Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

61 In considering whether there is a formal Collaboration Agreement which has been executed between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1, it would be necessary to note that the Agreement has been admittedly signed by the Plaintiff as well as by Defendant Nos.1 and 2. The written Collaboration Agreement was exchanged between the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.1 and 2. This is borne out from e-mails which are on record and though Defendant No.1 has contended that merely by sending the Collaboration Agreement to Defendant No.2, this cannot bind Defendant No.1 and/or be considered as Defendant No.1 having been sent the Collaboration Agreement. However, it is necessary to note that by the e-mail dated 05.05.2022, the Collaboration Agreement dated 15.12.2021 was sent by Ashwin Suresh of the Plaintiff to inter-alia Firasat Durani of Defendant No.1. It has further been explained in the affidavit in rejoinder of the Plaintiff, in paragraph 5.19 thereof, that though the final version of the Collaboration Agreement was circulated Jt.1.IAL.16493.22 in COMSL.16491.22.doc on behalf of Plaintiff by e-mail dated 23.12.2021 and Defendant Nos.1 and 2 sent signatures on the pages of the Collaboration Agreement vide e- mail dated 27.12.2021 whereby they executed and concluded the Collaboration Agreement, the legal representative of the Plaintiff vide e- mail dated 22.12.2021 has explained the reason for the Collaboration Agreement being dated 15.12.2021. Due to the stamp duty payment date (which is 15.12.2021) the Plaintiff could not have backdated the Agreement. Further, the executed and stamped copy of the Collaboration Agreement has been shared with Defendant Nos.1 and 2 vide e-mail dated 08.03.2022 addressed to Defendant No.2 as well as by e-mail dated 05.05.2022 which is addressed to both Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2. Thus, in my prima facie view I do not find any merit in the contention on behalf of Defendant No.1 that the executed Collaboration Agreement was never received by Defendant No.1. There are certain disputes raised as to the events which took place at the meeting on 19.03.2022 and as to whether the Collaboration Agreement were handed over at the said meeting, however, it is not necessary to consider this dispute, in view of the subsequent e-mail dated 05.05.2022 wherein Defendant No.1 was sent the executed Collaboration Agreement dated 15.12.2022. Further, the invoices which have been raised by Defendant No.1 clearly mention that they are "as per the agreement" thus, Defendant Jt.1.IAL.16493.22 in COMSL.16491.22.doc No.1 had full knowledge of the executed Collaboration Agreement. 62 The execution of the Collaboration Agreement has been contended by Defendant No.1 to be contrary to the recognized modes of execution. In my prima facie view there is no substance to this contention in view of the fact that Defendant No.1 has not disputed that it had signed the execution page which had been sent to the Plaintiff and had not raised any objection after having received the duly executed Collaboration Agreement by e-mail dated 05.05.2022 till the Termination Letter was sent and in the present proceedings. Thus, this is a mere afterthought and accordingly I do not find any merit in the contention on behalf of Defendant No.1 that there was no valid Collaboration Agreement executed.