Delhi District Court
The National Small Industries Corp. ... vs . Shree on 25 September, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRANJAL ANEJA
CIVIL JUDGE-14, CENTRAL, THC, DELHI
THE NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORP. LTD. Vs. SHREE
SITARAM MARBLES
Suit No. 561/11
Unique ID No. 02401C0614752010
THE NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES
CORPORATION LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NSIC
BHAWAN, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OKHLA, NEW DELHI-110020
...... PLAINTIFF.
Vs.
1. SHREE SITARAM MARBLES
PARTNERSHIP FIRM
2. DAULAT RAM SHRIMALI
S/O SH. KALU LAL SHRIMALI (PARTNER)
3. CHETAN PRAKASH SHRIMALI
S/O SH. NIRBHYA SHANKAR SHRIMALI (PARTNER)
4. DIPUL SHRIMALI
S/O DAULAT RAM SHRIMALI (PARTNER)
ALL AT
154, RAO JI KA HATTA
CS No. 561/11 Page No. 1 of 23
NSIC Vs. M/s Shree Sitaram Marbles On 25th September, 2013
UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN- 313001
ALSO AT
VILLAGE KADIYA,
TEHSIL NATHDAWARA
DISTT. RAJSMAND- 313011,
RAJASTHAN
..... DEFENDANTS
DATE OF INSTITUTION OF THE CASE :21.12.2002
DATE ON WHICH RESERVED FOR ORDER :25.09.2013
DATE OF ORDER/ JUDGMENT :25.09.2013
JUDGMENT:
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 32,212/- AND Rs. 2,19,694/- TOGETHER WITH PENDENTE-LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST AS ON 30.11.2002
1. The present suit has been filed for the recovery of Rs. 32,212/- and Rs. 2,19,694/- with pendente-lite and future interest against the defendants.
CS No. 561/11 Page No. 2 of 23 NSIC Vs. M/s Shree Sitaram Marbles On 25th September, 2013
2. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff is a Government company engaged in the promotion and development of small scale industries and provides plant, machinery, tools etc. to private sector on Hire- Purchase basis. That defendant no. 1 is the partnership firm and defendant no. 2 to 3 are partners carrying on business. That defendant no. 2, acting on behalf of the firm, approached the plaintiff company in the year 1990 and requested for the supply of machinery consisting of strong brand Jaw Crusher 12" X 7" , along with suitable convey Guide Hopper and return idlers, will all accessories and marble chips vibrating screen of 4 decks (all without engine and motors). That plaintiff agreed to supply the desired machinery to the defendant no. 1 from the supplier of their choice on Hire-Purchase basis. That accordingly on 17.02.1992, a Hire - Purchase agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the Hirer i.e. Defendant no. 1 for Rs. 3,10,469/- payable in 13 half yearly installments. The first installment of Rs. 21,967/- was payable on or before 01.01.1994 and subsequent installment of Rs. 21,967/- was each were payable every six months till the entire amount was cleared and the last installment was payable on or before 01.01.2000. Further averred, that CS No. 561/11 Page No. 3 of 23 NSIC Vs. M/s Shree Sitaram Marbles On 25th September, 2013 machines were supplied to the defendant no. 1 through the supplier chosen by defendant no. 1 vide delivery note no. 110/91-92 dated 26.06.1992 and the same was received by defendant no. 1 on 26.06.1992. That except for some small payments the defendant no. 1 failed to pay the installments and the plaintiff sent several demand letters and reminders but the defendant kept on promising and never fulfilled their obligations. The plaintiff issued a telegraph dated 05.09.2000 calling upon the defendants to pay the overdue, but to no avail. That the plaintiff company is entitled to take possession of the machines which are the property of the plaintiff given on hire to defendant no. 1. That the plaintiff company also issued a legal notice to the defendants on 12.10.2001 through its counsel terminating the agreement dated 17.02.1992 and also demanded the payment of Rs. 2,04,085/- inclusive of interest. The defendants have also not paid the last installment of Rs. 21,963/- becoming due and payable on 01.01.2000 and therefore the defendants are also liable to pay the same with interest from 01.01.2000 till 30.11.2002 which comes to Rs. 10,249/- and totaling Rs. 32,212/-. That the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the outstanding.
