Delhi District Court
The National Small Industries ... vs M/S. Baroda Electro Engineering ... on 21 September, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURVINDER PAL SINGH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 01 SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS - 661/17
The National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, having its Registered office at
NSIC Bhawan, Okhla Industrial Estate
Okhla, New Delhi - 110020
through Sh. Hem Raj Deputy General
Manager and duly constituted Attorney.
............Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. M/s. Baroda Electro Engineering Products
Private Ltd. Through its Principal Officer/
Company Secretary, 77, Haribhakti Colony
Extension, Old Padra Road, Vadodra - 390015.
2. Shri Vipula Pran Lal Vohra (Guarantor)
R/o. 36, Charotar Society, Old Padra Road
Vadodra - 390015.
3. Maharashtra State Electricity Board
Central Purchase Agency, Plot no. G9,
1st Floor, Prakashgad, Aliyavar Jung Marg
Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.
.........Defendants
CS - 661/17 The NSIC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Baroda Electro Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. page 1 of 19
Date of Institution : 31.05.2003
Date of Arguments : 11.08.2017
Date of Judgment : 21.09.2017
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 30,70,149.17P with pendentelite and future interest and cost from defendants.
2. Adumbrated in brief the facts of the case of plaintiff are :
Plaintiff is a Government Company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the promotion and development of Small Scale Industry and thereby, provides financial support in terms of raw material assistance /Bills Finance and Working Capital Assistance/ Export Development Assistance. Defendant no.1 is also a duly registered company carrying on the business of Galvanizing. The defendant no.2 is the director of the defendant no.1 and the Guarantor who stood as personal guarantor, thereby guaranteeing the repayment of the dues outstanding from the defendant no.1 together with interest and other charges. Defendant no.3 is Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. at Mumbai.
3. It is averred that the defendant no.1 through its Directors approached the plaintiff company in January 1998 for grant of CS - 661/17 The NSIC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Baroda Electro Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. page 2 of 19 Financial Assistance in the nature of Raw Material Assistance. The plaintiff and the defendant no.1 entered into an agreement on 25.02.1998 for the grant of financial assistance to the defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 agreed and undertook to repay the amounts due from them with interest and in the event of default the defendant no.1 was required to pay additional interest. The defendant no.1 made supplies to the defendant no.3 under various bills/invoices, the payment in respect of the supplies made to the defendant no.3 have not been received by the plaintiff either from defendant no.3 or from defendant no.1. Defendant no.2 executed a guarantee deed dated 11.02.1998 guaranteeing the repayment of the dues outstanding from the defendant no.1 together with interest and other charges. Defendant no.1 appointed the plaintiff as the Power of Attorney holder on its behalf authorizing the plaintiff to receive and/or collect payments from the defendant no.3 in relation to the orders placed by the defendant no.3 on the defendant no.1. The defendant no.3 accepted the authority given by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff to receive/collect payment directly to the plaintiff in respect of the orders placed by the defendant no.3 on the defendant no.1 and agreed to make the payment due to the defendant no.1 directly to the plaintiff as the financial assistance in the nature of Rawmaterial Assistance had been granted to the defendant no.1 by the plaintiff from time to time. At the CS - 661/17 The NSIC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Baroda Electro Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. page 3 of 19 request of the defendants, the plaintiff company granted financial assistance against the supplies made to Maharashtra State Electricity Board under various bills/invoices.
4. A letter dated 30.03.2000 was written by the defendant no.3 to the defendant no.1with copy to plaintiff informing that bills had not been paid as the supplier had not submitted the Material Receipt Information (MRI) and Stores Receipt Number (SRN) with bills. For settlement of the claim, the plaintiff approached defendant no.1 to complete the formalities so that the bills pending with the defendant no.3 could be passed. Though the defendant no.1 completed the formalities required for passing of the bills by defendant no.3 for settlement of the claim, however, the defendant no.3 has failed to make the payment of the pending bills despite repeated reminders and despite having completed all formalities required by it and as such defendants no. 1, 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding dues to the plaintiff.
