Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2014 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 1262 - HC - Companies LawAmicable family separation - binding agreement capable of specific performance - Was there a binding and concluded Family Arrangement as pleaded, one capable of specific performance? - HELD THAT:- The answer must be yes, for several reasons. The documents and events of 11th December 2009 all show so. The subsequent conduct of the parties also indicates that this is so. Were Defendants Nos. 2 to 8 bound by this Family Arrangement? HELD THAT:- The answer must be in the affirmative. There is yet another way to envision this. What is the consequence of denying the Plaintiffs relief? - This much is clear: the affairs of the Shivanand Group are now entirely known to the Dattaraj Group. The latter seems to have appropriated to itself certain properties. The only reasons given for opposing specific performance are, as discussed, untenable and even specious. That there was no concluded agreement is not a defence capable of acceptance. The tax evasion argument is one of desperation. As to the defence by Defendants Nos. 2 to 8, perhaps the less said the better; this is nothing but subterfuge and mendacity. The conclusion is irresistible that the Plaintiffs have made out a more than sufficient prima facie case, and have demonstrated too, that the balance of convenience is in their favour. It is self-evident that if reliefs as sought are not granted, immeasurable and irredeemable loss will be occasioned to them. The injunctions they seek, with some modifications, must be granted. Notice of motion disposed off.
|