Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. In this call in post-lunch session, report has been received from the Registry from which it appears that the Notary Public concerned, who had notarized the unsigned MoU, was appointed by the Ministry of Law & Justice of the Government of India, but despite service of communication dated 06.05.2024 and reminder dated 15.05.2024, no response came from that office.

7. In view of these circumstances, coupled with the developments that took place on last date, learned counsel for petitioners was called upon to address as to why the interim stay on operation of the impugned eviction order be not vacated forthwith.

8. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that parties had actually compromised the disputes, though the MoU could not be signed by them. However, learned counsel for petitioners admitted having handed over the said unsigned but notarized MoU to this Court, stating falsely that parties had settled the disputes. As regards the efforts being done to shield the Notary Public who had notarized the unsigned MoU, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are not aware about address of the said Notary Public.