Delhi District Court
Food Corporation Of India vs Union Carbide India Ltd. on 12 May, 2008
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD.
IN THE COURT OF PAWAN KUMAR JAIN
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT, DELHI
dcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdc
Old Suit No. : 2321/87
New Suit No. : 710/06
Date of Institution of case : 17.07.87
Date of transfer to this court : 12.12.06
Judgment reserved on : 06.05.08
Date of decision : 12.05.08
IN THE MATTER :
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
16-20 Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-1.
Through (Sh. D.K. Sethi its Deputy Manager
Quality Control, Department,
Headquarter, New Delhi ..... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
UNION CARBIDE INDIA LIMITED,
3/1, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi-1.
(Service to be effected
through its Manager) ....... DEFENDANT
`SUIT FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE
SUM OF RS. 14,30,482.28/-.`
ERERERERERERERERERERERE
Page 1 of 26
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD.
Present: Sh. Deepak Diwan, Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff
Sh. S.C.Dhanda, Ld. Counsel for defendant
EcEcEcEcEcEcEcEcEcEcEcEc
J U D G M E N T:
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
1. Epitome of the plaint is that on 06.06.84 plaintiff Corporation had placed an order for supply of 175 MT of Black Polythene Film having thickness of 245 microns with condition that film shall conform specification laid down in ISI 2508-1984. Subsequently, it was clarified that the thickness of said polythene was 250 microns instead of 245 microns. The said material was to be supplied in 'thaan' having the length of 64.04 meters and having the width of 5.4 meters.
(i) It is also undisputed fact that plaintiff Corporation had placed another order for supply of 240 MT of black polythene Page 2 of 26 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD. film on 02.07.84. It is alleged that it was in the knowledge of defendant that the said polythene films were required by the plaintiff to cover the food grains from rain. Defendant was also aware that supply was to be completed before the arrival of Mansoon.
(ii) As per the terms and conditions of the contract, defendant had offered 30/31 MT of films on 30.06.84 for inspection and from the said quantity 30 samples were selected on random basis and were sent to M/s Sriram Institute for Industrial Research for testing. On testing, it was found that the samples were not as per ISI 2508-1984 specifications.
(iii) It is averred that instead of complying with the ISI specifications, defendant made an attempt to justify the quality of material and stated that ISI specifications 2508-1984 was not the proper standard and the testing procedure involved was not free from anomaly. Defendant further suggested that the method of testing should be as per A7 of ISI-2508-1977 instead of ISI 2508-1984. Defendant vide its letter dated 27.07.84 requested Page 3 of 26 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD. the plaintiff to lower its specifications but plaintiff declined the request of the defendant.
(iv) As defendant failed to supply the polythene film as per the specifications mentioned in the agreements, plaintiff cancelled the order vide letter dated 11.06.1985. It is alleged that total 7241 covers were to be prepared from the supply of 415 MT polythene.
(v) It is alleged that since defendant failed to supply the said polythene, plaintiff had procured the same from M/s Indian Petro Chemicals Ltd. Though initially, plaintiff informed the defendant that plaintiff Corporation had suffered a loss of Rs.2,49,886.91 ps. but subsequently in its letter dated 27.04.87 it was informed that plaintiff had suffered a loss of Rs.20,40,971.55 ps. including interest and testing charges etc. However in the present suit, plaintiff claimed Rs.14,30,482.28 ps., detail of which is given below :-
Page 4 of 26
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD.
Cost of 7241 covers that were to be made Rs.1,04,34,281.00 out of 415 MT of polythene film to be purchased from Union Carbide Rs.1441 x 7241 Alternative purchase of equal quantity of Rs.1,08,43,035.00 polythene covers purchased @ Rs.1497.45 per cover from M/s. IPCL against order dt. 26.10.84 placed on them for supply of 30,000 covers :
Rs.1497.45 x 7241
(a) + cost of 4.5 kg. film being the film to be used, if covers received from Union Carbide of 57 kg. against the covers of film weighing 52.50 kgs.
Purchased from IPCL @ Rs.1497.45 for 52.5 kgs. Cost of 1 kg. Rs.28.522 Total difference in Weight 32,584.50 kg.
4.5 x 7241 kg.
