Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Respondent's Submissions

33. Mr. Parag Tripathi, the learned ASG appearing for the respondent submits that in the present case the primary issue that needs to be considered is whether, in relation to a commercial bargain, interim protection can be granted where the agreement is itself determinable.

34. The first submission of Mr. Tripathi is that there was no concluded contract arrived at between the parties, and only a MOU had been signed. He submits that the MOU was at the initial stage, and not much has been done under the said MOU by either of the parties. He contended that the MOU itself stipulated that following 3 Definitive agreements had to be signed by the parties;

63. Firstly, I may deal with the respondent‟s defence that the MOU dated 14.11.2008 is not an enforceable agreement but it is only an agreement to enter into further agreements. In my view, prima facie, this submission of the respondent is not correct. At this stage, I may note that Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned ASG did not press this defence with any seriousness and proceeded to argue the case on the assumption that the MOU in question is a binding agreement. In any event, it appears from clause 4.1(ii) that the parties understood the MOU as creating legal, valid and binding obligations on the parties. Both the parties acted in terms of the MOU to a certain extent. Forms of formal agreements i.e. definitive agreements formed part of the MOU and, therefore, the parties were aware of the essential terms of the definitive agreements even when they signed the MOU.