5. The defendant no.3 made part payments i.e. a sum of Rs. 8219/ vide cheque no. 279943 dated 31.03.2000 and Rs. 14,104 vide cheque no. 299292 dated 09.06.2000. Plaintiff sent legal notice dated 14.09.2001 to defendants no.1,2 and 3 calling upon them to make payment of the dues outstanding with interest, CS - 661/17 The NSIC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Baroda Electro Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. page 4 of 19 however, despite service of the notice, the defendants failed and neglected to make the outstanding payment; hence this suit.
6. As no representation was received on behalf of defendant no.2, therefore he was proceeded exparte vide Order dated 20.09.2004. The process was issued to defendant no.1 on several dates, but defendant no.1 could not be served through ordinary process and therefore the defendant no.1 was served through publication and since none appeared on behalf of defendant no.1 despite publication, defendant no.1 was also proceeded exparte vide Order dated 19.09.2006.
7. Defendant no.3 filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and submitted that defendant no.3 is neither a necessary nor a property party to the suit. It is averred that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant no.3. All amounts have been paid by defendant no.3 arising out of Order no. SP/T/809/594/7836 dated 13.06.1995 and that the defendant no.3 is not a party to the purported agreement between the plaintiff and defendant no.1. Further, the present suit is barred by the law of limitation qua defendant no.3 and deserves to be dismissed.
CS - 661/17 The NSIC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Baroda Electro Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. page 5 of 19
8. It is averred in the Written Statement filed by defendant no.3 that in order to accommodate defendant no.1 to obtain financial assistance from the plaintiff, defendant no.3 agreed with defendant no.1 to make payments, which were without prejudice to the other terms and conditions of the orders placed by defendant no.3 on defendant no.1. The defendant no.3 was entitled to adjust payment for the supply made by defendant no.1 to it on account of any of the following reasons; (i) liquidated damages for delay in supply; (ii) damages for breach;
(iii) claim for rejected goods and ;(iv) to adjust dues under one order from other orders placed upon defendant no.1.
9. It is further averred that there is no outstanding amount was due and payable by defendant no.3 to the plaintiff. The following payments have already been made by defendant no.3 arising out of Order dated 13.06.1995:
Invoice No. Date of Invoice Amount paid in Rupees 124/97-98 and 2/2/1998 125/97-98 3/2/1998 5,19,046.04 9/98-99 18/7/1997 3,75,790 10/98-99 17/5/1998 1,95,410 12/98-99 1/8/1998 3,23,179 3/98-99 7/5/1998 6,01,264 5/98-99 13/5/1998 7,18,780 Total 27,33,469.04 CS - 661/17 The NSIC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Baroda Electro Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. page 6 of 19
10. Plaintiff did not file replication to written statement of defendant no.3.
11. Admission/denial of documents was carried out on 19.02.2009 whereby the defendant no.3 admitted three documents of plaintiff viz. (i) Letter of defendant no.3 to defendant no.1 dated 30.03.2000 as Ex. P1/D3, (ii) letter dated 23.06.2000 issued to the plaintiff as Ex. P2/D3 enclosing cheque of Rs. 14,104/ dated 09.06.2000 and (iii) AD card Ex. P3/D3 for receipt of letter dated 02.11.2000 of plaintiff.
The plaintiff also admitted 2 documents of defendant viz.
(i) Letter of defendant no.3 dated 09.09.1997 to defendant no.1 as Ex. D1 and (ii) Letter of defendant no.3 dated 29.01.1998 to defendant no.1 as Ex. D2.
12. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
(i) Whether this suit is barred by limitation? OPD3
(ii) Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD3
(iii) Whether there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant no.3 as alleged in the written statement of defendant no.3 ? OPD3
(iv) Whether the defendants are jointly and severally liable to CS - 661/17 The NSIC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Baroda Electro Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. page 7 of 19 pay the suit amount to the plaintiff? OPP.
