Thread by @barandbench

Delhi High Court to hear shortly a suit by @BhartPe co-founder #ShashvatNakrani against the fintech firm's former Managing Director #AshneerGrover.

Nakrani has come to court to "take back" his shares that are allegedly with Grover.

#DelhiHighCourt @Ashneer_Grover

The suit will be heard by Justice Sachin Datta at 2:15pm.

The court today will deal with the interim relief sought by Nakrani that Grover be restrained from creating any third-party shares.

Matter taken up.

Sr Adv Neeraj Kishan Kaul appears for Nakrani.
Advocate Giriraj Subramanium for Grover.

Kaul: The case of the defendants in their own replies is that payment was simultaneous condition pursuant to which the delivery of goods were to take place.

Kaul: Kindly keep in mind. Delivery of goods is not transfer of property or title of goods and the law is well settled on the point.

Kaul: You can't say because I have got the goods, that's the end of it.

Kaul: The seller is always entitled to return of goods... Whether the party has paid me or not is a matter of trial. The HCs have said whether there has to be some sort of receipt about whether the money has been paid or not. That is a matter of trial.

Bench asks Kaul to answer the legal issues related to why no steps were taken by them for the last five years.
You will have to guide us on all these issues: Bench.

Kaul: I will deal with the issues of rights of unpaid sellers when the property has passed and when the property has not passed.

He reads the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act.

Kaul now refers to Grover's response to Nakrani's rescission notice.

Kaul: You categorically say that the payment was concurrent under the sales of goods act. My argument is that the condition was not satisfied.

Court: Is it your case that you acknowledged the receipt without receiving? What is your reason for executing SH-4? Why did you sign it?

Kaul: I will come to the pleadings.

Kaul: My friend on the other side said that that case (Bhavik Koladiya's matter) and this case is chalk and cheese. I have gone through the two cases and I can assure that the two matters are chalk and chalk and cheese and cheese.

The Senior Advocate now refers to the order passed in Bhavik Koladiya's case.

Read the story on Bhavik Koladiya's matter here.

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…

Bench: You are saying the only difference in the two cases is that here is saying that the amount was paid cash and there it was through something else.
Kaul: Yes. And I will show how inconsequential is that.

Court: Assuming that they have given undertaking in one matter, they can't be compelled to do so in another.
Kaul: But surely it will be of great persuasive value to my lords.

Kaul now cites the judgement in the Pawan Hans case.

It is an accepted position in law that delivery of goods is not synonymous with the transfer of goods or title: Kaul.

Bench: Isn't there a presumption?

Kaul: According to me not. At best, it may be a rebuttable presumption.

Bench: You must conclude by 4 pm.

Kaul: I can't. I will take at least an hour more.

Giriraj Subramanium: I will take 30 minutes.

Bench: Okay. Continue till 4 today and then we will have it tomorrow. Can you give a written note?

Lawyers: Yes.

Bench dictates order.

Order: List for further arguments tomorrow.

Kaul: I am only saying that in view of the proceedings that they should not do anything.

Bench: That is understood.

Subramanium agrees.

Bench: I am deciding the application for interim relief without your (Grover's) reply.

Subramanium: Yes. I will satisfy my lords with the arguments.

Matter to be now taken tomorrow in the post lunch session.

Hearing over.