Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2003 (11) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (11) TMI 333 - SUPREME COURTWhether the MOU, entered into between the parties on 18-5-1994 and forwarded by letter dated 20-5-1994, has been acted upon and complied with by the parties? Held that:- Appeal allowed. The respondents did not withdraw the suit filed by them against the United Bank of India, which is the condition precedent stipulated in clause (1) of the MOU. The respondents also did not pay the guarantee liability of Rs. 2.33 lakhs. No compromise petition was filed before an appropriate court. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the terms and conditions stipulated in the MOU had been complied with and acted upon by the parties. Apart from what has been said, subsequent to the MOU there was also a lot of correspondence between the parties by exchanging letters giving offers and counter-offers, as would be revealed in the letters dated 16-6-1994, 23-12-1994, 12-6-1995, 15-6-1995 and 19-6-1995. All these correspondences would go to show that the parties failed to arrive at a consensus even on what were the terms of the MOU. Thus, it is clear that there was no concluded contract nor was there any novation.
|