Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANIL KSHETARPAL, HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, JJ
EARTHZ URBAN SPACES PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
RAVINDER MUNSHI & ORS. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. arguments by the appellant regarding the existence of an agreement. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. arguments by the respondents supporting non-binding nature of mou. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. analysis of the impugned order by the court. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. court's final conclusions on the merits of the case. (Para 41 , 43) |
JUDGMENT
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. The present appeal, filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 1, read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 , assails the Order dated 02.06.20222passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) No. 287/2022, titled ‘Earthz Urban Spaces Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ravinder Munshi & Ors.’.
2. By the Impugned Order, while the learned Single Judge directed issuance of summons to the Defendants/Respondents herein, the Plaintiff/Appellant’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of an interim and temporary injunction was dismissed. In addition, the learned Single Judge held that the property bearing No. B-8, Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi-1100483would stand exempted from the applicabi
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
