Tuesday, 14 March 2017

A closer look at Ekta World's Special Civil Suit in Vasai Court

Ekta World's Application for Temporary Injunction basically seeks to muzzle us from putting into public domain the uncomfortable truths about Ekta World's dealings with the gullible people who buy their flats! As per the causelist, this plaint is for seeking reliefs under Specific Relief Act. This Act is generally for enforcement of contractual obligations.

Read the causelist below:


Since Mr Vineet Malik and Ekta World have contractual obligations towards each other, it would make sense to invoke this Act if Mr Malik failed to perform any of the duties cast upon him by their contract. (However, that doesn't seem to be the case here; in fact, the case is the reverse. Mr Malik appears to have completed all his contractual payments, whereas Ekta World has till date failed to fulfill its contractual obligation of delivering possession of the flat in Ekta Parksville.)
 
Below are the contents of the word file emailed to us today, which purportedly contain Ekta World's Application for Temporary Injunction against us. It basically seeks to muzzle Vineet Malik and myself from putting into public domain the uncomfortable truths about Ekta World's dealings with the gullible people who buy their flats! My remarks to various points are in red. 
-----------------------------------------------------
TEXT OF THE APPLICATION IS AS BELOW:

The Plaintiff has not received copy of
any caveat from the Defendant till today.

That is because the Defendant i.e. Vineet Malik and myself were not served any notice till today.

Plaintiff’s Advocate.

IN THE COURT OF THE JT. CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR
DIVISION, VASAI
SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT NO.        OF 2017

Ekta Parksville  Homes Private Limited    )
A company incorporated under the        )
Companies Act, 1956, having registered         )
Office at 401, Hallmark Business Plaza        )
Off Western Express Highway,            )
Kala Nagar, Bandra (East)                )
Mumbai 400 051through Mr. Chandra Prakash  )
Goyal, Age:58 years, R/o of Flat No.104, Building)
No.C-18, Sector No.6, Shanti Nagar, Mira Road     )
(East), PIN- 401107  )    
                                           :
Versus

1. Mr. Vineet Malik                    )
Age:  43 years                    )
Occupation: Business                )
residing at:  C4C-123                )
Carlton Estate, DLF V                )
Gurgaon – 122009, Haryana            )

2.Mr. Krishnaraj Rao                )
Age: 45           Years                    )
Occupation: Journalist                )
501, A Wing,                        )
Raheja Green CHS                    )
Raheja Estate, Kulup wadi Road,            )   
Borivali East,                        )
Mumbai 400 066                    )


APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
 INJUNCTION BY PLAINTIFF

MAY IT PLEASE THE HON’BLE COURT

1) The Plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration, perpetual injunction and damages, wherein Plaintiff has prayed for certain interim and ad-interim reliefs as stated in the Plaint. Hence this application.

2) The Plaintiff hereby repeats and confirms and adopts the contents of the Plaint for the purpose of this application also. The same may please be treated as reproduced as part of this application, verbatim.

3) It is submitted that, at the time of filing of this suit, the Plaintiff felt that, the Defendant No. 1 will not repeat the acts of defaming/instigating defamatory and misleading articles against the Plaintiff, as was being done by him between October and December, 2016, again, in view of the earlier correspondence and clarifications by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff therefore did not file any application for interim / ad-interim reliefs, even though he had prayed for the same in the suit.

According to the causelist, this application seeks to invoke Section 34 and 38 of Specific Relief Act. But instead, it goes on and on about defamation.

4) However the Plaintiff, on 8th of March, 2017 received an e-mail from “The Afternoon Despatch and Courier” The said e-mail is annexed with the list of documents filed herewith. The Defendant No. 1 is again attempting to use the public fora to defame and spread false information about the Plaintiff so as to arm twist them into meeting his extortionist demands and is  thus in a mood to repeat publishing defamatory news or article, this time through in the “Afternoon Despatch and Courier”. The Plaintiff is therefore compelled to file this application for the interim and ad-interim relief. Hence this application. There is an extreme urgency for taking this matter on today’s board.