Total difference in cost on account of difference Rs.9,29,382.80
in weight
(b) Testing charges for 30 samples Rs.13,500.00
Total cost Rs.1,17,85,917.80
Difference in cost of 7241 covers : Rs.1,17,85,917.80
- Rs.1,04,34,281.00
Rs. 13,51,636.80
Plus
Interest on Rs.13,51636.80 @ 14% = Rs.78,845.38
from 10.02.87 to 09.07.87
Total Claim - Rs.14,30,482.28
2. Defendant contested the suit by filing its written statement wherein it is admitted that plaintiff Corporation had placed order for supply of 415 MT of Black Polythene Film Page 5 of 26 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD. sheets but took the plea that plaintiff had not informed the defendant that the polythene sheet should conform to ISI 2508- 1984 of 'high impact'. In the absence of any such particular specification, defendant started to manufacture the polythene film as per the specification of ISI 2508-1984 of 'normal impact'. Defendant thus took the plea that the parties were not ad idem on the specifications of the material, hence contract was void and not enforceable. It is further stated that the samples were not tested properly, thus plaintiff was not justified in rejecting the samples. Even defendant had informed the plaintiff that the procedure adopted to test the sample was not correct but no heed was given to the request of defendant. It is alleged that plaintiff had placed order for the supply of 'normal impact' quality whereas the test had been carried out for 'high impact' strength. At last, it is stated that plaintiff had not suffered any loss. Even plaintiff itself is not sure whether they had suffered any loss or not. Due to that reason initially plaintiff alleged that they had suffered a loss of Rs.2,49,885.91 but subsequently alleged that they had suffered a loss of more than Rs.20 lakh. It is alleged that defendant had never agreed to supply the polythene cover to Page 6 of 26 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD. the plaintiff, thus the rate quoted by the plaintiff for supply of polythene sheets cannot be compared with the rate on which plaintiff had procured polythene covers subsequently.
3. Plaintiff filed the replication, wherein plaintiff denied the defendant's version and reaffirmed and reasserted the averments made in the plaintiff.
4. Vide order dated 11.12.89, following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of causes of action ?
(ii) Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee ?
(iii) Whether the suit is within time with respect to contract dated 6.6.84 ?
(iv) Whether the plaint has been signed & verified and suit instituted by a duly authorised person?
(v) Whether the defendant had agreed to supply high impact density Polythene sheets as per ISI specification 2508: 1984? If so, to what effect.Page 7 of 26
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD.
(vi) Whether the defendant supplied the goods which answered to the quality specified in the Contract ?
(vii) Whether the parties to the contract were not ad-idem with regard to the specifications ?
(viii) Whether the contracts dated 6.6.84 and 2.7.84 are unenforceable on account of being vague? OPD.
(ix) Whether the defendant is in breach of contracts dated 06.06.84 and 02.07.84 ?
(x) Were the parties aware of any urgency in
respect of the execution of the contract ?
(xi) Whether there was any breach of contract
entitling the plaintiff to damages ? OPP
(xii) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to any
interest ?
(xiii) Relief
5. To prove his case, plaintiff has examined Sh. D.K. Sethi as PW1, Sh. R.C. Bhaskar as PW2 and Sh. Ravinder Seth as PW3.
6. In counter defendant examined Sh. Ravi Kitroo as DW1.
Page 8 of 26
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD.
7. I have Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, Ld. Counsel for defendant, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions. My issue-wise findings are as under :-
8. ISSUE Nos. 1 to 4
Onus to prove all the said issues should be upon the plaintiff. But during the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the defendant submitted that he is not pressing for the said issues and have no objection if the same be decided in favour of the plaintiff. In view of the submission of Ld. Counsel for the defendant, all the above issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.9. ISSUE No.5, 7 & 8
Since all the issues are inter-connected, thus are taken together.
Onus to prove the former issue should be upon the Page 9 of 26 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD.
plaintiff, while it should be upon the defendant in case of last two issues.
(i) Ld. Counsel for the defendant energetically contended that the defendant had earlier also supplied the black polythene films having the normal impact strenght low density, thus defendant was under the impression that plaintiff had placed the order of same polythene films because in the purchase order, plaintiff had not specified that the supplied film should be of 'high impact'. In the absence of any particular specification of the film in the purchase order, defendant drew impression that plaintiff had placed the order of black polythene film of normal impact low density. It is therefore, argued that the parties were not ad-idem on the quality of material to be supplied to the plaintiff, thus the contract was void ab initio.
(ii) Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff confuted the said contentions by arguing sagaciously that the specification of the material was prescribed in the purchase order and there was no confusion about the quality of film agreed to be supplied to the Page 10 of 26 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD.
plaintiff due to that reason defendant had never raised this issue earlier. On the contrary, when the samples were not found as per specification, defendant had requested the plaintiff either to change the specification of the polythene films or get it tested as per specification of 1977 instead of 1984. But defendant had not taken the plea that there was any confusion about the strength of films and defendant was under the impression that plaintiff had placed the order for 'Normal impact' and not of 'High impact'.
10. It is undisputed fact that initially plaintiff had placed an order for supply of 175 MT of black polythene films having the thickness of 250 microns as per the specification provided under ISI : 2508-1984 vide purchase oder marked Ex. P-5. Subsequently, another order for the supply of 240 MT; of the same black polythene films was placed upon the defendant vide purchase order marked Ex. P-8.
