Delhi District Court
M/S. Sanco Plastics (P) Ltd vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd on 28 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF AJAY GOEL:SCJ CUM RC(CENTRAL):DELHI
S-1470/06/03
In the matter of
M/s. Sanco Plastics (P) Ltd.
9/51, Bazar Gali, Vishwash Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
Through its Director
Sh. Sanjay Gupta. .........Plaintiff.
VERSUS
1. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.,
Khurshid Lal Bhawan, New Delhi.
Through its General Manager.
2. Sh. Siya Ram,
(AGM, MM-I),
CSD Compound, Neta ji Nagar,
New Delhi-110023. .......... Defendants.
Date of institution :- 05.03.2003
Date of assignment to this court:- 24.02.2009
Date of arguments:- 28.05.2012
Date of decision:- 28.05.2012
JUDGMENT
1. This is suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants wherein it was stated that plaintiff is private limited company and is running its business of manufacturing the PVC pipes, wires and cables and as stated the present suit was filed by Sh. Sanjay Gupta, who S1470/06/03 Page:1/5 is one of the Directors of plaintiff who has been duly authorised to file suit and verify plaint in the matter. As stated during the course of business the defendants called a tender enquiry dated 25.5.2001 which was allotted in favour of plaintiff and on the basis of that tender enquiry, the defendants placed a purchase order dated 21.7.2001 before the plaintiff firm for supply of 4692 k.m. of self supporting drop wire (SSDW) against the above said enquiry. It was further stated that as per order placed by the defendants, the plaintiff after adopting all the norms of tender enquiry of the defendants, supplied the material to the defendants on 24.12.2001. It was also stated that as per terms and condition of the tender, an inspection was conducted by the defendants at the factory side on 31.12.2001 wherein the material was found okay and same declared pass by the defendants. It was stated that after supply of drop wire and putting the same in the store by defendants, the defendants again tested the supplied wire and as stated after conducting the said test, the defendants issued the surveillance test report to the plaintiff, wherein the drop wire more particularly the wire of lot No. 21 was found okay in all the tests. It was stated the defendants with malafide intention and ulterior motive to defame the reputation of plaintiff in the business market and to give the future tender to his interested persons issued a motivated letter/notice dated 07.02.2003 to plaintiff alleging therein that a random check was conducted on 13.3.2002 and one sample of drop wire of lot No. 21 coil No. 397 supplied by plaintiff to the defendants was found to be sub-standard quality. It was stated that defendants are trying to take the advantage of their own wrongs because after all the inspections and tests while the supplied wire found in okay condition then only after two-three months of supplied wire the alleged random check up S1470/06/03 Page:2/5 found the cracks in the wire. It was stated that acts of the defendants are highly illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Hence the present suit was filed.
2. Written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants wherein preliminary objections were raised stating that suit has not been properly signed, verified and filed by a duly authorised person and hence deserves dismissal. It was also stated that plaintiff has also failed to affix proper court fee as required under law. On merits, it was stated that on a surprise check conducted by the CBI on 13.3.2002 for verifying the information about the supply of sub- standard quality of drop wire and jumper wire, a sample was collected by the CBI which was got tested from the Quality Assurance Wing of BSNL and as per test report one sample of drop wire from lot No. 21, coil no. 397 supplied by plaintiff was found not meeting with the specifications in breaking load test. It was also stated that the samples when collected by an independent investigating agency and got tested, the defendants had no role either in the sample collection or in its testing. Rest of the contents of the plaint were denied.
3. Replication was filed in which contents of the plaint were reiterated and those of written statement's were denied.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 12.08.32009:-
1) Whether letter dated 07.02.2003 can be declared as null and void?OPP
2) Whether the defendants can be restrained from acting upon the letter supra?OPP
3) Whether the suit has not been filed, signed by authorised person?OPD S1470/06/03 Page:3/5
4) Relief.
5. Thereafter despite opportunities given and even suppling affidavit of one witness to other counsel failed to produce that witness as well as to lead PE and vide order dated 28.5.2012 PE was closed u/o 17 Rule 3 CPC.
6. I have heard Ld. Cl. for both the parties as well as perused the record. My issue-wise findings are as follows:-
7. Issue No. 1. Whether letter dated 07.02.2003 can be declared as null and void?OPP and Issue No. 2. Whether the defendants can be restrained from acting upon the letter supra?OPP:- Issues No. 1 and 2 are taken up together as they are inter-connected. The onus of proving both these issues was on plaintiff. No evidence has been led by plaintiff to prove his case despite grant of sufficient opportunities for concluding the evidence and accordingly, the objections raised by defendant and specific denial of contents of plaint in written statement have remained unchallenged and unrebutted being devoid of evidence on the part of plaintiff. Accordingly, both these issues are decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
8. Issue No. 3. Whether the suit has not been filed, signed by authorised person?OPD:- The onus of proving this issue was on on the defendants. Under this issue, it was to be proved that whether suit has not been filed and signed by authorised person. Copy of Board of Directors Resolution passed on 28.2.2003 is available on record whereby Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Director of company was authorised to deal with department as well as with the lawyers in this regard. Thus, it is crystal clear that Sh. Sanjay Gupta is authorised person of the plaintiff company and it is held that suit has been filed and signed by authorised person. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff S1470/06/03 Page:4/5 and against defendants.
9. Relief: In view of the finding on issue No. 1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (Ajay Goel) on 28.05.2012 SCJ cum RC(Central)/Delhi. S1470/06/03 Page:5/5