(v) To what amount the plaintiff is entitled to recover and against which defendant/defendants? OPP.
(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest and if so, at what rate , on what amount and for which period? OPP.
(vii) Relief.
13. In evidence, plaintiff examined Sh. K.L. Shah, Deputy General Manager of plaintiff company as PW1 vide affidavit Ex PW1/A. PW1 relied upon documents viz., (1) General Power of Attorney dated 03.09.2002 as Ex. PW1/1; (2) Extract of the Board meeting held on 07.02.1998 as Ex. PW1/2; (3) Agreement dated 25.02.1998 as Ex. PW1/3; (4) Guarantee Deed dated 11.02.1998 as Ex. PW1/4; (5) Copy of power of Attorney as Ex. PW1/5; (6) Another copy of power of attorney as Ex. PW1/6; (7) Letter of defendant no.1 dated 23.07.1997 to defendant no.3 as Ex.PW1/7; (8) Letter of plaintiff dated 30.08.2000 to defendant no.3 as Ex. PW1/11; (9) Letter of defendant no.1 dated 15.05.2000 to plaintiff as Ex. PW1/12; (10) Letter of defendant no.1 dated 30.06.2000 to plaintiff as Ex. PW1/13; (11) Letter of plaintiff dated 02.11.2000 to defendant no.3 as Ex. PW1/15; (12) Letter of plaintiff dated 16.06.2000 to defendant no.1 as Ex. PW1/16; (13) Letter of plaintiff dated 30.08.2000 to defendant no.1as Ex. PW1/17 ;
CS - 661/17 The NSIC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Baroda Electro Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. page 8 of 19 (14) Notice dated 14.09.2001 addressed to defendants as Ex. PW1/18 and (15) Statement of amount recoverable from defendant no.1 as Ex. PW1/19. PW1 also relied upon admitted documents as aforesaid. PW1 was crossexamined.
14. Defendant no.3 got examined Sh. Bhimrao Maroti Darunde, Executive Engineer (Store VIII) as D3W1 who relied upon documents viz. (i) Letter of defendant no.3 dated 01.11.2011 to plaintiff as Ex. D3W1/5; (ii) Office note dated 23.12.2003 as Ex. D3W1/6. D3W1 was crossexamined at length. In cross examination of D3W1, documents were put to D3W1 viz. (i) Office note dated 15.04.2005 as Ex. D3W1/DX1; (ii) Office note dated 07.10.2003 as Ex. D3W1/DX2; (iii) Office note dated 19.03.2005 as Ex. D3W1/DX3; (iv) Letter of accounts department of defendant no.3 to plaintiff as Ex. D3W1/DX4; (v) letter dated 08.03.2000 as Ex. D3W1/PX1 and (vi) statement of account as Ex. D3W1/A1.
15. I have heard arguments addressed by Sh. A.K. Thakur, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff; Ms. Rashmi Taneja, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 3; and have given thoughts to the rival contentions put forth, pleadings of the parties, evidence, written arguments filed by the parties and have also examined the record of the case.
CS - 661/17 The NSIC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Baroda Electro Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. page 9 of 19
16. My issue wise findings are as under :
Findings on Issue no.(i)
(i) Whether this suit is barred by limitation? OPD3
17. In para 14 of the plaint, it is the averment of plaintiff inter alia that following pending bills remained unpaid, payable by defendants:
S. Particulars Cost Interest Total Amount Balance No. (Rs.) (Rs.) amount Received (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) a. ILC/75/98 1049950 840496.95 1938634.95 216193.23 1722441.72 Dt. 24.06.98 Dt. 28.09.98 b. ILC/142/98 697542 618223.90 1347707.45 -- 1347707.45 Dt. 02.12.99 Dt. 09.03.99 Total 3070149.17
18. Ex. D3W1/5 is letter dated 01.11.2001 of defendant no.3 to plaintiff with reference to notice Ex. PW1/18 dated 14.09.2001 of plaintiff through counsel. In Ex. D3W1/5, the defendant no.3 had asked plaintiff to give the complete particulars of (i) challan no. and date; (ii) Invoice no. and date (iii) Order no. & date placed on defendant no.1 (iv) S.R. Note No. and date etc. against which payments are effected to defendant no.1; since it was not clear from notice Ex. PW1/18 as to against which orders the payments are being demanded. In notice Ex. PW1/18 as well, the demand was with respect to the particulars of the CS - 661/17 The NSIC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Baroda Electro Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. page 10 of 19 ILCs referred in table above. Aforesaid demanded material particulars were not supplied by plaintiff to defendant no.3.
