The main legal point established in the judgment is that the original agreement was novated and not enforceable under Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the work done under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

1. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 were friends and became business associates initially in the sole proprietary concern of defendant No.1 who was later to incorporate and has incorporated defendant No.3 for the purpose of carrying on what is stated to be a “technology startup”. The sole proprietor of defendant No.1 (defendant) is essentially the contesting party. The defendant creates media content in various platforms like Internet, You Tube, T.V., Radio, Films etc. The plaintiff claims to have been initially appointed to provide various services to the defendant for creation of media content and related activities for which the defendant was to compensate the plaintiff as per certain oral agreement which came to be accepted and incorporated in certain emails between the parties and in terms of which the plaintiff seeks to be paid/compensated.

2. The plaintiff sought declaration that the oral agreement between the parties dated 20.09.2012 is valid and subsisting, for specific performance of the agreement, for damages for non-performance of the agreement and for other incidental reliefs.

3. In the Notice of Motion the plaintiff has sought injunction restraining the defendant from transferring, encumbering, alienating or creating any third party rights in the assets of defendant No.1 including its brand name TVF or incorporating or carrying on a competing business. The plaintiff has also prayed for the mandatory injunction against the defendant to reinsert the credits given to the plaintiff in certain broadcasts on the defendant's channel and to grant access to the plaintiff's work email ID.

4. To be entitled to the reliefs sought the plaintiff must first substantiate the agreement dated 12.09.2000 and show that it subsists until the filing of the suit. The plaintiff has set out the oral agreement in para 4(c) of the plaint. The agreement was well after the defendant sought the plaintiff's advice on certain matters as an advisor which the plaintiff claims to have given and for which certain payments were promised. The defendant was to obtain financial assistance from an investor. The investment was delayed and withdrawn. The defendant was on the verge of closure. It was then that the defendant agreed to offer a bigger role to the plaintiff as a Partner & Director – Operations, and Strategy & Business Development. The plaintiff claims that the terms of the agreement for the plaintiff in such capacity were to be allotted 4% equity in the proposed company of the defendant, producer's fee of 7.5% on projects and Rs.30,00,000/- p.a. as salary from October, 2012 with an option to convert the same into equity.

5. The plaintiff claims to have acted upon the said agreement. The plaintiff has shown several acts done by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed that he held negotiations with Google acquiring a funding of 75,000/- USD for the defendant, produced 20 videos in most of which he is shown as the producer and in some of which in other capacity, negotiated profitable projects with P & G, Pizza Hut, ICICI Lombard. The plaintiff has annexed numerous emails between the parties to show the plaintiff's contribution to the defendant's business as also the agreement between the parties for payment to the plaintiff thereunder.

6. The various acts of the plaintiff would show some agreement between the parties. The acts of the plaintiff on behalf of defendant would not show precisely the aforesaid three terms of the precise allotment of 4% shares, the precise producer's fee of 7.5% on the projects as also the precise salary of Rs.30,00,000/- p.a. from October, 2012 despite the plaintiff's case that he worked full time from September/October, 2012 and has shown certain specific diverse works done by the plaintiff which are enumerated in para 4(f)(i) to (iv) of the plaint.

7. The plaintiff has made a grievance about the working in terms