VIPIN MALIK Vs. ENPRO INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this case are almost identical to the facts of case in CS (OS) No. 971/1998, only defendant is different. The Mou relied upon by the plaintiff is similar. The plaintiff has in this case claimed an amount of Rs. 12,76,81,450/- as professional charges and interest on the basis of Clause 4 of the Mou which reads as under :

(2.) THE contention of the plaintiff is that it had rendered professional services to the defendant and it was entitled to the above fee being the minimum fee payable to him under Clause 4. In the application for leave to defend, the defences taken by the defendant are various and almost similar. The only difference between the two cases is that in this case the issue whether the plaintiff was authorized to sign amended JVA on behalf of hindustan Times Ltd. is not there. But all other issues and defence, which have been taken in Case No. 971/1998, have been taken in this case also. This Court vide order dated 21. 05. 2008 in CS (OS) No. 971/1998 has held as under :

(3.) IT is settled law that leave to defend can be granted to the defendant unconditionally if the defendant raises a bonafide and valid defence. In this case the plaintiff has claimed professional fee of US$ 5 lac along with interest from the defendant alleging that the plaintiff had rendered professional services under the MOU and nothing more was to be done by the plaintiff.