5) In or about the year 2011, the Defendant No. 1 approached the Plaintiff and  expressed his   keenness on developing a business association with them and  in order to win over the trust of the Plaintiff and to prove the credentials of his company Fortune Realty,  invested in Flat bearing No.1104 (“Suit Flat”) admeasuring approximately 35.60 square meters. (equivalent to 383.19 square feet) carpet area situated on the 11th Floor, F Wing, Brooklyn Park  in the complex known as Ekta Parksville (“said Project”) situated on the land bearing Survey No. 14[438] Hissa Nos. 1, 4, 31, 32, Survey No. 69[173] Hissa Nos. 1 to 3, 6, Survey No. 70[174] Hissa Nos. 3 and 6, and Survey No. 71[173] Hissa No. 4  situated at Village Dongre (Chikhal Dongre), Taluka Vasai, District Thane for an agreed consideration of Rs. 26,02,090/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Two Thousand and Ninety Only) in the joint name of him and his mother Smt. Padma Malik.

6) In the aforesaid transaction the Defendant No. 1 recovered 2% (two percent) of the total consideration as brokerage in the name of Fortune. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-“A” is a copy of the Application form dated 9th November, 2011 duly signed by the Defendant No. 1, whereby he applied for allotment of the Suit Flat and Exhibit- “A 1” is a copy of the Bill dated 12th September, 2012 bearing No. FR/EW/BP/-1104 raised by the Defendant No. 1 for brokerage on sale of the Suit Flat.

7) At the outset itself the Defendant No. 1 was informed by the Plaintiff that since the said Project was at an early stage, it was likely  to be completed by late 2016, subject to various conditions beyond the control of the Plaintiff, which could likely to affect the completion thereof. This fact was readily acceptable to the Defendant No. 1 as it was always his intention to re-sell the Suit Flat once the Project reached an advanced stage and the value of the Suit Flat appreciated.

8) Thereafter, on having gained the confidence of the Plaintiff, the Defendant No. 1 approached the Plaintiff to market its newly launched project in Goregaon, Mumbai and requested for details thereof. Accordingly, by email dated 28th January, 2013, the representative of the Plaintiff forwarded the marketing collaterals of its Goregaon Project to the Defendant No. 1, who by his email dated 29th January, 2013 communicated that he would market the same to his esteemed HNI network and also investor relations. .Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit- “B” is a copy of the email dated 28thJanuary, 2013 and Exhibit-“B1”is a copy of the Defendant No. 1’s email dated 29th January, 2013, respectively.

9)  Concomitant thereto, the Plaintiff, from time to time, based on the mutually agreed terms, made periodic demands on the Defendant No. 1 towards stage wise/milestone wise payments for the Suit Flat. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-“C” is a copy of one such demand letter dated 1st November, 2015, addressed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant No. 1 ‘towards part payment on Flooring’ for the Suit Flat.

10) Occasional delay/default notwithstanding, the Defendant No. 1 otherwise made payments against the stage/milestone wise demand letters raised by the Plaintiff towards the Suit Flat, against which payments receipts were duly issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant No. 1. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-“D” is a table providing details of the payments made by the Defendant No. 1 till date, in respect of the Suit Flat.

11)  From the time of booking of the Suit Flat, the Plaintiff was constantly calling upon the Defendant No. 1 to come forward to execute and register an Agreement for Sale in respect of the same in accordance with the applicable laws. However, the Defendant No. 1, citing the fact that he was an investor and only wanted to make a return on investment avoided executing and registering any formal document for the Suit Flat. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-“E” is a copy of the email dated 23rd July, 2015 addressed by the Defendant No. 1 to the Plaintiff wherein the Defendant No. 1 has stated that he was an investor and therefore wanted to avoid executing any agreement for the Suit Flat.

12)  By a Declaration cum Indemnity dated 15th March, 2016 the Defendant No. 1’s mother relinquished her right title and interest in the Suit Flat in favour of the Defendant No.1. Thereafter, finally, in May, 2016, the Defendant No. 1, after repeated follow ups by the representatives of the Plaintiff, came forward and executed the Agreement for Sale dated 30th May, 2016 (“said Agreement”) in respect of the Suit Flat, which was duly registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar of Assurances, at Vasai-5, under Serial No. 2738/2016. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “F” is a copy of the aforesaid Agreement for Sale dated 30th May, 2016 (“said Agreement”).