19.It is also the case of the plaintiff and PW1 that certain payments were made by defendants, as are described here under : Ex. P2/D3 is the letter of defendant no.3 of date 23.06.2000 enclosing cheque no. 299272 dated 09.06.2000 for Rs. 14104/ in payment of Bill no. 012A/9899/01.08.99 SP/65/70809/ 13.06.1995. Ex. PW1/15 is the letter of plaintiff dated 02.11.2000 to defendant no.3 finding mention inter alia that cheque of Rs. 8219/ bearing no. 279943 dated 31.03.2000 was received as payment against amount of outstanding bills without details of bill for which it pertained.
20. Pleadings in the plaint and the averments in the affidavit Ex.
PW1/A of PW1 refer to making of certain payments made by plaintiff as financial assistance against supplies made to defendant no.3 by defendant no.1 under various bills/invoices. Evidence on record is shorn of any fact proved of the financial assistance provided by the plaintiff to defendant no.1 against supplies made by defendant no.1 to defendant no.3 under such various bills/invoices. Even the afore elicited payments of Rs. 14,104/ vide Ex. P2/D3 and cheque of Rs. 8,219/ dated 31.03.2000 vide Ex. PW1/12 dated 15.05.2000 could not be CS - 661/17 The NSIC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Baroda Electro Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. page 11 of 19 connected by plaintiff in evidence to the bills afore elicited and detailed in the table above. No statement of ledger account of defendant no.1 or defendant no.3 in the books of plaintiff has been filed not proved detailing the transactions inter se parties to the lis. Suit has been filed on 31.05.2003. The particulars of the claimed unpaid bills/invoices pertain to year 1998 and 1999. Payments claimed afore elicited by plaintiff of Rs. 14,104/ and Rs. 8,219/ had not been connected to the claimed unpaid bills by the plaintiff. There is no acknowledgement of defendants borne out of documents proved on record for admission of liability with respect to the bills/invoices detailed in elicited table in para 17 hereinabove and pertaining to year 199899 within three years of such bills to come under the ambit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Letter Ex. PW1/13 dated 30.06.2000 of defendant no.1 to plaintiff enclosing cheque of Rs. 14,104/ dated 09.06.2000 for adjustment against outstanding dues had contained the promise that they will clear all outstanding liabilities of plaintiff in due course on receipt of payment from MSES. Ex. PW1/13 dated 30.06.2000 was with respect to letter Ex. PW1/16 dated 16.06.2000 of plaintiff to defendant no.1 which contained no details of outstandings but was with reference to letter dated 08.03.2000 of plaintiff which letter of date 08.03.2000 was neither filed nor proved but instead withheld. Even demand letter Ex. PW1/17of plaintiff to CS - 661/17 The NSIC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Baroda Electro Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. page 12 of 19 defendant no.1 with respect to letters dated 08.03.2000 and 16.06.2000 Ex. PW1/16 of plaintiff contained no details of bills. The above referred letter of 08.03.2000 was not filed by the plaintiff not proved. In this fact of the matter the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the demand in legal notice Ex. PW1/18 dated 14.09.2001 and the sum claimed in the suit with respect to the particulars given of bills in table above in para 17 was within three years of providing of financial assistance by plaintiff to defendant no.1 against supplies made by defendant no.1 to defendant no.3 under various bills/invoices and/or the afore elicited received payments of Rs. 14,104/ vide Ex. P2/D3 by cheque dated 09.06.2000 and Rs. 8219/ vide cheque dated 31.03.2000 enclosed with letter Ex. PW1/12 dated 15.05.2000 of defendant no.1 to plaintiff were in any way connected with the demanded payment for the elicited bills / invoices in table in para 17. The suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by period of limitation of three years. Issue no.(i) is decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiff.
