1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

ORIDINARY COMMERCIAL JURISDICTION
C.S. (COMM) NO. _____ OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
ULIKE HOSPITALITY (INDIA) PVT. LTD. …PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RAJIV MOTORS PVT. LTD. & ORS. …DEFENDANTS

INDEX
PART - I

S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGES

1. Index -1
2. Urgent Application
3. Notice of Motion
4. Memo of Parties
5. List of dates and events
6. Suit for recovery of movable property, damages
and prohibitory and mandatory injunction
7. Statement of Truth
8. Proof of Service

PLAINTIFF
THROUGH
SHANTANU SINGH, RAVI SEHGAL &
SAURAV BAISOYA
ADVOCATES
C-27, BASEMENT, PANCHSHEEL ENCLAVE
NEW DELHI-110017
MOB: (+91)9582164171; 9958583558
Email: shantanu@dkassociates.in
 2

DATE:
PLACE: NEW DELHI
 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

ORIDINARY COMMERCIAL JURISDICTION
C.S. (COMM) NO. _____ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

ULIKE HOSPITALITY (INDIA) PVT. LTD. …PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RAJIV MOTORS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
…DEFENDANTS

URGENT APPLICATION

The Deputy Registrar

High Court of Delhi
New Delhi

Sir,

Will you kindly treat the accompanying Suit as an urgent one on

accordance with the High Court Rules and orders.
The matter involves grave urgency in view of the fact that the
Defendants are likely to illegally dispose off / alienate the movable
property of the Plaintiff currently lying in the premises owned by the
Defendants i.e., First & Second Floor along with open roof in the
premises comprising of approx. 2500 sq. ft. carpet area, part of property
bearing no. P-10/90, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001 as well as
may /sell, alienate or create third party interest or may lease out the
premises to defeat the rights of the Plaintiff. Thus, if the Defendants are
not restrained from disposing off or selling, alienating, mortgaging,
transferring, leasing out or creating third party interest in the movable
 4

property by way of ex parte ad interim injunction by this Hon'ble Court,

it would cause irreparable damage to the Plaintiff.

PLAINTIFF
THROUGH
SHANTANU SINGH, RAVI SEHGAL &
SAURAV BAISOYA
ADVOCATES
C-27, BASEMENT, PANCHSHEEL ENCLAVE
NEW DELHI-110017
MOB: (+91)9582164171; 9958583558
Email: shantanu@dkassociates.in

DATE:
PLACE: NEW DELHI
 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

ORIDINARY COMMERCIAL JURISDICTION
C.S. (COMM) NO. _____ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

ULIKE HOSPITALITY (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
…PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RAJIV MOTORS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
…DEFENDANTS

NOTICE OF MOTION
To,

Sir,
Please take notice that counsel for the Plaintiff is filing the above-
mentioned suit and the same is likely to be listed on ____________
or day after tomorrow.
A copy of suit is enclosed herewith.

PLAINTIFF
THROUGH
SHANTANU SINGH, RAVI SEHGAL &
SAURAV BAISOYA
ADVOCATES
C-27, BASEMENT, PANCHSHEEL ENCLAVE
NEW DELHI-110017
MOB: (+91)9582164171; 9958583558
Email: shantanu@dkassociates.in

DATE:
PLACE: NEW DELHI
 6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

ORIDINARY COMMERCIAL JURISDICTION
C.S. (COMM) NO. _____ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

ULIKE HOSPITALITY (INDIA) PVT. LTD. …PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RAJIV MOTORS PVT. LTD. & ORS. …DEFENDANTS

MEMO OF PARTIES

ULIKE HOSPITALITY INDIA PVT. LTD.

THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
V. GOBINATHAN
S/O. SH. VELAYUTHAM
O/O G-55, LEFT SIDE BASEMENT BLOCK,
BLOCK G, EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI – 110065
…PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

1. M/S RAJIV MOTORS PVT. LTD.

P-10, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS,
NEW DELHI-110001
…DEFENDANT NO.1

2. RAJIV DEWAN
S/O LATE SH. RAJ GOPAL
 7

R/O. 22/90, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS,

NEW DELHI-110001
…DEFENDANT NO.2

3. PAWAN DEWAN
P-10, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS,
NEW DELHI-110001

…DEFENDANT NO.3

4. ANSU DEWAN
P-10, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS,
NEW DELHI-110001
…DEFENDANT NO.4

PLAINTIFF
THROUGH

SHANTANU SINGH, RAVI SEHGAL

& SAURAV BAISOYA
ADVOCATES FOR THE PLAINTIFF
C-27, BASEMENT, PANCHSHEEL ENCLAVE
NEW DELHI-110017
MOB: (+91)9582164171; 9958583558
Email: shantanu@dkassociates.in

DATE: 07.06.2023
PLACE: NEW DELHI
 8

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

04.07.2014 Plaintiff had entered into a Lease Deed dated

04.07.2014 with the Defendant No.1 by way of
which the Plaintiff took on lease the Premises i.e.
First & Second Floor along with open roof in the
premises comprising of approx. 2500 sq. ft. carpet
area, part of property bearing no. P-10/90,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi on the terms and
conditions mentioned therein for the purposes of
running a restaurant/cafe/bar in the name and style
of “KINBUCK 2”, which is a unit of the Plaintiff.
The said lease deed was registered vide registration
no. 10,812 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 5,229 on
pages 77 to 92 on 4th July, 2014.

01.11.2019 Since “Kinbuck 2” was running into losses, Shri

Anshul Garg approached the present directors of the
Plaintiff namely Shri Gobinathan Velauytham, Shri
Rajesh Sankla, Shri Amit Pandey and Shri
Dharuman Manoj Varun Muthulingam seeking to
sell the Plaintiff company and including the
restaurant/cafe/bar in the name and style of
“Kinbuck 2” and they purchased the Plaintiff herein
vide agreement executed between the parties. After
purchasing the Plaintiff Company and obtaining all
the necessary licenses, permits and approvals from
the government authorities, the present management
 9

started running restaurant/cafe/bar in the name and

style of “Kinbuck 2” w.e.f. 01.11.2019 at the
Premises, with concurrence of directors of the
Defendants.

22.08.2022 That certain disputes arose between the Plaintiff and

Defendants in relation to which the Defendants on
22.08.2022 filed a suit for possession, recovery and
mesne profits against the Plaintiff before Ld. District
Judge, Commercial Courts, Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi. The parties thereafter executed a
Settlement Agreement and a joint application was
made by the Plaintiff and the defendant therein under
Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, compromising their
disputes. The Ld. District Judge, Commercial
Courts, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, vide order
dated 23.01.2023, was pleased to decree the suit on
the said joint application and accordingly a
compromise decree dated 23.01.2023 was prepared.

May 2023 Due to loss of business and the Plaintiff going

through financial crisis, the Plaintiff was unable to
meet the terms and conditions of the compromise
decree. The Defendants filed a Contempt Petition
before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for the
breach of undertaking given before the Ld. District
Judge, Commercial Courts, Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi.
 10

May 2023 The Defendants also filed an execution petition

before the Ld. District Judge, Commercial Courts,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi for the execution
of the compromise decree dated 23.01.2023, during
the pendency of the contempt petition before the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

19.05.2023 The Plaintiff and Defendants had executed

Settlement Agreement dated 19.05.2023. In terms of
the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiff had handed
over the possession of the Premises to Defendants
and all payments required to be made under the said
Settlement Agreement were duly made. A
Possession Confirmation Letter & Receipt dated
19.05.2023 was also executed between the parties
recording that possession of the Premises had been
handed over to the Defendants.
Contempt Petition was disposed off by the Hon’ble
High Court vide order dated 19.05.2023 on the basis
of the Settlement Agreement and Possession
Confirmation Letter executed between the Plaintiff
and Defendants.

