$~J-4

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Pronounced on: 15.12.2023

+

CS(COMM) 166/2023

SHASHVAT NAKRANI ..... Plaintiff

Through:

Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. alongwith

Mr. Raghavendra M. Bajaj, Mr.

Sidhant Goel, Mr. Mohit Goel, Ms.

Garima Bajaj, Mr. Nikhil Bamal, Mr.

Agnish Aditya, Mr. Kumar Karan,

Mr. Shagun Agarwal, Mr. Deepankar

Mishra, Mr. Karmanya Dev Sharma

and Ms. Ayushi Kumar, Advs.

versus

ASHNEER GROVER ..... Defendant

Through: Mr.

Giriraj

Subramanium,

Mr.

Shonak Sharma, Mr. Simarpal Singh

Sawhney, Mr. Siddhant Juyal and Ms.

Urvashi Singh, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

JUDGMENT

IA No. 5683/2023 (on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1

and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Section 151 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for ad interim ex-parte injunction)

1.

The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking (i) a

declaration that the (alleged) oral agreement entered into between the

plaintiff and defendant on 02.07.2018 (“Agreement”) in respect of the

plaintiff’s (then) Two Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Seven (2,447)

equity shares in Resilient Innovations Private Limited (“RIPL”), which, as a

Digitally Signed

By:RADHA BISHT

Signing Date:15.12.2023

18:24:13

Signature Not Verified

result of a share-split and a bonus share issue, today stand at Twenty Seven

Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Seven (27,627) equity shares

(hereinafter, the “plaintiff's shares”), stands rescinded and terminated in

accordance with law and contract, and consequently has become void.

2.

The plaintiff has further sought a declaration that “Form SH-4”, dated

02.07.2028 (hereinafter, the “Form SH-4”), executed by the plaintiff in

favour of the defendant pursuant to the Agreement be declared to be void

and liable to be cancelled; and a further declaration that the plaintiff

continues to be the owner of the plaintiff’s shares, together with all rights

that accrue in respect thereof. The plaintiff has also sought permanent

prohibitory injunctions restraining the defendant (including his attorneys,

assigns, successors-in-interest, agents, authorized persons or anyone acting

for and/or on his behalf) from alienating, transferring, selling, creating any

encumbrance, third-party rights or any other interest of any kind whatsoever

in the plaintiff’s shares, or otherwise dealing with the plaintiff’s shares in

any manner whatsoever; restraining the defendant from exercising any rights

of any kind whatsoever in respect of the plaintiff’s shares; and restraining

the defendant from (wrongly) professing, or claiming to be, the owner of the

plaintiff’s shares amongst the public at large in any manner whatsoever.

Alternative relief seeking compensation and damages has also been claimed

by the plaintiff.

3.

Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff has also filed an application under

Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, inter alia,

seeking as follows :-

Digitally Signed

By:RADHA BISHT

Signing Date:15.12.2023

18:24:13

Signature Not Verified

justice.‖

4.

The factual background in the context of which the present suit

alongwith the aforesaid instant IA No.5683/2023 has been filed, is briefly

enumerated hereunder.

5.

In August 2016, the plaintiff and Mr. Bhavik Koladiya are stated to

have established “M/s EZY Services”, a partnership firm, in which the

plaintiff had 40% shares and Mr. Bhavik Koladiya had 60% shares. It is

averred in the plaint that on 20.03.2018, in order to formalize the structure

of the business and to make the structure more investor friendly, the plaintiff

and Mr. Bhavik Koladiya, jointly founded and incorporated “RIPL” as a

private limited company with an equal shareholding of 5000 equity shares

each. M/s EZY Services is stated to have assigned all rights, title and

interest, tog