SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
R.D.Dhanuka, J.
Swaran Salaria & Associates —Plaintiff
versus
Himalayan Heli Service Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. —Defendants
Notice of Motion No.4938 of 2007 In Suit No.3611 of 2007
Decided on 8.12.2014

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Plaintiff: Mr.Pradeep Rajgopal, Mr.Debashree Mandpe, i/by Ms.Rekha Rajgopal
For the Defendants: Mr. Snehal Shah with Mr.Harish Pandya, Mr.Vishal Talsania, Mr.Raj Mehta, Mr.Amish Parmar i/b. RKM Legal Services

IMPORTANT POINT
When there is no prima facie case from the material on record and main relief could not be granted, in interim relief can be given by the Court.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code 1908 Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 – Grant of Interim Injunction – Suit for specific performance – Terms and conditions of the agreement of the sale found not conclusive – Therefore, there was no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff – Grant of injunction refused. (Para 40 to 42)

       Facts of the Case

        The plaintiff and defendant entered into a writing providing that M/s Swaran Salaria and Association will acquire 50% stake for a consideration of Rs. 300 lacs and will infuse further Rs. 500 lacs into the defendant company by way of equity share capital of Rs. 05 lac and share premium of Rs. 495 lacs. It was further provided that with the infusion of Rs. 05 lacs of additional capital by Swaran Salari and Associates, the defendant No. 2 will also bring Rs. 05 lacs as equity but at par so as to maintain parity in the share-holding pattern i.e. 50% each. It is recorded that as and by way of advance Rs. 50 lacs and Rs. 25 lacs by two separate cheques were paid by the plaintiff and received by the defendant Nos. 2 and 1 respectively. It is further agreed by both the directors of the defendant No. 2 that they would transfer additional 1% stake in defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff at appropriate time for strategic reasons as mutually discussed. In clause 5 of the said writing it was recorded that irrespective of the share-holding pattern, the profit sharing between the defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff shall be on 50:50 basis. Both parties shall have first right of refusal for stake sale (full or partial.)

       Findings of the Court

        A perusal of the record also indicated that the plaintiff accepted the amount returned by the defendants and did not make any offer to pay the entire consideration amount to the defendants or to deposit the same in this court to show their readiness and willingness to perform their part of obligation. Neither any such averment is made in the plaint nor the plaintiff has shown their readiness and willingness to perform their part of obligation. In a suit for specific performance of an agreement, the plaintiff ahs not only to plead but has to prove their continuous readiness and willingness although out i.e. from the date of agreement till the decree is passed by the court which the plaintiff has failed. Since there is no prime facie case in favour of the plaintiff he was not entitled to interim relief.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

R.D.Dhanuka, J.—By this notice of motion, the plaintiff has prayed for injunction against the defendants, their servants, agents and persons claiming through them from transferring and/or alienating and/or creating third party rights and/or any encumbrances in respect of 52 % shares in the 1st defendant company and for other reliefs. The plaintiff has filed this suit inter alia praying for specific performance of the agreement dated 22nd November, 2007. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this notice of motion are as under :-

2. Defendant no.1 has been operating as Air Taxi Operator. Defendant no.2 holds 100% shareholding of defendant no.1. Defendant nos. 3 and 4 are the directors of the 1st and 2nd defendants each having 50% holding. The 1st defendant runs helicopter services to and from Shri Mata Vaishnovdevi Shrine. The trust of the said Shri Mata Vaishnovdevi Shrine issued a tender on 18th October, 2007 for three years commencing from 1st January 2008.

3. On 22nd November 2007 the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 entered into a writing. It is provided in the said writing that M/s.Swaran Salaria and Associates will acquire 50% stake in Himalayan Heli Services Pvt. Ltd. from World Expeditions(I) Pvt. Ltd. for a consideration of Rs.300 lacs and will infuse further Rs.500 lacs into the defendant no.1 company by way of equity share capital of Rs.5 lacs and share premium at Rs.495 lacs. It was further provided that with the infusion of Rs. 5 lacs of additional capital by Swaran Salaria and Associates, the defendant no.2 will also bring Rs. 5 lacs as equity but at par so as to maintain parity in the shareholding pattern i.e. 50% each. It is recorded that as and by way of advance Rs. 50 lacs and Rs.25 lacs by two separate cheques were paid by the plaintiff and received by the defendant nos.2 and 1 respectively. It is further agreed by both the directors of the defendant no.2 that they would transfer additional 1% stake in defendant no.1 to the plaintiff at appropriate time for strategic reasons as mutually discussed. In clause 5 of the said writing it was recorded that irrespective of the shareholding pattern, the profit sharing between the defendant no.2 and the plaintiff shall be on 50 : 50 basis. Both parties shall have first right of refusal for stake sale (full or partial).

4. In clause 7 of the said writing it was provided that the plaintiff and the defendant no.2 will have two directors each and the board of the defendant no.1 to represent their respective interest. Plaintiff would be represented by Mr.Shamee Salaria and Mrs.Santosh Salaria. In clause 8 of the said writing it was provided that a detailed shareholders agreement shall be executed in due course. By e-mail dated 22nd November 2007 to the plaintiff the defendant no.4 referred to the advise given by the consultant that shareholding pattern should remain 50% each. It was stated that need of the plaintiff of additional 1% stake could be always be met by other means and hence question of acquiring 1% additional stake must be deleted from the agreement that was being prepared. It was also mentioned that before the plaintiff decides to go public and issue IPO, both parties have to work hard and have the company operating at a respectable and trustworthy standard. They would be competing with Dr.Vijay Malya and may be others. The defendant no.4 enquired as to what type of time frame the plaintiff was looking at for going IPO. The plaintiff was informed that a third party evaluator could be acceptable to both the partners. Defendant no.4 requested the plaintiff to delete the point no.1 from the agreement and requested that clarification with regard to point nos. 2 and 3 mentioned in the said e-mail be given by the plaintiff.

5. By e-mail dated 24th November 2007 the defendant no.4 informed the plaintiff that he will get in touch with Director General of Civil Aviation and check the status of helipad approval and find out stage of progress. It is m


















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top