May 2023 In the Possession Confirmation Letter, it was

wrongly recorded that vacant possession of the
Premises was handed over to the Defendants since
 11

the Movable Property of the Plaintiff remains at the

Premises.
The Settlement Agreement and the Possession
Confirmation Letter were executed by the Plaintiff in
a rushed manner since the Defendants insisted that
the same be executed in the morning of 19.05.2023
itself before the Contempt Petition was taken up for
hearing on 19.05.2023.
Due to such insistence, the Plaintiff was unable to
properly verify the contents of the Settlement
Agreement and the Possession Confirmation Letter
to ensure that the same did not contain any factual
errors.
Although possession was handed over to the
Defendants, the same was not vacant possession as
the Movable Property remained at the Premises. The
Plaintiff had handed over the possession only on the
promise of the Defendants that once the Contempt
Petition is disposed of, the Plaintiff would be
allowed to take out all Movable Property lying in the
Premises.
Believing the Defendants were acting with a bona
fide intention to settle the dispute, the Plaintiff’s
directors signed the Settlement Agreement and
Possession Confirmation Letter.

May 2023 The Plaintiff had approached the Defendants to

remove its Movable Property from the Premises, the
 12

Defendants mala fidely refused to allow the plaintiff

to remove the same.

31.05.2023 Plaintiff filed a police complaint with the Connaught

PlacePolice Station highlighting that the Defendants
were unlawfully preventing the Plaintiff from
removing their Movable Property from the Premises.

02.06.2023 Plaintiff through its Director had filed an application

for directions before the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in Contempt petition which was disposed of
vide order dated 02.06.2023.
Execution Petition was also listed before the Ld.
District Judge, Commercial Courts, Patiala House
Courts, New Delhi. The Plaintiff herein had filed two
applications, one application under Order 26 Rule 9
read with Section 151 CPC for appointment of local
commissioner to investigate the Premises and second
application under Section 151 CPC for directions to
permit the Plaintiff herein to remove their Movable
Property from the Premises.
The said Execution Petition was withdrawn by the
Defendants on the same date i.e., 02.06.2023, and the
above said applications of the Plaintiff thus could not
be taken up.
05.06.2023 Notice of Enquiry dated 05.06.2023 was also issued
by the Police Authorities calling upon the
Defendants to join the Enquiry on 06.06.2023.
 13

The Plaintiff apprehends that the Defendants will

illegally dispose off or alienate the Movable Property
of the Plaintiff for their own unlawful gain which
would cause irreparable harm to the Plaintiff. It is
also feared that the Defendants may illegally forcibly
remove the Movable Property of the Plaintiff from
the Premises which would result in complete
destruction of the same. That it is submitted that the
Plaintiff also apprehends that the Defendants may
sell, alienate, lease out or create third party interest
in the Premises, in order to harass and deprive the
Plaintiff of its lawful rights and shares in the
Movable Property and make recovery of the same
difficult. Therefore, the Defendants are liable to be
restrained from illegally disposing/ alienating /
forcibly removing the Movable Property of the
Plaintiff lying in the Premises.

- Hence the present suit

 14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

ORIDINARY COMMERCIAL JURISDICTION
C.S. (COMM) NO. _____ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

ULIKE HOSPITALITY (INDIA) PVT. LTD. …PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RAJIV MOTORS PVT. LTD. & ORS. …DEFENDANTS

SUIT FOR DECLARATION, RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF

MOVABLE PROPERTY, DAMAGES AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

1. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit inter alia seeking a decree
of prohibitory injunction restraining the Defendants from
disposing of the movable properties of the Plaintiff (“Movable
Properties”) currently lying at the premises which was earlier
leased out to the Plaintiff i.e. First & Second Floor along with
open roof in the premises comprising of approx. 2500 sq. ft. carpet
area, part of property bearing no. P-10/90, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi-110001 (“Premises”) as well as a decree of
mandatory injunction permitting the Plaintiffs to remove all such
Movable Properties from the Premises. The Plaintiff is also
seeking damages for the losses caused to it due to the unlawful
actions of the Defendants herein.
 15

PARTIES TO THE SUIT

2. That the Plaintiff is a company registered under the provisions of

the Companies Act having its registered office at G-55, Left Side
Basement Block, Block G, East of Kailash, New Delhi – 110065.

3. The present suit has been signed and verified by Gobinathan

Velauytham, Director of the Plaintiff who is the Authorized
Representative of the Plaintiff. The said Authorized
Representative is fully aware about the facts and circumstances of
the present matter and is competent to institute the present suit on
behalf of the Plaintiff and to verify and sign the plaint.