CS No. 561/11 Page No. 4 of 23 NSIC Vs. M/s Shree Sitaram Marbles On 25th September, 2013
3. In WS filed on behalf of the defendants, it is stated that the suit is not maintainable due to breach of contract of the plaintiff himself. That the suit is bad in law for non- jonder of necessary parties as the plaintiff had to join M/s Zahoorbhai K. Mistry as necessary party as the machines were supplied through it. That the plaintiff was not able to meet the supply conditions for the supply of specified machines and thereby caused huge loss to the defendants by flouting the promise of the agreement and the defendants reserved their right to file counter claim for loss w.e.f. 13.02.1993 till the machines were taken away by the plaintiff in March, 2001. That the suit deserves dismissal as the plaintiff has already removed all the machines in March, 2001.
4. It is further alleged that the defendant had not been supplied the machines as specified in the agreement. That the request of supplying of machinery is not denied but the plaintiff had said that the machines could be supplied only through its authorized supplier M/s Zahoorbhai K. Mistri. The hire- purchase agreement dated 17.02.1992 is admitted but the plaintiff failed to provide specified CS No. 561/11 Page No. 5 of 23 NSIC Vs. M/s Shree Sitaram Marbles On 25th September, 2013 vibrated screen as per specifications mentioned in schedule 1 of the agreement and therefore defendant suffered huge loss. Further averred that plaintiff received a sum of Rs. 47,900/- from the defendant by way of DD dated 03.04.1991 and the plaintiff has nowhere shown any proper breakup/ accounting of the above said sum. The firm order no. SIC/ Raj-/81/91 had been finalized on 30.09.1991 and schedule to the said order clearly shows that defendants were to be supplied vibrating screen made from size 8' x 3' and copy of the calculation sheet no. 31 dated 24.12.1991 had been addressed to the supplier by the plaintiff as per which the supplier M/s Zahoorbhai K. Mistri was required to supply the machines but the same was supplied after numerous reminders on 26.06.1992. That the defendants have been given electric connection on 30.09.1992 by Rajasthan State Electricity Board. That vide letter dated 03.07.1992 the defendant no. 2 had conveyed to the supplier that defendants were getting the machines fitted and would let him know only if any part of the machines was found deficient and had also requested the supplier for sending a list of all parts by return of posts. On 27.01.1993 the defendant no. 2 informed CS No. 561/11 Page No. 6 of 23 NSIC Vs. M/s Shree Sitaram Marbles On 25th September, 2013 in writing to the plaintiff that Jaw Crusher was lying dead/ unused due to technical faults. That during inspection, the defendant no. 2 had brought it to the notice of the plaintiff that the vibrating the screen supplied by M/s Zahoorbhai K. Mistri was of the size 6' x 3' and not of the size 8' x 3' but the supplier had neither rectified nor had replaced the vibrating screen.
5. That during inspection time defendant no. 2 had brought to the notice of plaintiff that the vibrating screen supplied by the supplier was of size 6'x3' and not of the size 8'x3' but the supplier had neither rectified the faults in the jaw crusher nor had replaced the vibrating screen. That defendant no. 2 had categorically demanded from the plaintiff to get the jaw crusher replaced and to get the proper vibrating screen supplied within the guarantee period so that defendants may be able to perform their part of the agreement. That defendant had also mentioned the fact that the plaintiff was the dejure owner of the machines. It was the plaintiff's duty to ensure the proper functioning of the machine. That the plaintiff had been further requested to ask CS No. 561/11 Page No. 7 of 23 NSIC Vs. M/s Shree Sitaram Marbles On 25th September, 2013 the supplier to compensate the loss of Rs. 3 lacs suffered by the defendant.
6. It is further averred that the hire purchase agreement was not a legal agreement as the terms and conditions had no such clauses, which could provide equitable rights to the defendants.
