Plaintiff stated
that the present court has the territorial jurisdiction as
MOU/Contract was executed at Delhi and material/equipment
were supplied from Delhi within ... period during which this MOU was in
operation is 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. Thus, this MOU was for a
contract period of 2 years
CONDITIONS'
(Page 81 of CD-1) forming part of MOU/Contract
between Claimant and Respondent according to which,
in case of failure ... MOU (Page 72 to 75 of CD-1) and Terms and
Conditions (Page 77 to 81 of CD-1) forming part of
MOU/Contract
separate suit bearing no.312/09) for Specific Performance of
contract/MOU dt.25.6.01. In the main suit bearing no.313/09 following ... following relief has been
claimed.
Decree of specific performance of contract/MOU dt.25.6.01
by executing and registering a lease deed in favour
rent at above mentioned property and
entered into an agreement/MOU/Contract on 13.11.2017 and it was agreed
that defendant will pay amount ... above findings, this Court has arrived to the conclusion that
contract/MoU dated 13.11.2017 entered into between plaintiff and
CS No. 2049/18 Page
MoU as alleged by the accused.
43. It is noteworthy that the MoU is nowhere defined in law; however to a simple
understanding an MoU ... mere contract between two parties. The Indian
Contract Act, 1872 does not defines a specific format for a contract, a contract may be
either oral
miserably failed to carry out the construction in terms of the
MOU/Contract inclusive of 'Annexure A' (Mark ... entire construction on the first floor portion in
accordance with the contract and MOU dt. 10.10.2015 and to
hand over its possession to him forthwith
What's App Messages etc. The
word used in the contract/MOU dated 18.10.2018 is co-promote and not
promote. As the Organizer ... terms of MOU that is why
plaintiff has not terminated the MOU as per the terms of
MOU. It is wrong to suggest that plaintiff
contract with regard to this with Late Sh. Vidya Sagar. He has a
copy of the said contract. Then witness was shown MOU dated
MOU, but defendant has
never disputed the para 2 of the MOU which clearly shows that
defendant has himself relied on the said MOU dated ... plaintiffs were always willing to perform their part of the contract.
Moreover, the MOU dated 19.03.2007 and its contents has also
been admitted
however, in covenant (1) thereof, authorization to
enter into any contract / MoU / agreement on behalf of company was
written by hand without any endorsement
