SANJAY SETHI Vs. DEEPAK SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant No. 1 Shri Deepak Sethi is the brother of plaintiff No. 1 Shri Sanjay Sethi and the son of plaintiff no.2 Raj Sethi. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is alleged to have been executed between the parties on 6th January, 2010. Under the said MOU, defendant no.1 resigned from the directorship of two companies, namely, International Corporate Signs Pvt. Ltd. and Laycock Engineers Pvt. Ltd. He also agreed to transfer his shares in these companies to plaintiff no.1 or his nominee on receipt of Rs. 1 crore 25 lakhs and an additional payment of Rs.25,000.00 per month for 12 months from January, 2010 to December, 2010 towards monthly expenses. In terms of the aforesaid MOU the plaintiffs paid Rs.50 lakhs to defendant no.1 out of this, Rs.25 lakhs were paid immediately on execution of the MOU and Rs.25 lakhs were paid on 6 th April, 2010. The plaintiffs also made four payments of Rs.25,000.00 each to defendant no.1 in terms of the said MOU. Another payment of Rs.6,51,000.00 is alleged to have been made to defendant no.1 towards fulfilment of the obligations of the plaintiffs under the said MOU.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs is that after accepting the aforesaid payments, defendant no.1 is seeking to back out from the said MOU dated 6th January, 2010 and has been writing letters to various authorities, against them. The plaintiffs are accordingly seeking specific performance of MOU, besides injunction restraining defendant no.1 from acting in any manner prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiff and their companies and mandatory injunction, directing defendant no.2 to handover the shares certificates and transfer deeds to the plaintiff and/or their nominee. Under the MOU the Transfer Deeds in respect of the shares which defendant no.1 held in these companies were deposited by defendant no.1 with defendant no.2 who was to deliver the same to the plaintiffs, on their making the entire payment in terms of the said MOU.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the defendant no.1 has drawn my attention to the notice dated 7th June, 2010 sent by the plaintiffs to defendant no.1. Clause 12 and 13 of the said notice read as under:-