- (1.) The appeal arises out of the rejection of a petition for revoking the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
(2.) The nature of the action and the essence of the plaintiffs' case must first be seen.
(3.) According to the plaint, the first plaintiff appears to have been the principal person who negotiated with the second and third defendants, who were in control of the defendant No. 7 company, to start an online live poker game under a name that is alleged to have been coined by the plaintiff No. 1 and in respect whereof the domain name was obtained in the name of the plaintiff No. 1. An oral agreement has been pleaded at paragraph 11 of the plaint in such regard. The plaintiff No. 1 claims to have represented the two other plaintiffs in such agreement and the defendant nos.2 and 3 apparently had also represented the defendant nos.4 to 7. The plaintiffs claim that the parties had agreed to how the game would be run, how the business would be managed, the manner of shareholding in the defendant No. 7 company and the distribution of its profits. Some averments have been made as to the actual distribution of profits, though it does not appear that the original shareholding composition in the defendant No. 7 company was altered at any point of time to reflect the oral agreement pleaded at paragraph 11 of the plaint.;