7. It is also averred that the plaintiff is itself at fault as vide reference no. NSIC/HP/JPR/Raj 11(1149)/90 dated 6/12/90, the plaintiff quoted the value as Rs. 2,38,931/- for supply of jaw crusher 12'x' 7',' vibrating screen, conveyors, motors and starters which included 7 items for which defendants were required to pay Rs. 47,789/- as earnest money and the defendants paid Rs. 47,900/- but the defendants were supplied only 3 items i.e. jaw crusher, wrong sized vibrating machine and conveyors only.
8. It is further averred that defendants received a letter dated 29/27-01-94 from the plaintiff's office demanding Rs. 1,54,548/- as on 31/1/94 in full settlement of the account, as the defendants had requested the plaintiff's office to make a deduction of Rs. 12,000/- from the supplier account on account of wrong vibrating screen. CS No. 561/11 Page No. 8 of 23 NSIC Vs. M/s Shree Sitaram Marbles On 25th September, 2013
9. That the telegraph dated 5/9/2000 sent by the plaintiff is admitted. The averments as to the jurisdiction to this Hon'ble court are admitted.
10. In replication the averments of the W.S. are denied and those of the plaint have been reiterated. It is further averred that the defendants have themselves signed the inspection report and directed the plaintiff to release the payment to the supplier and the defendants ought not to have directed the plaintiffs to make the payment to the supplier, had the goods were not supplied or were not satisfactory. That the defendants, admittedly, did not have electricity connection. The defendants did not raise any issue as to the non-supply of the vibrator while directing the plaintiff to release the payment to the supplier. That the plaintiff is not a party to the understanding between defendants and the supplier and it cannot be made liable for their direct dealings with each other. That the defendants after receiving the machinery have clearly noted that only one big pulley and gear of conveyor belt remained to be supplied. That the defendants on 10/8/92 confirmed having received the big pulley, big gear for CS No. 561/11 Page No. 9 of 23 NSIC Vs. M/s Shree Sitaram Marbles On 25th September, 2013 conveyor belt and the conveyor rubber belt and thus confirmed their satisfaction. That the commissioning of the plant was delayed on account of the acts and omissions of the defendants themselves. It is further averred in the replication that the supplier was directed to change the vibrator but the defendant did not pick up the same from the supplier and as such the plaintiff did not pay the balance 10% of the payment towards the supply of the machine to the supplier and credited that 10% i.e. Rs. 16,678/- to the defendant's account. It is also contended that the defendants made a payment of Rs. 47,900/- as earnest money deposit (EMD) because as per defendant's request, the plaintiff placed supply order for supply of electric motor and other items, however later at the request of the defendants, this supply order for electric motor and other items was cancelled and balance amount of EMD was adjusted in his account after deduction of 3% i.e. Rs. 2,032/- of the value of the supply order. The defendants vide their letter dated 10/8/92 and 23/7/93 had stated that there was no deficiency in the equipment supplied and had recommended payment to the supplier. That the machines have been sold by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 21,000/- and as per clause 8 of hire purchase CS No. 561/11 Page No. 10 of 23 NSIC Vs. M/s Shree Sitaram Marbles On 25th September, 2013 agreement, in case the amount of sale of machinery is less than the amount due from defendants the plaintiff is entitled to recover the difference in the amount due. That an amount of Rs. 2,51,906/- became due and outstanding against the defendants as on 30/6/2002.
11. Vide order sheet dated 15.05.2003 the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the suit is barred due to non- joinder of necessary parties as alleged in the preliminary objection no. 2 in WS?
OPP.
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of preliminary objections no. 1 & 3 in the WS? OPD.
3. To what principal amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled against defendant? OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest if so at what rate for which period and for what amount? OPP.