13) Thereafter, suddenly, on 5th July, 2016, to the shock and surprise of the Plaintiff, the Defendant No. 1 addressed an email to the Plaintiff falsely claiming the he was verbally assured possession of the Suit Flat in August, 2016. Surprisingly, though the said Agreement, which was duly signed by the Plaintiff after being given every opportunity of duly satisfying himself of its contents, provided the earliest possible date of handing over possession of the Suit Flat as December, 2016 and that too subject to the terms and conditions specified therein, the Defendant No. 1 mischievously addressed the aforesaid email to the Plaintiff claiming that he was  promised possession in August, 2016 and also made various other false and misconceived allegations against the Plaintiff, without any  substantiation whatsoever. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-“G” is a copy of the email dated 5th July, 2016 addressed by the Defendant No. 1 to the Plaintiff.

14) Shocked, the Plaintiff by email dated 22nd August, 2016 responded to the Defendant No. 1’s email dated 5th July, 2016 stating that in terms of the said Agreement, the possession of the Suit Flat was to be handed over to the Defendant No. 1 at the earliest around about December, 2016, subject to the terms and conditions specified in the said Agreement. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-“H” is a copy of the email dated 22nd August, 2016 addressed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant No. 1.

15) Thereafter, the Defendant No. 1 mischievously addressed another email dated 23rd August, 2016 in response to the Plaintiff’s afore-stated email dated 22nd August, 2016 (Exhibit H), making unsubstantiated false and frivolous allegations against the Plaintiff and its promoters, and threatened to take legal action against the Plaintiff. Pertinently, in the said email, the Defendant No. 1 himself recorded that the date of handing over possession of the Suit Flat was December, 2016 in terms of the said Agreement. Interestingly, the Defendant No. 1, in the said email, came forth with his true intention, i.e. of recovering compensation from the Plaintiff for the Suit Flat. This was contrary to the stand taken by the Defendant No. 1 in his email dated 23rd July, 2015 wherein he had expressed that he had no interest in being compensated for the so called delay in respect of the Suit Flat and thereby waived his rights in respect thereto. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-“H” is a copy of the email dated 23rd August, 2016.

16) The aforesaid email dated 23rd August, 2016 was promptly replied by the Plaintiff, calling upon the Defendant No. 1 to furnish the Plaintiff with documents and papers substantiating his claims, but such documents or papers have not been provided by the Defendant No. 1, till date. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-“I” is a copy of the Plaintiff’s response dated 2nd September, 2016.
17) At the relevant time, the Plaintiff apprehended that  due to the down turn and fall in prices in the real estate industry, the Defendant No. 1 was unable to find a buyer to re-sell the Suit Flat for an appreciated value and fulfill his objective of making a return on investment, and therefore began targeting the Plaintiff to recover the same under the guise of compensated for alleged delay in handing over possession, by creating false and frivolous records against them. , ,

18) Thereafter, sometime in October, out of the blue, the Defendant No. 2, a purported free lance journalist and self-proclaimed social activist, contacted the Plaintiff by email dated 13th October, 2016 and threatened a public smear campaign against the Plaintiff to tarnish its brand,  allegedly on the grounds that the Plaintiff was indulging in irregular activities in the construction of its projects, more particularly the said Project. Along with the said email, the Defendant No. 2 forwarded a ‘press release’ which he threatened to release publicly. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-“J” is a copy of the aforesaid email dated 13th October, 2016.

19) The Plaintiff, by letter dated 15th October, 2016 requested the Defendant No. 2 to provide it with all documents, agreements, transcripts, correspondences, photographs, brochures and all other papers referred to and/or relied upon in the ‘Press Release’ so as to enable it to give a detailed clarification to the Defendant No. 2’s ‘press release’. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit–“K” is a copy of the aforesaid Letter dated 15th October, 2016.