4. Defendant No.1 is a company duly registered under the

Companies Act, 1956. The Defendant No.1 had leased out the
Premises to the Plaintiff and the Movable Property of the Plaintiff
is currently being illegally retained and withheld by the
Defendants at the Premises. Defendant No.2, 3 and 4 are the
directors of Defendant No.1 company and are in charge of its day-
to-day affairs. The Defendants are illegally preventing the
Plaintiff from removing its Movable Property from the Premises.

BACKGROUND OF FACTS

5. That the Plaintiff company was incorporated in the year 2008 and
was initially owned and being operated by Shri Anshul Garg at A-
195/1, Ground Floor, Ashok Vihar, Phase 1, Delhi-110052.
 16

6. That the Plaintiff had entered into a Lease Deed dated 04.07.2014
with the Defendant No.1 by way of which the Plaintiff took on
lease the Premises i.e. First & Second Floor along with open roof
in the premises comprising of approx. 2500 sq. ft. carpet area, part
of property bearing no. P-10/90, Connaught Circus, New Delhi on
the terms and conditions mentioned therein for the purposes of
running a restaurant/cafe/bar in the name and style of
“KINBUCK 2”, which is a unit of the Plaintiff. The said lease
deed was registered vide registration no. 10,812 in Book No. 1,
Volume No. 5,229 on pages 77 to 92 on 4th July, 2014.

7. Since “Kinbuck 2” was running into losses, Shri Anshul Garg

approached the present directors of the Plaintiff namely Shri
Gobinathan Velauytham, Shri Rajesh Sankla, Shri Amit Pandey
and Shri Dharuman Manoj Varun Muthulingam seeking to sell the
Plaintiff company and including the restaurant/cafe/bar in the
name and style of “Kinbuck 2”.

8. That Shri Gobinathan Velauytham, Shri Rajesh Sankla, Shri Amit

Pandey and Shri Dharuman Manoj Varun Muthulingam
purchased the Plaintiff herein vide agreement executed between
the parties.

9. That after purchasing the Plaintiff Company and obtaining all the
necessary licenses, permits and approvals from the government
authorities, the present management started running
restaurant/cafe/bar in the name and style of “Kinbuck 2” w.e.f.
 17

01.11.2019 at the Premises, with concurrence of directors of the

Defendants.

10. That certain disputes arose between the Plaintiff and Defendants
in relation to which the Defendants on 22.08.2022 filed a suit for
possession, recovery and mesne profits against the Plaintiff being
No. CS (Comm.) 749/2022 praying therein to pass a decree for
possession, pass a decree of recovery of Rs. 57,06,660/- towards
arrears of rent, pass a decree of mesne profits and award interest
@ 15% before Ld. District Judge, Commercial Courts, Patiala
House Courts, New Delhi.

11. That the parties thereafter executed a Settlement Agreement and

a joint application was made by the Plaintiff and the defendant
therein under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, compromising their
disputes which was filed before Ld. District Judge, Commercial
Courts, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

12. That the Ld. District Judge, Commercial Courts, Patiala House
Courts, New Delhi, vide order dated 23.01.2023, was pleased to
decree the suit on the said joint application and accordingly a
compromise decree dated 23.01.2023 was prepared.

13. That due to loss of business and the Plaintiff going through
financial crisis, the Plaintiff was unable to meet the terms and
conditions of the compromise decree.
 18

14. That the Defendants filed a Contempt Petition bearing no. Cont.
Cas (C) No. 297 of 2023 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
for the breach of undertaking given before the Ld. District Judge,
Commercial Courts, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

15. That the Defendants also filed an execution petition being no.
Exe. (Comm.) 126/2023 before the Ld. District Judge,
Commercial Courts, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi for the
execution of the compromise decree dated 23.01.2023, during the
pendency of the contempt petition before the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi.

16. That the Plaintiff and Defendants had executed Settlement

Agreement dated 19.05.2023 (“Settlement Agreement”). That in
terms of the said Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiff had handed
over the possession of the Premises to Defendants and all
payments required to be made under the said Settlement
Agreement have been duly made.