5. Relief.
12. To substantiate its case the plaintiff got examined Sh. Sanjeevan Saraswat, development officer (law) as PW-1, his affidavit in evidence CS No. 561/11 Page No. 11 of 23 NSIC Vs. M/s Shree Sitaram Marbles On 25th September, 2013 being Ex.P1. Plaintiff also examined Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Dy. Manager (accounts) as PW-2,his affidavit in evidence being Ex.P2. In documentary evidence the plaintiff filed and relied upon copy of GPA Ex.PW1/1, hire purchase agreement Ex.PW1/2, photocopy of certificate of incorporation mark A, schedule 1 as Ex. PW1/3, calculation sheet Ex. PW1/4, delivery note dated 26/6/92 as Ex. PW1/5, joint inspection report dated 23/7/1992 as Ex. PW1/6, letter dated 10/8/92 by defendants receiving remaining goods as Ex. PW1/7, copy of telegram dated 5/9/2000 as Ex. PW1/8, copy of legal notice Ex. PW1/9, postal receipts Ex. PW1/10, A.D. cards Ex. PW1/11, registry envelope Ex. PW1/12, statement of account as on 30/6/2002 as Ex. PW2/1, letter by supplier to the plaintiff dated 21/7/93 as Ex. PW2/2, letter by defendant to the plaintiff as Ex. PW2/3.
13. On the other hand no evidence was led on behalf of defendants and only the witnesses of the plaintiff were cross-examined. After granting opportunities to the defendants, which they did not avail, the DE was CS No. 561/11 Page No. 12 of 23 NSIC Vs. M/s Shree Sitaram Marbles On 25th September, 2013 closed and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order sheet dated 3/4/2008.
14.I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record. My issue wise findings are as under:-
15. Issue no. 1:- Whether the suit is barred due to non-
joinder of necessary parties as alleged in the preliminary objection no. 2 in WS?
OPP.
The preliminary objection no. 2 taken in the WS is that the supplier M/s Zahoor Bhai K. Mistri is a necessary party and which has not been joined. It is contended on behalf of defendants in the WS that the defendants had contacts with M/s Satyanarayan Industries but the plaintiff had said that machines could be supplied only through their authorized supplier M/s Zahoor Bhai K. Mistri. It has been further alleged by the defendants that they were not supplied the correct vibrating screen as per the agreement due to which loss was caused to the defendant firm and the defendants reserved their right to file a counter claim against the plaintiff and the supplier M/s Zahoor Bhai K. CS No. 561/11 Page No. 13 of 23 NSIC Vs. M/s Shree Sitaram Marbles On 25th September, 2013 Mistri. Here, it is seen that the defendants have not filed any counter claim against either. The basis of the claim raised in the present suit is the hire purchase agreement Ex. PW1/2 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants. Admittedly, M/s Zahoor Bhai K. Mistri is one of the authorized supplier from whom the machineries were procured for supply to the defendants. There was no agreement between the defendants and the said supplier. As per the specifications of the machineries in the schedule 1 Ex. PW1/3, annexed with the hire purchase agreement, the said machines were supplied to the defendants and the delivery note was taken from the defendants which is Ex. PW1/5. Consequently, the payments for the hire purchase had to be made by the defendants to the plaintiff and the said supplier had no concern with it. Even the joint inspection report Ex. PW1/6 records a noting by defendants that all the machineries as per the supply orders have been received except the big pulley and big gear of the conveyor belt at front side and it further records a recommendation that payment maybe made to the supplier. In continuation to the said document a letter dated 10/8/92 has also been sent by the defendants to the plaintiff which is Ex. PW1/7 stating CS No. 561/11 Page No. 14 of 23 NSIC Vs. M/s Shree Sitaram Marbles On 25th September, 2013 that the deficient parts/machines have been received and there is no deficiency of further parts and therefore payment be released. All these letters have been duly proved by the plaintiff as they have been exhibited in evidence by PW1 and these documents have been un- rebutted as the defendants have neither denied these documents nor have asked even a question upon them from the two witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 examined on behalf of plaintiff. Thus, it is seen that the supplier had no concern in the agreement between the plaintiff and defendants except for the supply of the machineries, it being an authorized supplier. A mere correspondence between the defendants and the said supplier would not make the said supplier a necessary party to the present suit. Even the letter Ex. PW 2/2 sent by the said supplier to the plaintiff apprising of the exchange of vibrating screen from 6'x3' to 8'x3' and asking the plaintiff to instruct the hirer to take the delivery of screen size 8'x3' would also not make the said supplier a necessary party to the present suit as it is not without the said supplier that the real controversy in the case cannot be resolved. Thus, in view of the above discussion it can be said that the suit is not barred due to non-joinder of necessary parties. This issue no. 1 is CS No. 561/11 Page No. 15 of 23 NSIC Vs. M/s Shree Sitaram Marbles On 25th September, 2013 decided in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
16. Issue no. 2:- Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of preliminary objections no. 1 & 3 in the WS? OPD.
