Anil Gupta & Anr vs Kewal Sehgal & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 9140 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 08.12.2015
+       FAO(OS) 660/2015

ANIL GUPTA & ANR                                               ... Appellants
                                          versus

KEWAL SEHGAL & ORS                                             ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellants  : Mr Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr Advocate with Mr Aman
                      Vachher, Mr Saket Sikri, Mr Ashutosh Dubey, Mr Abhishek
                      Chauhan and Mr Sagar Mehra
For the Respondents : Mr Parag P. Tripathi, Sr Advocate with Mr Rajiv Singh,
                      Mr Tarjit and Mr Ashim Shridhar

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                       JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM 28762/2015 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CAVEAT 1229/2015 The learned counsel for the respondents/ caveators is present. The caveat stands discharged.

FAO(OS) 660/2015 & CM 28760/2015

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.10.2015 passed

by a learned Single Judge of this Court in IA Nos. 19996/2015 and

21152/2015. The said applications were filed by the plaintiffs/ appellants in

the suit, being CS(OS) 2892/2015, seeking declaration and permanent

injunction. The appellants/plaintiffs sought interim orders restraining the

defendants and their servants from using the business of Technical

Agrochemicals like 2:4D series, clodino etc.. The basis of this prayer was the

alleged MOU dated 01.04.2012.

2. Initially, the learned Single Judge, based on the averments made in the

plaint and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

plaintiffs/appellants, granted an ex parte ad interim injunction. However,

after notice, the respondents/ defendants filed an application under Order 39

Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the said injunction. The learned Single Judge, by

virtue of the impugned judgment, had allowed the application under Order

39 Rule 4 and vacated the ex parte injunction earlier granted in favour of the

appellants/plaintiffs.

3. The entire case of the appellants/ plaintiffs hinges upon the alleged

MOU between the appellant No.1 and the respondent No.1 said to have been

executed on 01.04.2012. That document is disputed by the respondents to

the extent of stating that the signatures of the respondent No.1 have been

forged. Both the parties have produced reports of handwriting experts. The

handwriting expert produced on behalf of the appellants/ plaintiffs was of the

view that the signatures of the respondent No.1, as appearing in the said

document, was that of the respondent No.1 compared with his admitted

signatures. But, we find from the report of the experts (Syed Faisal Huda

and Syed Faizal Huda) that the said experts only compared photocopies of

documents. Prima facie, that would not be of any evidentiary value. The

expert evidence produced on behalf of the respondents supported their

contention that the purported signatures of respondent No.1, said to have

been placed on the said MOU, were not the signatures of the respondent

No.1. This report also relies on comparison of photocopies, which would

also not have, prima facie, any evidentiary value.

4. Apart from all this, we find that, although the alleged MOU is dated

01.04.2012, there is a deed of dissolution of the partnership which was

hitherto carried out in the name and style of 'Ambey Laboratories'. That

deed of dissolution has admittedly been signed and executed by the appellant

No.1 and the respondent No.1 and is dated 30.09.2012. That deed of

dissolution does not make any mention of the alleged MOU dated

01.04.2012. It is, of course, the contention of the learned counsel for the

appellants that the MOU pertained not only to the partnership concern, but

also to the company, which is the appellant No. 2 herein. Be that as it may,

there is no mention of the MOU in the dissolution deed even with regard to

the business separation insofar as the partnership firm is concerned.

5. The learned Single Judge has also raised issues with regard to the use

of the letter-head of Ambey Laboratories insofar as the alleged MOU is

concerned. He has raised several doubts about the same, which is evident

from paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge has

also noticed that the scanned copy as also the so-called original MOU

contained the signatures of the witnesses, whereas the photocopy of the

alleged MOU, which was filed along with the plaint, did not have the details

or signatures of the witnesses.

6. In these circumstances, several doubts have arisen, prima facie, with

regard to the alleged MOU dated 01.04.2012, on which, the entire case of the

appellants has been founded. It is for these reasons that the learned Single

Judge felt it prudent to vacate the interim order and to subject the parties to

trial. Of course, the learned Single Judge has been careful in directing that

the respondents/ defendants shall maintain true and correct accounts of the

sale of the impugned goods and shall file statements every quarter. The first

statement of sale was to be filed by 15.11.2015 which, according to the

learned counsel for the respondents, has already been filed and he undertakes

to abide by the directions given by the learned Single Judge and file the

statements quarterly till the decision in the suit.

7. In view of the foregoing circumstances, we are not inclined to

interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed. There shall

be no order as to costs.

                                         BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J


DECEMBER 08, 2015                          SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SR