20) In response thereto, the Defendant No. 2, by email dated 16th October, 2016, , flatly refused to provide any documents or papers pertaining to the so called ‘press release’  and further threatened  the Plaintiff that if it could not provide a rebuttal by 12 noon on 17th October, 2016, he would publish his story to mass media and social media, and distribute it to the media, and also hold a press conference for the same. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-“L” is a copy of the aforesaid email dated 16th October, 2016 addressed by the Defendant No. 2. 

21) Thereafter, the Plaintiff responded by email dated 17th October, 2016 requesting for copies of the documents and papers pertaining to the ‘Press Release’ so that a suitable response could be given to the allegations contained therein and requested not to unilaterally publish the same without givingthem opportunity to put forth their rebuttals/responses.

22) In response thereto, the Defendant No. 2, by email dated 17thOctober, 2016 again refused to share copies of the documents as sought by the Plaintiff. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-“M” is a copy of the Plaintiff’s email dated 17th October, 2016 and Exhibit –“M1” is a copy of the Respondent’s email response thereto, of the same date.

23) Thereafter, belatedly, on 19th October, 2016, the Defendant No. 2, by email of the same date, forwarded certain documents claiming that the same were in respect of ‘press release’. Pertinently, the attached documents were documents pertaining to the Suit Flat and other correspondences exchanged between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1 and  solely pertaining to his dispute with the Plaintiff.  It thus became clear that the Defendant No. 2 was acting for and on behalf of the Defendant No. 1 to further the Defendant No. 1’s  motivated intentions. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit–“N” is a copy of the aforesaid email dated 20th October, 2016.

False! I provided every shred of document that the press release relied upon, in the form of web links to scanned emails. For some inscrutable reason, Ekta World kept insisting on printed hard copies of the same, as if they could not access the links, which everybody else had no difficulties with! Finally, I downloaded each link and sent them as email attachments. Ekta World is making up a cock-and-bull story!

24) The Plaintiff, on realizing that the entire press release was influenced by the Defendant No. 1, , who was desperately trying to extract compensation from the Plaintiff to make a return on his investment on the Suit Flat, cautioned the Defendant No. 2  by email dated 20th October, 2016 thereby rebutting to the motivated allegations levelled against it in the ‘press release’ and placing on record certain facts with respect to the Defendant No. 1. In fact, in the said email, the Plaintiff even offered to depute one of its representatives to meet the Defendant No. 2 to clarify the whole issue with the Defendant No. 1 regarding the Suit Flat so that the Defendant No. 2 had a clear picture of the issue. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-“O” is a copy of the aforesaid email of the Plaintiff dated 20th October, 2016.

25) Thereafter, despite repeated requests by the Plaintiff to provide the relevant documents and for a fair opportunity to give its clarification based on the same, the Defendant No. 2 paid no heed to the same and proceeded to publish the ‘press release’ on various media platforms. In the ‘press release’, the Defendant No. 2 referred to the Plaintiff as a cheat and bully. He also specifically pointed out the example of the Defendant No. 1 and tried to show how he was victimized by the Plaintiff. Thus the Defendant No. 2 initiated a public defamation campaign against the Plaintiff, so as to caution the people at large from investing in its projects based solely on the story and facts fed to him  by the Defendant No. 1 and the documents forwarded to him by the Defendant No. 1. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-“P” is a copy of the press release, posted by the Defendant No. 2 on www.http://thebravepedestrian.blogspot.in. False! Ekta World refused to address the main points raised by the draft press release, and continually refused to support their assertions with any documents!

26) The Defendant No. 1, on realizing that the Plaintiff wouldn’t give into the Defendant No. 1’s coercive ways, attempted to settle the matter by calling for a meeting on 27th October, 2016. Interestingly, at the meeting, the Defendant No. 1 was represented by the Defendant No. 2, who had only four days ago released the ‘press release’ (proclaimed to be in public interest) and subjected the Plaintiff to a public media trial at the behest of the Defendant No. 1. It is thus clear beyond reasonable doubt that the whole chapter orchestrated by the Defendant No. 2 was obviously done at the behest of the Defendant No. 1 to exert pressure on the Plaintiff, confirming the Plaintiff’s suspicion/apprehension that the Defendant No. 2 was acting at the instance of the Defendant No. 1. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-“Q” is a copy of the email dated 4th November, 2016 addressed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant No. 1 recording what transpired at the meeting dated 27th October, 2016 and thereby seeking an opportunity to amicably resolve issue.