17. That a Possession Confirmation Letter & Receipt dated

19.05.2023 (“Possession Confirmation Letter”) was also
executed between the parties recording that possession of the
Premises had been handed over to the Defendants. In the said
Possession Confirmation Letter, it was wrongly recorded that
vacant possession of the Premises was handed over to the
Defendants since the Movable Property of the Plaintiff remains at
the Premises. In any event, the said Possession Confirmation
 19

Letter was without prejudice to the rights of the Plaintiff and the
same was recorded therein.

18. That the Settlement Agreement and the Possession Confirmation

Letter were executed by the Plaintiff in a rushed manner since the
Defendants insisted that the same be executed in the morning of
19.05.2023 itself before the Contempt Petition was taken up for
hearing on 19.05.2023. Due to such insistence, the Plaintiff was
unable to properly verify the contents of the Settlement
Agreement and the Possession Confirmation Letter to ensure that
the same did not contain any factual errors.

19. That although possession was handed over to the Defendants, the
same was not vacant possession as the Movable Property
remained at the Premises. That the Plaintiff had handed over the
possession only on the promise of the Defendants that once the
Contempt Petition is disposed of, the Plaintiff would be allowed
to take out all Movable Property lying in the Premises. Believing
the Defendants were acting with a bona fide intention to settle the
dispute, the Plaintiff’s directors signed the Settlement Agreement
and Possession Confirmation Letter.

20. That the details of the Movable Property of the Plaintiff illegally
retained and withheld by the Defendants at the Premises till date
is as below:
a) Kitchen Equipments
b) Cooler
c) Deep Freezer
 20

d) Refrigerator
e) AC Plant
f) Auro Water Plant
g) Cutlery and Crockery
h) Pizza Maker
i) Bar Counters
j) Furniture (Sofa Set and Dining Tables
k) Lights and Fitting Crystal
l) CCTV Camera set
m) Music systems
n) Genset
o) 2 Computer, 2 Printer, 2 Billing Systems
p) Fire Equipments
q) Governments Files & Licenses
r) Sound proofing
s) Interiors
t) Tv and projector

It is submitted that the total value of the movable property

mentioned would be approximately more than Rupees Two
Crore.

21. That at this stage, it is pertinent to mention that the records

pertaining to the Movable Property and other documents
pertaining to government licenses etc. are currently lying in the
Premises and thus the Plaintiff does not even have access to the
same at the time of filing the suit.
 21

22. That the above Contempt Petition bearing no. Cont. Cas (C) No.
297 of 2023 was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court vide
order dated 19.05.2023 on the basis of the Settlement Agreement
and Possession Confirmation Letter executed between the
Plaintiff and Defendants.

23. That despite the aforesaid, when the Plaintiff had approached the
Defendants to remove its Movable Property from the Premises,
the Defendants mala fidely refused to allow the plaintiff to remove
the same.

24. That in view of the abovementioned illegal conduct of the

Defendants, the Plaintiff filed a police complaint with the
Connaught Place Police Station highlighting that the Defendants
were unlawfully preventing the Plaintiff from removing their
Movable Property from the Premises.

25. That when the Police Authorities made an enquiry from the
Defendants’ representative in relation to the complaint, the
Defendants’ representative placed reliance on the order of the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 19.05.2023 while falsely
denying that any Movable Property of the Plaintiff was at the
Premises.

26. That a Notice of Enquiry dated 05.06.2023 was also issued by the
Police Authorities calling upon the Defendants to join the Enquiry
on 06.06.2023.
 22

27. That had the Plaintiff and its Directors known that the Defendants
would not allow them to remove their Movable Property from the
Premises, they would have not signed the Settlement Agreement
which was executed with the bona fide belief that after handing
over the possession of the Premises, the Defendants would act
bona fidely and allow the Plaintiff to remove its Movable
Property. Thus, it is clear that the entire Settlement Agreement is
vitiated by fraud of the Defendants herein and that the Plaintiff
have been induced into executing the same under false pretenses.

