The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to recovery of specified amounts and specific performance of contractual obligations based on the terms of the contract and relevant provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

( 1 ) THIS judgment shall dispose of plaintiff s suit for recovery of rs. 42. 72 lakh along with pendente lite and future interest and a decree of specific performance in respect of 49,990 equity shares of M/s. Path Finder Info services Pvt. Ltd. in favor of plaintiff No. 1 and to deliver the original shares to the plaintiffs.

( 2 ) THE brief facts to comprehend the disputes are that the plaintiff no. 2 and the defendant no. 1 conceived a project of an international call centre at gurgaon, Haryana. The total cost of the project was Rs. 35. 00 crores/us$ 7 million. The defendant no. 1 is a non-resident Indian settled in USA and the terms which were agreed between the parties were that plaintiff and defendant were to invest one million US dollars each in the project and 5 million US dollars were to be invested by the US Venture Capital fund to be arranged by the defendants. A company was to be incorporated in India and another company was to be incorporated in the United States. Indian company was to be wholly owned company of the US Company and the plaintiff and the defendants were to be equal partners in the US company.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff contended that consequently M/s. Path Finder Info Services pvt. Ltd was incorporated in Delhi and M/s. Path Finder Solution Incorporation was incorporated in the United States.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff no. 1 averred that it transmitted an amount of US$ 100,000 to the defendants after taking permission from the Reserve Bank of India. The plaintiffs also invested an amount of Rs. 3. 7 crores in Indian company, M/s. Path finder Info Services Pvt. Ltd. , and also got installed various equipments, such as, air-conditioning plant and 24-hours power back-up at 240. 243, Udyog Vihar, phase IV, Gurgaon.

( 5 ) DEFENDANT no. 1 remitted US$11000 for acquiring equity of the Indian company i. e. , M/s. Path Finder Info Services Pvt. Ltd. Against the said amount of us$ 11000, 49980 shares of M/s. Path Finder Info Services Pvt. Ltd. were transferred in favor of defendant No. 1. Ten equity shares were held by Shri ramesh Shah. He transferred 10 equity shares held by him in favor of defendant no. 1 as part of the original scheme where defendant no. 1 was to be 100% subsidiary company of the U. S. Company. Plaintiff no. 2 continued to hold balance 10 shares in his name on behalf of defendant no. 1.

( 6 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the defendants expressed their inability to arrange and remit necessary fund of US$ 1 million contrary to the agreement under which they had to arrange and remit the funds till 20th March, 2001 and on failure to remit the necessary funds, the defendants were liable to refund US$ 89000 to the plaintiff and they were also to return 49990 shares of M/s. Path Finder Info services Pvt. Ltd. for being allotted/transferred to plaintiff No. 1.

( 7 ) ON failure of the defendants to refund US$ 89000 equivalent to Rs. 42. 72 lakh and return of 49990 shares, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 42. 72 lakh and a decree for specific performance in respect of 49990 equity shares in favor of plaintiff No. 1 and delivery of the original shares to the plaintiff No. 1 and in the alternative the plaintiff has prayed for a decree for recovery of money in the sum of Rs. 5. 28 lakh with pendente lite interest and future interest at @ 12% per annum. 7. The summons of the suit were served on the defendants by publication in the newspaper the Statesman? (overseas edition) dated 19th July, 2003. The defendants despite service remained absent and no one appeared on their behalf and, therefore, they were proceeded ex parte by order dated 23rd March, 2004

( 8 ) THE plaintiff has filed evidence on affidavit. An affidavit of Shri n. K. Khanna (Naresh Kumar Khanna), plaintiff No. 2, who deposed about the resolution dated 11th February, 2002 authorizing him to sign and verify the pleadings and institute the suit. The copy of the resolution dated 11th february, 2002 was proved and exhibited as Ex