27) Thereafter, by email dated 7th November, 2016, addressed the Defendant No. 1 acknowledged and confirmed that Defendant No. 2 was present on his behalf at the meeting held on 27th October, 2016. By the said email, the Defendant No. 1, also forthwith terminated the said Agreement and his purchase of the Suit Flat and demanded refund of the amounts paid by him, with interest at the rate of 24% (twenty four percent). He further nominated the Defendant No. 2 and one Mr. Suleiman Bhimani to negotiate with the Plaintiff the necessary modalities. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-“R” is a copy of the email dated 7th November, 2016 addressed by the Defendant No. 1 to the Plaintiff.

28) Pertinently, this termination by the Defendant No. 1 was just prior to the contractual date for handing over possession of the Suit Flat, which makes it clear that the Plaintiff never intended to take possession thereof and was only interested in making a return on his investment i.e. gain monetarily.

29) The Plaintiff, by letter dated 3rd December,2016, accepted the decision of the Defendant No. 1 to terminate/cancel his purchase of the Suit Flat and called upon him to collect the refund of the entire money paid by the Plaintiff in respect of the Suit Flat, being Rs. 25,24,035/-(Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Thirty Five  Only). Further, as by way of a goodwill gesture, the Plaintiff also offered the Defendant No. 1, interest at the rate of 9% (nine percent)upto 3rd December,2016 on amounts refundable to him. By the said letter, the Plaintiff called upon the Defendant No. 1 to also complete all formalities for termination/cancellation of the said Agreement. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-“S” is a copy of the aforesaid letter dated 3rd December, 2016 addressed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant No. 1.

30) Upon receipt of the Plaintiff’s letter accepting Defendant No. 1’s decision to cancel his purchase and terminate the Suit Flat and on realizing that Plaintiff had not adhered to his demand for 24% (twenty four percent) interest, the Defendant No. 1, again caused his representative the Defendant No. 2, to address email dated 5th December, 2016 to the Plaintiff, forwarding therewith another draft press release (“Second Press Release”) regarding the refund amount offered by the Plaintiff to the Defendant No. 1 and making various misleading statements against the Plaintiff without any just cause or reasoning. The obvious intent behind this email was to exert pressure on the Plaintiff and compel him to pay the 24% (twenty four percent) interest sought by the Defendant No. 1. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit –“T” is a copy of the Defendant No.2’s email dated 5th December, 2016.

31) The Plaintiff by it’s email dated 8th December, 2016 replied to the aforesaid email dated 5th December, 2016 sent by the Defendant No. 2(at the behest and instance of the Defendant No. 1) refuting the allegations made by the Defendant No. 2 and confirmed the voluntary cancellation of the booking of the Suit Flat by the Defendant No. 1 and that he was already offered the full refund of the amount legally payable to him. By the said email, the Plaintiff also pointed out the obvious nexus between the Defendants and requested the Defendant No. 2 not to use the public platform to arm twist the Plaintiff.  Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-“U” is a copy of the aforesaid email reply dated 8th December,2016 addressed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant No. 2.

32) Without paying any heed to the requests of the Plaintiff, the Defendant No. 2, on 8th December, 2016 published the Second Press Release in an obvious attempt to arm twist and coerce the Plaintiff to give into the Defendant No. 1’s demands for 24% (twenty four percent) interest and help him achieve  his target of  good return on investment on the Suit Flat. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-“V” is a copy of the Second Press Release published by the Defendant No. 2 on http://thebravepedestrian.blogspot.in. Where is the element of coercion in going public with the specific clauses of the sale deed, which caused Vineet Malik ("Defendant no. 1") to reject Ekta World's offer of 9% interest?

