https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308999 The court found that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) constituted a binding contract between the parties based on the definitive agreements included in the MOU. It held that the MOU was intended to be enforceable and rejected the respondent's argument that monetary compensation would suffice, ruling that specific performance was necessary due to the unique nature of the business opportunity. The court deemed the respondent's termination of the MOU as arbitrary and granted interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to preserve the subject matter of the dispute until the arbitral award was made. en-us Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Aug 2023 12:23:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308999 The court found that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) constituted a binding contract between the parties based on the definitive agreements included in the MOU. It held that the MOU was intended to be enforceable and rejected the respondent's argument that monetary compensation would suffice, ruling that specific performance was necessary due to the unique nature of the business opportunity. The court deemed the respondent's termination of the MOU as arbitrary and granted interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to preserve the subject matter of the dispute until the arbitral award was made. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308999