- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court approves out of court settlement between warring traders
Delhi High Court approves out of court settlement between warring traders Jignesh Shah accepted unconditional apology tenders by Sharad Sharaf and NIF after a bitter war of attrition and fulfilment of other conditions Delhi High Court has allowed an out of court settlement between two rival factions of stock traders following tendering of public apology and promise to abide by it...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Delhi High Court approves out of court settlement between warring traders
Jignesh Shah accepted unconditional apology tenders by Sharad Sharaf and NIF after a bitter war of attrition and fulfilment of other conditions
Delhi High Court has allowed an out of court settlement between two rival factions of stock traders following tendering of public apology and promise to abide by it in future.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva of the Delhi High Court accepted the appeal and disposed of the case. "Learned counsel for the parties submit that parties have already performed the respective obligations under the agreement and undertake to abide by the same in future as well. The undertaking is accepted," Justice Sachdeva said in his order dated 9 April 2021.
Jignesh Shah had filed a Civil Suit before the HC against Sharad Saraf and NSEL Investors' Forum (NIF) following a series of defamatory tweets and publication of other documents intended to malign him and his company 63 moons. Saraf heads the NIF which was involved in a bitter war of attrition with Shah that lasted for nearly eight years.
Shah has sought from the HC declaratory and injunctive relief.
While the matter was pending, Sharad Saraf and NIF approached Jignesh Shah with the request to settle the matter which Jignesh Shah accepted on the condition that the truth should be put on record, demanded unconditional apology and withdrawal of defamatory tweets and maligning documents. Shah also asked Saraf to apologize on a public form which he did through his Twitter handle.
"I clarify that I bear no ill will or malice qua Jagdish Shah or 63 Moons and has no intentions of publishing any defamatory content qua them. I apologize for the words used by me and retract the same unconditionally," Sharad Saraf wrote on Twitter through this handle @sharadsaraf1947.
"I have examined the terms of the settlement and find the same to be lawful. In view of the above, the impugned order returning the plaint on the ground of jurisdiction is set aside. The Suit is decreed in terms of the settlement agreement and the appeal is accordingly disposed of," Justice Sachdeva said in his order.