28. That the Plaintiff through its Director had filed an application for
directions before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Cont. Cas(C)
297/2023 which was listed on 02.06.2023 seeking the following
reliefs:
“(a) Pass an appropriate order, direction etc. to the Petitioner
herein to permit the Respondents to remove their property from
the Premises i.e., the First & Second Floor alongwith open roof
in the premises bearing no. P-10/90, Connaught Circus, New
Delhi – 110001;
(b) Pass an appropriate order, direction etc. providing Police
Aid to the Respondents to facilitate smooth removal of its
property from the Premises and avoid any untoward
incidents;”

29. That the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the above said application
vide order dated 02.06.2023 noting as follows:
 23

“1. The learned counsel for the Petitioners state that a

settlement agreement dated 19.05.2023 has been executed
between the parties. In compliance thereof, the Respondents
have handed over the possession of the tenanted premises to
the Petitioner early this morning (19.05.2023). He has also
handed over a copy of the possession and confirmation letter
and the receipt executed between the parties.
2. The learned counsel for the Respondent who is present in
Court along with Sh. V. Gobinathan confirms the execution of
the settlement agreement, the receipt and handing over of the
possession of the tenanted premises.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the parties
have also amicably resolved the money claims between them,
and in fact, the Petitioner will also have the pending execution
petition disposed of on 02.06.2023.
4. In view of the aforesaid compliance reported by the
Respondent, the present petition is disposed of.
5. The Petitioner is directed to have the settlement agreement
and the possession and confirmation letter placed on record
under the cover of an index within three (3) days.”

30. That on 02.06.2023, the Execution Petition was also listed before
the Ld. District Judge, Commercial Courts, Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi. The Plaintiff herein had filed two applications, one
application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for
appointment of local commissioner to investigate the Premises
and second application under Section 151 CPC for directions to
 24

permit the Plaintiff herein to remove their Movable Property from

the Premises.

31. That the said Execution Petition was withdrawn by the

Defendants on the same date i.e., 02.06.2023, and the above said
applications of the Plaintiff thus could not be taken up.

32. That the Defendants with the intention to illegally grab the
Movable Property of the Plaintiff worth over two crores for their
own unlawful gains have concealed facts before the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi as well as Ld. District Judge, Commercial Courts,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, that the Movable Property of
the Plaintiff is in the illegal possession of the Defendants.

33. That the Plaintiff apprehends that the Defendants will illegally
dispose off or alienate the Movable Property of the Plaintiff for
their own unlawful gain which would cause irreparable harm to
the Plaintiff. It is also feared that the Defendants may illegally
forcibly remove the Movable Property of the Plaintiff from the
Premises which would result in complete destruction of the same.
That it is submitted that the Plaintiff also apprehends that the
Defendants may sell, alienate, lease out or create third party
interest in the Premises, in order to harass and deprive the Plaintiff
of its lawful rights and shares in the Movable Property and make
recovery of the same difficult. Therefore, the Defendants are
liable to be restrained from illegally disposing/ alienating /
forcibly removing the Movable Property of the Plaintiff lying in
the Premises.
 25

34. That due to the illegal conducts of the Defendants by illegally

keeping the Movable Property of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is not
able to conduct any business and is suffering huge financial
losses. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s business is suffering from
huge loss of reputation and loss of clientele. Therefore, the
Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages
to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- suffered by the Plaintiff in respect of
the illegally kept Movable Property of the Plaintiff and the
harassment suffered by the plaintiff.

35. That it is submitted that the Settlement Agreement and Possession

Confirmation Letter do no confer any right upon the Defendants
to retain the Movable Property of the Plaintiff and thus the
Plaintiff is entitled to take back the same from the Property.

36. That the cause of action for filing the present suit first arose in
favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant on 26.05.2023
when the Defendants refused to allow the Plaintiff to remove its
Movable Property from the Premises. The cause of action further
arose when the Plaintiff filed a Police Complaint dated
31.05.2023 reporting the illegal activities of the Defendants. The
cause of action further arose when the police authorities issued
Notice of Enquiry dated 05.06.2023 to the Defendants calling
upon them join the enquiry on 06.06.2023. The right to sue and to
file the present suit is existing in favour of the Plaintiff and the
cause of action is continuing and subsisting since the Movable
Property is still being illegal retained by the Defendants at the
Premises.
 26

37. DECLARATION: That the Plaintiff has not filed any other Suit
or proceedings in respect of the same cause of action before this
Hon'ble Court or any other Court.

38. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION: That the Plaintiff is seeking

recovery of possession of Movable Property from the Premises
which is located within New Delhi and the Defendant No.1
company is registered within Delhi and carries on its business in
New Delhi. Thus, this Hon’ble Court has the territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.

39. LIMITATION: That the present suit is not barred by limitation.

40. That the subject matter of the present suit is a 'Commercial

dispute' as defined in Section 2 (1) (c) of the Commercial Courts,
Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of
High Courts Act, 2015.

41. That along with the present plaint, the Plaintiff has also filed an
application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 for urgent ad interim / interim relief proceedings. Therefore,
Pre-Institution Mediation proceedings in the present under
Section-12 A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are not
required to be undertaken and the present proceedings can be
taken up by this Hon'ble Court.
 27

42. That the suit contemplates urgent relief and thus there is no
requirement for the Plaintiff to exhaust its remedy of pre-litigation
mediation before filing the present suit.

43. It is submitted that is no other alternate efficacious remedy

available to the plaintiff, other than filing the present suit.

44. That the present suit is valued for the purpose of pecuniary
jurisdiction at Rs.2 Crores 10 lakhs approximately, The suit is
valued for the purpose of court fee as under:

45. That the valuation of the suit is as under:

(a) For the purpose of jurisdiction, court fees and for the relief
of recovery of possession, the suit is valued at Rs.
2,10,000,00/- and court fees of Rs. _________ is affixed.
(b) For the relief of Declaration, the suit is valued at Rs.200/-
(Rupees Two Hundred Only) and court fees of Rs. 20/- is
affixed.
(c) For the relief of Permanent Injunction, the suit is valued at
Rs.130 /- each, and court fee of Rs. 26/- is affixed.
(d) For the relief of damages, the suit is valued at Rs.
5,00,000/-, and court fees of Rs. _________ is affixed.

46. It is certified that the documents/copies filed with the present suit
are authentic.
 28

PRAYER

It is, therefore respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be

graciously pleased to: -

a) Pass a decree of declaration in favour of the Plaintiff and against

the defendants, their assigns, heirs, agents, etc. thereby declaring
that Plaintiff as the lawful owner of the Movable Property (as set
out at paragraph 20) at the Premises i.e. First & Second Floor
along with open roof in the premises comprising of approx. 2500
sq. ft. carpet area, part of movable property bearing no. P-10/90,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001;

b) Pass a decree of recovery of possession of movable property in

favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby
directing the defendants, their servants, agents, assigns, legal heirs
and /or any person/s claiming through and /or acting on their
behalf, to handover the peaceful possession of all its Movable
Property (as set out at paragraph 20) lying/ installed at the
Premises i.e. First & Second Floor along with open roof in the
premises comprising of approx. 2500 sq. ft. carpet area, part of
movable property bearing no. P-10/90, Connaught Circus, New
Delhi-110001 (shown in red color in the site plan).

c) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff

and against the defendants, thereby restraining the defendants,
their servants, agents, assigns, legal heirs and /or any person/s
claiming through and /or acting on their behalf, from disposing
off or creating third party rights in the Movable Property of the
 29

Plaintiff (as set out at paragraph 20) lying/ installed at the

Premises i.e. First & Second Floor along with open roof in the
premises comprising of approx. 2500 sq. ft. carpet area, part of
movable property bearing no. P-10/90, Connaught Circus, New
Delhi-110001 (shown in red color in the site plan).

d) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff

and against the defendants, thereby restraining the defendants,
their servants, agents, assigns, legal heirs and /or any person/s
claiming through and /or acting on their behalf, from using and
damaging the Movable Property of the Plaintiff (as set out at
paragraph 20) lying/ installed at the Premises i.e. First & Second
Floor along with open roof in the premises comprising of approx.
2500 sq. ft. carpet area, part of movable property bearing no. P-
10/90, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001 (shown in red color
in the site plan).