The owners of proving this issue was upon the defendants. The preliminary objection no. 1 in the WS taken is that the suit is not maintainable due to breach of contract by the plaintiff. The defendants have alleged in the WS that the agreement was not legal, as it did not provide equitable rights to the defendants. Defendants have further alleged that vide reference dated 6/12/90 the plaintiff quoted the value as Rs. 2,38,931/- for supply of jaw crusher, vibrating screen, conveyors, motors and starters which included 7 items and for that the defendants were required to pay Rs. 47,789/- as earnest money and the defendants paid Rs. 47,900/- but they were supplied only 3 articles i.e. jaw crusher, wrong sized vibrating screen and conveyors. Both these allegations are dealt with by referring to the hire purchase agreement dated 17/2/1992 Ex. PW1/2. Firstly, it is seen that the execution of the said agreement is not denied by the CS No. 561/11 Page No. 16 of 23 NSIC Vs. M/s Shree Sitaram Marbles On 25th September, 2013 defendants. The defendants have stated the terms of the agreement to be inequitable but they have not specifically stated about any particular term and neither the manner in which any term is inequitable against them. It is further observed that the agreements refers to the supply of jaw crusher, vibrating screen and conveyors i.e. 3 items are mentioned and the delivery note Ex. PW1/5 also shows the said 3 items and further the joint inspection report Ex. PW1/6 along with the letter dated 10/8/92 Ex. PW1/7 confirming the receipt of complete material and requesting the plaintiff to release the payment, cumulatively show that the defendants had received the machineries as per the hire purchase agreement and therefore it does not lie in the mouth of the defendants to state that the plaintiff has committed a breach of contract. Rather breach is seen on the part of defendants in not making the regular hire purchase installments.
17. Now taking the preliminary objection no. 3 of the WS wherein it is alleged that the suit is bad in law as the plaintiff had himself not been able to meet the supply conditions for the supply of specified CS No. 561/11 Page No. 17 of 23 NSIC Vs. M/s Shree Sitaram Marbles On 25th September, 2013 machines and had thereby caused huge losses to the defendants by totally flouting the terms of the agreement. It has already been observed above that there is no breach of any term of the agreement on the part of the plaintiff and the defendants have not been able to cull out anything in the cross-examination of the two witnesses to show that there has been any breach of agreement on the part of the plaintiff.
18. Thus in view of the above discussion it cannot be said that the suit is not maintainable. This issue no. 2 is accordingly decided in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
19. Issue no. 3:- To what principal amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled against defendant? OPP.
It has already been discussed while arriving at the findings upon the issue no. 1 and 2 that the execution of the hire purchase agreement Ex. PW1/2 is not denied by the defendants. It has also been found as per the delivery note Ex. PW1/5 that the machineries have been received by the defendants. The joint inspection report Ex. PW1/6 prepared on inspection on 23/7/92 carried out by the plaintiff CS No. 561/11 Page No. 18 of 23 NSIC Vs. M/s Shree Sitaram Marbles On 25th September, 2013 also shows the machines supplied and it further records a noting made by the partner of the defendants firm clearly citing that they have received all the machinery as per supply order except big pulley and big gear of the conveyor belt at front side.
This deficiency in the machinery is seen to be fulfilled in the letter dated 10/8/92 Ex. PW1/7 sent by defendants to the plaintiff stating that they have received the deficient parts and now there remains no deficiency. Both the documents i.e. inspection report Ex. PW1/6 and letter dated 10/8/92 Ex. PW1/7 contain the statement of the defendants to release the payment in favor of the supplier. All these documents have been duly proved by the plaintiff, they being exhibited by PW1 in his evidence and not denied by the defendants and not challenged in the cross-examination of plaintiff witnesses. No question is even asked from PWs upon these documents. Thus, the position which comes out from the above is that the machineries in respect of which the hire purchase agreement was entered into between the parties were duly supplied to the defendants including the fulfillment of the deficiencies in some parts and the defendants had also given their no objection about the release of payment to the CS No. 561/11 Page No. 19 of 23 NSIC Vs. M/s Shree Sitaram Marbles On 25th September, 2013 supplier.