Findings on Issues no.(ii)
(ii) Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD3
21. Agreement Ex. PW1/3 dated 25.02.98 interse plaintiff and CS - 661/17 The NSIC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Baroda Electro Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. page 13 of 19 defendant no.1 was concluded at New Delhi. Payment was being made to defendant no.1 at New Delhi and was to be repaid by defendants at New Delhi. Clause 41 of Ex. PW1/3 also embodied that Courts at Delhi alone shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of any dispute arising out of the agreement and also for the recovery of amounts due under said agreement. Ex. D2 is letter dated 29.01.98 of defendant no.3 to defendant no.1 embodying that in respect of the orders referred therein, the payment as per original terms of A/T will be made to plaintiff for which defendant no.1 had to discount all the bills through them only.
22. In this fact of the matter, this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. Issue no. (ii) is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
Findings on Issues no. (iii)
(iii) Whether there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant no.3 as alleged in the written statement of defendant no.3 ? OPD3
23. Following is the relevant text of Ex. D2, letter dated 29.01.1998 addressed by defendant no.3 to defendant no.1 :
CS - 661/17 The NSIC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Baroda Electro Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. page 14 of 19 " Sub : Payment to NSIC for the material supplied by M/s. Baroda Electro Engg. Products (P) Ltd., change in terms of payment against A/T nos :
1) SP/T0809/0594/7836 dt. 23.06.95
2) SP/93/T0811/0894/7840 dt. 8.6.95
3) SP/T0810/0895/13693 dt. 05.10.96
4) SP/232/T0813/0994/Extn.order/912 dt. 18.10.17.
Ref: 1) Your letter No. BEEP/MSEB/ TD(S)/T0809/9798/233 dt. 23.07.97.
2) Your letter No. BEEP/MSEB/ TD(S)/T0810/9798/234 dt. 23.07.97.
3) Your letter No. BEEP/MSEB/ TD(S)/T0811/9798/235 dt. 23.07.97.
4) Your letter No. BEEP/MSEB/ TD(S)/T0813/(R)9798/232 dt. 23.07.97.
5) Our letter No. SP/T0809/0594/10711 dt. 9.9.97.
6) Your letter No. BEEP/MSET0809 & T0811/0810/0813/9798/553 dt. 5.1.98.
Dear Sirs, In supersession of our earlier letter no. SP/T 0809/0594/10711 dt. 9.9.97 referred above and in view of your letter dt. 5198, your request for making the payment through M/s. National Small Industries Corporation (A/C M/s. Baroda Electro Engg. Products Pvt. Ltd., Baroda) is hereby considered. Accordingly, in respect of above orders, the payment as per original terms of A/T will be made to M/s. NSIC for which you have to discount all the bills through them only. (A/c M/s. Baroda Electro Engg. Products (P) Ltd. Baroda). For the above arrangement of payment, you shall have to furnish a fresh Power of Attorney on a stamp paper of Rs. 100/ if need be. The power of Attorney submitted by you is returned herewith. You are requested to contact our S.B. Section in the matter.
CS - 661/17 The NSIC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Baroda Electro Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. page 15 of 19 This is issued without prejudice to all other terms and conditions of the A/T's. "
24. It is the fact of the matter that no agreement interse plaintiff and defendant no.3 ever came into existence but the elicited averments in Ex. D2 embody that in respect of the referred orders therein, the defendant no.3 had agreed to make payment to plaintiff for which defendant no.1 had to discount all the bills through plaintiff only. Accordingly, issue no. (iii) is decided against defendant no. 3 and in favour of the plaintiff.