e) Pass a decree of damages for any such amount which is

ascertained at a later stage;

f) Cost of the suit may be also awarded in favour of the Plaintiff and
against the Defendant

g) Pass any other or further order which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and movable property in favour of the Plaintiff and
against the defendants, in the interest of justice.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE, THE

HUMBLE PLAINTIFFS AS IS DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
 30

PLAINTIFF
THROUGH

SHANTANU SINGH, RAVI SEHGAL

& SAURAV BAISOYA
ADVOCATES FOR THE PLAINTIFF
C-27, BASEMENT, PANCHSHEEL ENCLAVE
NEW DELHI-110017
MOB: (+91)9582164171; 9958583558
Email: shantanu@dkassociates.in
DATE: 07.06.2023
PLACE: NEW DELHI

VERIFICATION:

I, V. Gobinathan S/o Sh. Velayutham aged 42 years, O/o G-55, Left Side
Basement Block, Block G, East of Kailash, New Delhi 110065 ON
solemn affirmation do verify that the contents of Para _________ to
_________ are true and correct to my knowledge and those of paras
__________ to ____________ are true on information and advice
received and believed to be correct. Last Para is prayer to this Hon’ble
Court.

Verified at New Delhi on this __________ day of June, 2023.

DEPONENT
 31

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

ORIDINARY COMMERCIAL JURISDICTION
C.S. (COMM) NO. _____ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

ULIKE HOSPITALITY (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
…PLAINTIFF
VERSUS

RAJIV MOTORS PVT. LTD. & ORS. …DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT
I, V. Gobinathan S/o. Sh. Velayutham aged about 42 years O/o G-55,
Left Side Basement Block, Block G, East of Kailash, New Delhi -
110065, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am the authorized representative of the Plaintiff in the

present case, and I am well conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the present matter and as such I am competent
to swear this affidavit.

2. That the accompanying Plaint has been drafted by my counsel on

my instruction and the contents of the same has been read over to
me in my vernacular language and explained to me and I state that
the same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief. The contents of the same may be treated as part and parcel
of this affidavit as the same are not being repeated herein for the
sake of brevity.

DEPONENT
 32

VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this Day of June, 2023, that the
contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 33

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

ORIDINARY COMMERCIAL JURISDICTION
C.S. (COMM) NO. _____ OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
ULIKE HOSPITALITY (INDIA) PVT. LTD. …PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RAJIV MOTORS PVT. LTD. & ORS. …DEFENDANTS

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
(UNDER THE FIRST SCHEDULE, ORDER VI - RULE 15 A AND
ORDER X - RULE 1)

STATEMENT OF TRUTH OF V. GOBINATHAN S/O. SH.

VELAYUTHAM AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS O/O G-55, LEFT SIDE
BASEMENT BLOCK, BLOCK G, EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI –
110065.

I, the above- named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as

under:

1. I am the Authorized Signatory of the Plaintiff in the present Suit and as

such am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present
case.

2. I am sufficiently conversant with the facts of the case and have also
examined all relevant documents and records in relation thereto.

3. I say that the statements made in paragraphs

______________________________________________ are true to my
knowledge and based upon information received and on the basis of the
 34

records of the company and believed to be true and paragraphs

______________________________________________, are based on
legal advice. Paragraph ___________ is the prayer to this Hon 'ble Court.

4. I say that there is no false statement or concealment of any material fact,

document or record and I have included information that is according to
me relevant for the present suit.

5. I say that all documents in the power, possession, control or custody and
available with the Plaintiff, pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the
proceedings initiated by the Plaintiff have been disclosed and copies
thereof annexed with the list of documents filed with the plaint, and that
the Plaintiff does not have any other documents in its power, possession
control or custody and available with the Plaintiff.

6. I say that the above-mentioned pleading comprises of a total of _______

pages, each of which has been signed by me.

7. I state that the documents annexed with the List of documents are true
copies of the documents referred to and relied upon by me.

8. I say that I am aware that for any false statement or concealment, I shall
be liable for action taken against me under the law.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
The statements. made above are true to my knowledge.
 35

Verified at New Delhi on this date Day of June, 2023

DEPONENT