Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

72. Insofar as the second impugned order dated June 9, 2025 is concerned, the same stems from a subsequent injunction application filed by the plaintiffs/appellants herein. By the order dated May 16, 2025, which supposedly furnished cause of action for the second injunction application, the defendant/respondent merely reiterated its stand that the time stipulated for completion of the 2025:CHC-AS:2038-DB project in the MOU had already expired and the plaintiffs are liable to pay penalty in terms thereof and no further effect can be given to the terms of the MOU.

76. A bare perusal of the reliefs sought in the plaint indicates that prayers (a) to (e) therein relate directly to money claims. Relief (f) is for declaration that no penalty is payable under Clause 9 of the MOU dated June 7, 2007 and prayer (g) is for injunction restraining the defendant from taking any coercive action demanding or claiming any amount by way of penalty in terms of the said Clause. Thus, the main reliefs sought, as discussed above, all relate to money claims and/or orders seeking to resist money claims on the part of the defendant/respondent. Nowhere within the four corners of the plaint prayers do we find any relief for specific performance of the MOU. As such, the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the second impugned order which comprises of a deemed refusal of the prayer made in the second injunction application at the ad interim stage.