33) Thereafter, on realizing that the Plaintiff wouldn’t succumb to his pressurizing tactics, the Defendant No. 1 addressed an email dated 14th December, 2016 to the Plaintiff, therein once again making various false and baseless allegations against the Plaintiff, in an attempt to gain sympathy by showing that he was a bonafide flat purchaser and not an investor/broker looking at making a quick profit. By the aforesaid email, the Defendant No. 1 again insisted that he be paid interest at the rate of 24% (twenty four percent) on the amounts refunded to him. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit -“W” is a copy of the email dated 14th December, 2016 addressed by the Defendant No. 1 to the Plaintiff.

34)  As a result of the Defendants illegal and arm twisting acts, the Plaintiff has suffered monetary and business and erosion of brand value to the extent of Rs. 100,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Hundred Crore Only). As a result, the Plaintiff was compelled to institute the captioned Suit seeking various reliefs against the Defendants. The plaint was served on the Defendant No. 1 on [  ].

35)  The Plaintiff has now received an email dated 8th March, 2017 from one ‘Afternoon Despatch and Courier’ claiming that they had received a complaint from the Defendant No. 1 about non-receipt of possession of of the Suit Flat and have sought the Plaintiff’s side of the story for the same. It is clear that the Defendant No. 1 has now approached another purported journalist, just like the Defendant No. 2 and through him is attempting to launch another public defamation campaign against the Plaintiff. From the timing of the aforesaid email, it is obvious that the same is a backlash to the institution of the captioned Suit. Further, it is obvious that the individual behind the said email is the Defendant No. 1, who has been incessantly harassing the Plaintiff in order to recover his investment on the Suit Flat. A copy of the aforesaid email is hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “X”.

36) The Plaintiff has, by email dated 8th March, 2017 cautioned the journalist against publishing anything pertaining to the dispute between the Defendant No. 1 and the Plaintiff as the matter is sub-judice, but to no avail. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “Y” is a copy of the Plaintiff’s reply dated 8th March 2017.

37)  It is thus obvious that the Defendant No. 1 is continuing to misuse the public platform to defame and derogate the Plaintiff and is now through the aforesaid email (Exhibit X) again going to cause another article/press release to be published in various public fora. It is obvious that the same is being done as the Defendant No. 1 has no case and is merely trying to extort monies from the Plaintiff to further his own cause.

38)   Plaintiff says that thereafter, despite several attempts to call upon the Defendant No. 1 to collect the refund amount and complete the formalities for termination of the said Agreement, the Defendant No. 1 has deliberately refused to either collect his refund amount or complete the formalities for cancellation of purchase of the Suit Flat, and is evidently holding out until he can manage to make the Plaintiff succumb to his illegal demands.

39) It is extremely pertinent to note that as result of the publication of the press releases and the Second Press Release by the Defendant No. 2 done to further the cause of the Defendant No. 1, the Plaintiff has suffered substantial business and monetary loss. Now, through the ‘Afternoon Despatch and Courier’ the Defendant No. 1 is again trying to use the public platform to defame the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff believes that he will continue to do so until the Plaintiff succumbs to his illegal demands. It has therefore become necessary that the Defendants be refrained from publishing/causing to be published any further articles or materials in respect of the said Project, the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1, the Suit Flat or pertaining to the Plaintiff, its sister concerns or otherwise .

40) It is obvious that since the Suit Flat could not yield the return anticipated by the Defendant No. 1, he has made up a concocted story of delay in possession and irregularities by the Plaintiff, and is constantly instigating  a media campaign,  so that he can  recover the anticipated returns from the Plaintiff under the guise of compensation.

41) The Plaintiff states that the Suit Flat is ready in all respects. The Plaintiff has already applied for various permissions required for handing over possession of the same and will receive them in due course. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-“Z” (colly) are photographs of the Suit Flat and the F wing of the said Brooklyn Park phase, showing the same has been completed, contrary to the allegations of the Defendants that there have been delays and irregularities in construction thereof.

42) It is amply evident that the Defendant No. 1 has deliberately created records against the Plaintiff to extort monies out of them and on realizing that all his attempts to forcefully extract the same from the Plaintiff have failed, is now  using  the public platform to gain the sympathy of the public by publishing/causing to be published misleading and false information about the Plaintiff and its business operations  solely to  extract compensation from the Plaintiff.

