It is once again clear that the documents forwarded to the Plaintiff/NTPL pursuant to their e-mail dated 20th July, 2012, do not pertain to any title deeds in respect of the said land. From both the e-mails dated 20th July, 2012 and 3rd August, 2012, it is clear that the due diligence pertains to the Defendant No. 3 Company and not the said lands.

On 1st October, 2012, the Plaintiff forwarded an e-mail to the Defendant No. 1. The subject of the e-mail is shown as "Requirements for Due Diligence - Anant Developers Pvt. Ltd.". In its e-mail, the Plaintiff has stated that the requirement list for due diligence (audit) of the Defendant No. 3 Company was attached thereto and that in case any of the requirement is not applicable, they may write so. In the said list of requirements, one finds that the Plaintiff has asked for details of all projects with the Company and copies of all Development Agreements being undertaken by the Company. Defendant No. 1 has thereafter forwarded his e-mail dated 3rd October, 2012, at the Plaintiff''s e-mail address. The subject shown in the said e-mail is "Requirements for due diligence - Anant Developers Pvt. Ltd.". Defendant No. 1 has in his said e-mail, after referring to the earlier e-mail dated 3rd August, 2012, recorded that they have handed over copies of various land documents, explanations regarding title and various clarifications relating to the land acquisition from time to time and that basically 52 per cent of the shareholding will be changing hands from Mr. Nitin M. Shah and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, hence the transaction will be amongst the shareholders who would like to exit and the shareholders who would like to acquire the shares. In such an event, the documents already handed over suffice the purpose. Defendant No. 1 further recorded in the said e-mail that as the Plaintiff has been involved in the said transactions since 2004, the list of requirements are merely repetitive of details earlier sent and several points are not applicable to them. It is therefore clear that if there would have been an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants to the effect that prior to the execution of a formal Agreement, the Defendants shall make out a clear and marketable title to the said lands, the Plaintiff would have called for the title deeds etc. by its first e-mail dated 20th July, 2012, itself. The Plaintiff has by their e-mail dated 1st October, 2012, forwarded a requirement list for due diligence (audit) of Defendant No. 3 to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in which they have, inter alia, asked for copies of Development Agreements being undertaken by the Company and details of all projects with the Company. It is clear that in response thereto, Defendant No. 1 by his e-mail dated 3rd October, 2012, after mentioning the subject "Requirements for due diligence-Anant Developers Pvt. Ltd." has categorically stated that copies of various land documents, explanation regarding title and various clarification relating to land acquisition has already been provided from time to time as the Plaintiff has been involved in the said transaction since 2004 and therefore the requirements are merely repetitive of details sent earlier and several points are not applicable to the transaction pertaining to the sale of shares, since the same basically involve changing of hands between 52 per cent share-holders of the Defendant No. 3 Company who would like to exit and the share-holders (Plaintiff) who would like to acquire the shares. The contents of this e-mail prima facie show that there was no agreement between the parties to the effect that prior to the execution of a formal agreement, the Defendant shall make out a clear and marketable title to the said lands. This view is further fortified by the fact that the Plaintiff has not denied or disputed the stand taken by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by the said e-mail dated 3rd October, 2012, which they would have surely done in the event of there being any Agreement requiring the Defendants to make out a clear and marketable tide to said lands prior to the execution of formal agreement as alleged. The Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to any interim reliefs on this ground also.

The Plaintiff has also alleged that the Suit Agreement has been acted upon and implemented by removal of the right of first refusal in the Articles and part payment of Rs. 5 crores. Admittedly, the Articles of Association of the Defendant No. 3 Company provides that the shareholders of Defendant No. 3 shall have the right of first refusal in case of any shareholder being desirous of selling his shares. As explained by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in their affidavit-in-reply that since they were desirous of selling their shares in the Defendant No. 3 Company, they did proceed to take steps for removal of the right of first refusal in the Articles of Association of the Defendant No. 3 Company. For this purpose, a notice was sent by Defendant No. 3 for convening an Extraordinary General Meeting of its shareholders of 12th February, 2013. The meeting was held on 12th March, 2013, at which a Resolution was passed amending the Articles of Association of Defendant No. 3 to remove the provision granting the shareholders of Defendant No. 3 a right of first refusal in case any shareholder wishes to transfer his shares. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have correctly stated that this was done for the purpose of simplifying the exit option which the existing shareholders were contemplating. These facts also show that this was done well in advance of the alleged draft of the Suit Agreement sent by the Plaintiff on 6th May, 2013, by way of an email. The contention of the Plaintiff that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have, by removing the right of first refusal in the Articles of Association of the Defendant No. 3 Company acted upon and implemented the suit Agreement, cannot be accepted. This step was necessary for the shareholders to sell their shares to any purchaser, having once decided to dispose of their shareholding. Again merely because Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have accepted an amount of Rs. 5 crores from the Plaintiff in the absence of a final valid Agreement for sale of shares does not entitle the Plaintiff to any relief as prayed for or otherwise.

From the aforesaid facts I am, prima facie satisfied that the Plaintiff has approached this Court with an incorrect case that there exists an Agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for sale of the 19 per cent shares of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the Plaintiff on terms and conditions set out in paragraph 6 of the Plaint (reproduced in paragraph 6 herein). The case of the Plaintiff that the Defendants had on 20th March, 2013, forwarded two Draft Agreements to the Plaintiff is rejected. Even if it is assumed only for the sake of argument that the same were indeed sent by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to the Plaintiff, the same would also show that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 until 20th March, 2013, had not accepted the Draft Agreement forwarded by the Plaintiff to the Defendants on 6th March, 2013, and had suggested changes to the same by forwarding fresh drafts. The Plaintiff has not written to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that the question of fresh drafts does not arise since the Agreement as contained in the draft dated 6th March, 2013, is already finalised. This further goes to establish that there was no binding Agreement arrived at between the parties as alleged in paragraph 6 of the Plaint or as contained in the Draft Agreement forwarded to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on 6th March, 2013 (Exhibit-E Pg. 61 of the Plaint). Under the circumstances, in my view, the Plaintiff has failed to establish that there exists a concluded contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for sale of the 19 per cent shares of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the Defendant No. 3 Company in favour of the Plaintiff, on terms and conditions set out in paragraph 6 of the Plaint. The submissions advanced on behalf of the Plaintiff are rejected. The case law cited on behalf of the Plaintiff is not applicable to the present case and therefore lends no assistance to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to interim reliefs. The balance of convenience is also in favour of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and against the Plaintiff. The Notice of Motion is therefore dismissed with costs.