20. It is noteworthy that the defendants have themselves admitted in their WS that they got electricity connection late and this fact is even seen to be recorded in the joint inspection report dated 23/7/92 Ex. PW1/6 wherein it is seen that the defendants have been advised by the plaintiff to get the power connection immediately and to install the machines and to take a trial run. Thus the fault of not having electricity connection cannot be attributed to the plaintiff at all. The defendants have alleged that the supplier had neither rectified the faults in the jaw crusher nor had replaced the vibrating screen. But it is seen that the defendants even did not led any evidence to prove any of their averments and the cross-examination of PWs has not revealed anything which could prove any of the allegations of the defendants.
21. The defendants have also alleged that the present suit is time barred but it is seen that the last installment as stated by the plaintiff was payable on 1/1/2000, as per the calculation sheet Ex. PW1/4. The defendants did not even pay the same and thereafter legal notice CS No. 561/11 Page No. 20 of 23 NSIC Vs. M/s Shree Sitaram Marbles On 25th September, 2013 dated 12/10/2001 Ex. PW1/9 was sent on behalf of plaintiff to the defendants terminating the hire purchase agreement. Plaintiff has filed the proof of service of the said notice vide postal receipts Ex. PW 1/10 and A.D. cards Ex. PW1/11. The present suit has been filed on 23/12/2002 and it is well within 3 years from the termination of the agreement and even from the date of the last installment.
22. Thus, from the above findings it can be concluded that the defendants are liable to repay the outstanding with respect to the said higher purchase agreement. Their liability is joint and several as defendant no. 1 is admittedly the partnership firm and defendants no. 2 to 4 are its partners. The plaintiff has filed and proved on record the statement of account Ex. PW2/1 as per which the total balance recoverable as on 30/6/2002 is Rs. 2,51,906/-. It is noted that although the amendment application of the plaintiff, which proposed to incorporate the factum the auction sale of the machineries in question, was dismissed but this fact of auction sale of machinery at Rs. 21,000/- had already been disclosed in the replication filed by the plaintiff. Thus the sale amount of the machineries would be CS No. 561/11 Page No. 21 of 23 NSIC Vs. M/s Shree Sitaram Marbles On 25th September, 2013 deducted from the balance recoverable and the net amount comes to Rs. 2,30,906/-. Plaintiff has further claimed a sum of Rs. 32,212/- stating to be the amount of the last installment of Rs. 21,963/- with interest of Rs. 10,249/-. But it is seen that in the statement of account as on 30/6/2002 Ex. PW2/1 the accrued installment amounts for all 13 installments, as agreed, has been added and accordingly the figure of Rs. 2,51,906/- has been arrived at and therefore the plaintiff cannot be entitled to claim the amount of so called last installment twice. Thus the principal amount to which the plaintiff is entitled to is Rs. 2,30,906/-.
23. Issue no. 4:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest if so at what rate for which period and for what amount? OPP.
The hire purchase agreement Ex. PW1/2 stipulates the payment of interest in clause 6 of the agreement. The defendants have in their WS admitted to the receiving of the telegram Ex. PW1/8 but despite the same they did not clear the dues. Hence, the plaintiff is also entitled to the interest. The plaintiff has claimed interest @ CS No. 561/11 Page No. 22 of 23 NSIC Vs. M/s Shree Sitaram Marbles On 25th September, 2013 16% to which it is entitled pendente- lite and future upon the said principal amount worked out in issue no. 3 above at Rs. 2,30,906/-.
RELIEF In view of the findings on all the issues above, the present suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally for an amount of Rs. 2,30,906/- along with interest pendente-lite and future @ 16% per annum.
Plaintiff is also entitled to the costs of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in open Court (PRANJAL ANEJA)
on 25.09.2013 CIVIL JUDGE-14, CENTRAL
THC/DELHI/25.09.2013
CS No. 561/11 Page No. 23 of 23
NSIC Vs. M/s Shree Sitaram Marbles On 25th September, 2013