43) Despite the journalist for ‘Afternoon Despatch and Courier’ being informed by the Plaintiff’s email dated 8th March, 2017 (Exhibit Y), that the matter is sub-judice and to refrain from publishing any article/information, the concerned journalist, without having any regard for the majesty of the Court, has refused to stop publication and has intimated to the Plaintiff through PR Agency that they will publish the article/carry the story regarding the Defendant No. 1 irrespective. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “AA” is a copy of the email dated 9th March, 2017 addressed by PR Agency ESTEKADS intimating to the Plaintiff that the journalist for ‘Afternoon Despatch and Courier’ will be publishing the article regarding the Defendant No. 1 and the Suit Flat.  

44) The timing of the Defendant No. 1, in terminating of the said Agreement and demanding refund with interest, just prior to date for offering possession thereof, establishes that he never intended to take possession as a bonafide flat purchaser would, and was always wanting to liquidate his investment for high returns.

45)  Thus admittedly, there is no builder-buyer relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1. The Defendant No. 1 was always an investor looking to make a return on the Suit Flat and as a result of the downturn in the market, is attempting to recover his projected returns from the Plaintiff. The Defendant No. 1 through various media outlets including social media websites, is attempting to pressurize the Plaintiff to succumb to his illegal demand for monies not legally payable to him.

46) The Plaintiff submits that since the Defendant No. 1 has already terminated/cancelled the said Agreement which has been accepted by the Plaintiff as stated hereinabove whereby the termination is complete and the Plaintiff has thereupon offered the full refund to the Defendant No. 1, he has no further right, title or interest in the Suit Flat. Nonsense. Until the registered agreement existing between Vineet Malik and Ekta World is duly cancelled by mutual consent and agreement, the title of Mr Malik ("Defendant no. 1") over the contracted flat is totally intact! Ekta World doesn't get to cancel a registered and stamp-duty-paid agreement at its own sweet will, just by making an offer of its own liking!  The Defendant No. 1 is deliberately refusing to collect the refund cheque and complete the formalities for cancellation of his purchase of the Suit Flat with a view to continue defaming and derogating the Plaintiff to extract monies not due or payable to him.

47) The Plaintiff submits that as a result of the press release and Second Press Release, already a lot of commercial business loss has been occasioned to them. Further, the Plaintiff and its parent concern Ekta World have experienced tremendous erosion of brand value as a result of the illegal actions of the Defendants. If the Defendant No. 1 is allowed to continue using the public platform (through one journalist or another) to spread false information about the Plaintiff and/or its sister/parent concerns, the said Project and the Suit Flat, it would suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money.
1) The Plaintiff submits that just like in the previous instances, where the Defendant No. 2 sought rebuttals/comments of the Plaintiff, before relishing defamatory and misleading press releases against the Plaintiff, as stated hereinabove, this time also evidently at the behest of the Defendant No. 1, the ‘Afternoon Despatch and Courier’ who has contacted the Plaintiff through email dated 8th March, 2017 (Exhibit X) seeking their version of the story, is going to publish the story of the Defendant No. 1 (as intimated vide email dated 9th March, 2017) causing further public defamation and disrepute to the Plaintiff.

48)  The Plaintiff states that the Defendants and their agents, servants, assignees, representatives and/or anyone claiming through them or on their behalf including but not limited to the ‘Afternoon Despatch and Courrier’ ought to be restrained from publishing any defamatory or derogatory press releases or using any public platform whatsoever to publicly defame and derogate the Plaintiff, it promoters, any of its sister concerns or the said Project or carry any article/material pertaining to the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1 in respect of the Suit Flat. .
49) It is also the absolutely necessary that Defendant No. 1 be restrained by an order of injunction from creating any third party rights and/or parting with possession in respect of the Suit Flat more particularly described hereinabove.

50) The  Defendant No. 1, is though the Defendant No. 2 or other media outlets like the ‘Afternoon Despatch and Courier’  trying to tarnish the image of the Plaintiff and spread false and misleading information about the Plaintiff to the general public. In fact the Defendant No. 2 has publicly referred to the Plaintiff as a company that cheats and bullies its customers and the Plaintiff apprehends that similar slanderous and misleading statements will be made in the article/material threatened to be published by ‘Afternoon Despatch and Courier’ as well . Such acts will severely hamper the Plaintiff’s public image and a law abiding developer and dented its sales, both current and future.