Findings on Issues no. (iv) and (v)
(iv) Whether the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff? OPP.
(v) To what amount the plaintiff is entitled to recover and against which defendant/defendants? OPP.
25. As has been made vivid in the findings on issue no. (i) above that pleadings in the plaint as well as documents proved on record by the plaintiff are bereft of necessary material facts with respect to (i) challan no. and date; (ii) invoice no. and date; (iii) Order no. & date placed on defendant no.1 (iv) S.R. Note No. CS - 661/17 The NSIC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Baroda Electro Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. page 16 of 19 and date etc. against which payments are effected to defendant no.1; regarding which defendant no.3 had called upon plaintiff vide Ex. D3W1/5 to provide the necessary particulars as to what payments are sought with respect to the ILCs as detailed in para 17 hereinabove. Details of material and necessary particulars sought in Ex. D3W1/5 were not provided by plaintiff to defendant no.3. Case of the plaintiff has to stand upon its own legs for being entitled for the sum claimed from the defendants.
Plaintiff had to discharge its burden of proof to become entitled for any sums claimed from defendants, jointly or severally.
26. As is borne out from deposition of D3W1, following payments were made by defendant no.3 against the invoices detailed therein :
S.No. Invoice No. Date of Invoice Amount paid (In Rupees)
1. 9/98-99 18.07.1997 3,75,790/-
2. 10/98-99 17.05.1998 1,95,410/-
3. 12/98-99 01.08.1998 3,23,179/-
4. 3/98-99 07.05.1998 6,01,264/-
5. 5/98-99 13.05.1998 7,18,780/-
Even the aforesaid payments were claimed to have been made by defendant no.3 for the Order no. SP/T/809/594/7836 dated 13.06.95. No fact has been proved on record by plaintiff by any cogent admissible documentary evidence that payment CS - 661/17 The NSIC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Baroda Electro Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. page 17 of 19 demanded in legal notice Ex. PW1/18 and the plaint as elicited in the table in para 17 above, was in any way connected with afore referred order no. 7836 dated 13.06.95. It was for the plaintiff to prove that demanded / claimed sum was with respect to afore elicited Order no. 7836 dated 13.06.95. Nothing of the sort has been done. The payment of Rs. 14,104/ vide cheque dated 09.06.2004 vide Ex. P2/D3 and of Rs. 8,219/ vide cheque dated 31.03.2000 vide letter Ex. PW1/12 have not been proved to have been connected with ILC number 75/98 and ILC number 142/98, as claimed and referred in the table in para 17 above for the sum claimed from defendants by plaintiff. Needless to say again that no ledger account of any of defendants in the books of plaintiff had seen the light of the day nor proved by plaintiff, which would have demonstrated and in fact proved the complete vivid details of all transaction in the open, mutual and current account of defendants in the books of plaintiff with respect to financial assistance provided by the plaintiff to defendant no.1 against supplies made to defendant no.3 by defendant no.1 under various bills/invoices as well as of any payments received from either defendant no.1 or defendant no.3 or interest accrued or sums outstanding and payable by defendants. Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to prove to be entitled for any sum as claimed from any of the defendants. Issues no. (iv) and (v) are accordingly decided against the CS - 661/17 The NSIC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Baroda Electro Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. page 18 of 19 plaintiff and in favour of defendants.
Findings on Issue no. (vi)
(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest and if so, at what rate , on what amount and for which period? OPP.
27. In view of findings on issues no.(i), (iv) and (v), since plaintiff is not entitled for any principal sum claimed from any of the defendants; plaintiff is also not entitled for any interest whatsoever from any of the defendants. Issue no. (vi) is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
Relief
28. In view of my findings with respect to issues no. (i), (iv) to (vi), the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open GURVINDER PAL SINGH) Court on 21.09.2017. Additional District Judge 01(SE) Saket Courts, New Delhi. (sm) CS - 661/17 The NSIC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Baroda Electro Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. page 19 of 19