OM PRAKASH GARG Vs. VIKAS LIFECARE LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeals have arisen out of the order dtd. 30/3/2024 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Alwar in Civil Misc. Application No.06/24 (37/23) titled as "Vikas Lifecare Ltd. Vs. M/s Cupid Ltd. and Ors.", whereby the application filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff-applicant- Vikas Lifecare Ltd. (for short 'the applicant') under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been partly allowed against the appellants-defendant Nos.1 to 3-non- applicants (for short 'the non-applicants'). Being aggrieved thereby, S.B. CMA No.1678/2024 has been filed by the non- applicant No.1-Om Prakash Garg and non-applicant No.2-Veena Garg, whereas S.B. CMA No.1679/2024 has been filed by the non- applicant-M/s Cupid Limited. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1678/2024:-

(2.) Learned Senior counsel for the non-applicants submits that the trial court wrongly allowed the temporary injunction application filed by the applicant, whereas applicant neither had a prima facie case nor balance of convenience in its favour. Learned Senior counsel for the non-applicants also submits that trial court had erred in considering the Non-disclosure Agreement (NDA) dtd. 16/5/2022 entered into between the parties. Learned Senior counsel for the non-applicants also submits that NDA is an agreement for maintaining confidentiality between the parties in respect of exploring the possibility of transaction. As per clause 7.1, the said agreement was expired on 15/11/2022 i.e. after 6 months from the date of its execution. So, after said date, NDA was not executable. Learned Senior counsel for the non- applicants also submits that as per NDA, if any dispute would arise out of the said agreement, then exclusive jurisdiction of court will be at Mumbai but applicant wrongly invoked the court's jurisdiction at Alwar. Learned Senior counsel for the non-applicants also submits that the trial court had erred in considering as if the valid contract had been entered into between the parties. Learned Senior counsel for the non-applicants also submits that Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) was suggested by non-applicant No.1 with certain amendments. So, it cannot be inferred that valid contract was executed.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the non-applicants also submits that it is an admitted position that no money was transferred by the applicant during the negotiation or till filing of the suit. Cheques mentioned in the plaint as well as temporary injunction application were never encashed.