51) As a result of the press releases being instigated and caused to be published by the Defendant No. 1 doubts have been created in the minds of the Plaintiff’s customers who have threatened the terminate their purchases, as also the public at large.

52) The Plaintiff states that if the interim and ad-interim relief is not granted to the Plaintiff then grave prejudice will be caused to the Plaintiff and on the contrary if the reliefs as prayed for are granted no prejudice will be caused to the Defendants, balance of convenience lies entirely in favour of the Plaintiff.

53) The Plaintiff therefore pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a) Forthwith restrain and prohibit the publication of the article/material/news item by the ‘Afternoon Despatch and Courier’ as threatened vide emails dated 8th March, 2017 (Exhibit X) and 9th March, 2017 (Exhibit AA) and direct the Defendant No. 1 to call upon the concerned journalist to stop publication thereof immediately. Afternoon Despatch and Courier is not even a named party in this case. How can any court restrain the newspaper? Under what law?
b) pass an order of temporary injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1, its agents, servants, assignees, representatives and/or anyone claiming through them from selling, alienating, mortgaging, disposing of, parting with possession and/or in any other manner creating third party rights in respect of the Suit Flat more particularly described hereinabove; In point no. 46, Ekta World is claiming that Defendant no. 1 has no title, and now it claims to be apprehensive that the same person will dispose off the suit flat? How? Ekta World haven't even transferred good possession of the flat, and seems to be in no position to give possession anytime soon. 
c) pass an order of temporary injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 and/or his agents, servants, assignees, representatives and/or anyone claiming through him from either publishing or causing any person whosoever/whatsoever to publish any material, press release, article or news item of any nature whatsoever on any public platform, social media or any forum of any nature whatsoever, in respect of the present dispute, the Suit Flat, the said Project or in respect of the Plaintiff or its parent or sister concerns; Under what law? Specific Relief Act doesn't give the civil judge sweeping powers to muzzle people, buddy!
d) pass an order of temporary  injunction restraining the Defendant No. 2 and/or his agents, servants, assignees, representatives and/or anyone claiming through him  from publishing any further defamatory or derogatory press releases, news items, articles or any material whatsoever  using the any public platform whatsoever or social media  against the Plaintiff, its promoters, any of its sister concerns or the said Project; Under which law, buddy? This is a suit under Specific Relief Act. Muzzling the media or, in my case, an individual, from publishing anything, isn't in the scope of this Act.
e) Ad-interim and interim relief in terms of prayer clauses ( a to d), above;
f) For cost of this application,
g) For such other and further orders/reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper;
Filed in the Court at Vasai on this day of     14th March, 2017

Advocate for the Plaintiff                    Plaintiff

VERIFICATION
I, Chandra Prakash Goyal of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant, being the Authorized representative of the Plaintiff above named, having office address at 401, Hallmark Business Plaza, Off Western Express Highway, Kala Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400 051,do hereby solemnly declare and state that what is stated in paragraphs  1 to 37 of the forgoing Plaint is true to my own knowledge and based on the records available with the Plaintiff and that what is stated in paragraphs Nos. 38 to 44 is stated on information and belief and I believe the same to be true.

Vasai:
Dated: 14/03/2017.
For the Plaintiff.
Advocates for the Plaintiff



This plaint seems to simultaneously seek relief against "defamation" and a whole bunch of other things, including all publication of material that doesn't suit it. However, it also seeks to argue its property matter against Vineet Malik under the Specific Reliefs Act. Was the advocate stoned when he drafted this? 

Mr Ashok Mohnani, you will have to do much better than this if you want us to take you seriously. As matters stand, this plaint is a bit of a joke and so are you. This plaint is completely non-maintainable. If you manage to get your injunctions somehow by hook or crook from this court, we should have no difficulty having it quashed by a higher court. 

And if you don't believe me, yeah, go ahead and sue me! Please go ahead and try.

No comments:

Post a Comment