- (1.)A spate of litigation between the two groups depicts a severe fight between them where settlement appears to be a distant dream, at least as of now, with tough positions taken and on each and every facet/ nuance of the disputes, they have joined issues. However, we are happy to find consensual approach on one aspect at least viz. the future course of action that needs to be adopted in these matters which have landed in this Court (albeit against interim orders) as the proceedings are still pending at different levels either in the Company Law Board or in the High Court. This much positive stance, aimed at cutting the corners and edging out the niceties for early resolution of the main dispute between the parties needs to be commended. For this reason, apart from stating the controversy involved in each of the matters, our purpose would be served in stating the course of action which needs to be adopted, as agreed between the parties, without going into the nitty gritty of the issues involved. With this introduction we describe hereinbelow the nature of the dispute in these petitions.
SLP(Crl) No. 6873 of 2010

(2.)When the two parties joined together for collaborative business venture, it is but natural that the relationship starts with mutual trust and faith in each other. At the time of fostering such a relationship, they expect that with joint efforts in the proposed business venture, they would be able to achieve unparallel milestones, which would otherwise be impossible with their individual efforts. The joining together is with the aim of making one plus one as eleven and not two. However, over a period of time, if due to unfortunate and unforeseen circumstances/ events, the relationship becomes bitter and the two collaborative partners fall apart, it results in a position where one minus one is not only reduced to zero but becomes negative. That perhaps is the story of the present litigation and if the disputes are not resolved early, either by adjudicatory process or amicably between the parties, the negative factor will keep growing and keep widening its fangs which may not be conducive to any of the litigants before us.
(3.)The respondents herein (hereinafter referred to as the Khosla Group) are the owners of the prime lands in Kasauli, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Legally, this land is owned by Montreaux Resort Pvt. Ltd. (MRL, for short) and share holding of the MRL was earlier exclusively held by the family members of the Khosla Group. It was their vision to develop this real estate into a tourist resort of repute. The Khosla group needed requisite finances and administrative expertise for this purpose. The petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the Bakshi Group) extended its helping hand. In fact it was conceived as a dream project of both the groups. For this purpose MOU dated 21.12.2005 was entered into between Mr. Deepak Khosla, Mr. R.P. Khosla, MRL and Mr. Vikram Bakshi. The project was joint venture between the Khosla Group and Mr. Vikram Bakshi wherein the Bakshi Group was to pump in the necessary finances and to take charge of administration by managing the entire project. MRL was the special purpose vehicle for the execution of the project. The MOU envisaged transfer of shareholding in MRL by Khosla Group to Vikram Bakshi on certain demands made by the latter to the former.