(i) It is admitted case of the defendant that when the samples were not found as per specification as provided under Page 11 of 26 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD. ISI 2508-1984, defendant had written a letter to the plaintiff on 11th July 1984, which is marked Ex. E-9. The relevant portion of the said letter is re-produced as under:
"...............We believe that the impact failure load for different thickness of film is being calculated based on average thickness of the film. This interpretation is strictly not correct. .......................... During our meeting in your office, we had explained to you details about the change in the impact strength testing procedure incorporated in ISI : 2508-1984. The latest ISI amendment has been made based on limited data collected on the products manufactured by one of the manufactures. We have already moved ISI for comprehensive study and analysis of the problem, which will lead to necessary revision of the standard. ............................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................
Under the circumstances, till ISI 2508-1984 is suitably amended, we recommend that you choose one of the two options given below:-
(i) Modify the impact failure load specifications. Normal impact resistant film should be used for CAP cover applications.
(ii) Method of testing high impact resistant film should be as per A-7 of ISI 2508-1977. Impact failure load value for 250 micron nominal film thickness will have to be mutually agreed upon. Values will have to be decided to take into account statistical variation from laboratory to laboratory as mentioned in ASTM D 1709-67."
(ii) Defendant had reiterated its stand in its subsequent letter dated 27th July 1984, which is marked Ex. P-10. It emerges from both the above letters that defendant had not taken the plea that Page 12 of 26 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD. defendant had any confusion over the strength of the impact of the film. On the contrary, defendant took the plea that the procedure prescribed under ISI 2508-1984 is defective and even defendant had challenged the same before ISI and further suggested that either the plaintiff should make changes in its specification and should accept the polythene having the 'Normal Impact' strength or plaintiff should get the sample tested as per the procedure given in A-7 ISI 2508-1977 till the necessary amendment is made by the ISI in its testing procedure. This clearly proves that defendant was very much aware about the specification of the material, which was agreed to be supplied to the plaintiff. Thus, the contention of Ld. Counsel for the defendant that defendant was under the impression that the plaintiff had placed the order of polythene having the strength of 'Normal Impact' is without any substance.
(iii) Though Ld. Counsel for the defendant has vehemently contended that earlier also plaintiff had placed the order for the supply of polythene film having the strength of 'Normal Impact' yet defendant failed to produce any previous purchase order on Page 13 of 26 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD. record to prove this fact. In the absence of any admissible evidence on record, I do not find any force in the said contention.
11. Pondering the on-going discussion, I am of the opinion that defendant was aware that plaintiff had placed the order for the supply of high impact low density polythene sheets as per specification provided under ISI 2508-1984 and defendant had agreed to supply the same. Thus, I am of the view that parties were ad-idem on the material agreed to be supplied, hence contract was not void as contended by Ld. Counsel for the defendant. Accordingly, I decide issues no. 5,7 & 8 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
12. ISSUE Nos. 6 & 9
Since both the issues are inter-connected, thus are taken together.
Onus to prove the former issue should be upon the defendant, while it should be upon the plaintiff in case of latter. Page 14 of 26
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD.
(i) Ld. Counsel for the defendant contended that defendant was willing to supply the material as per specification, thus there was no breach of the contract on the part of the defendant. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff countered the said contention by arguing that the samples submitted by the defendant were not found as per the specification, thus defendant failed to supply the material as per specification.
13. As held earlier that defendant was aware about the specifications of the material, which defendant had agreed to supply the same and there was no confusion over the specification of films. From the letters Ex. P-9 & Ex.-10, it is evident that the samples submitted by the defendant were not found as per specifications. Defendant in its letter marked Ex. P- 9 informed the plaintiff that the production of the polythene film had already been stopped and further requested the plaintiff either to amend the specification of the material or get the samples re-tested as per the specification of 1977 instead of 1984, so that the production could be re-started. It is undisputed Page 15 of 26 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD. fact that thereafter, defendant had not supplied the requisite polythene films. Thus, it becomes abundantly clear that defendant failed to supply the material as per specification agreed, hence defendant had breached the contract.
14. Considering the above discussion, I decide both the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 15. ISSUE No. 10
Onus to prove the said issue should be upon the plaintiff.
(i) Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the plaintiff needed the supply on urgent basis to protect the food-grain from the coming mansoon and this fact was in the knowledge of the defendant. However, Ld. Counsel for the defendant denied the same.
16. Ex. P-4 is an admitted document, which was written by the defendant to the plaintiff wherein defendant in unequivocally Page 16 of 26 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD. terms admitted that plaintiff had informed the defendant that plaintiff required the supply in a great hurry because of ensuing mansoon. Thus, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the defendant that defendant was not aware about the urgency of material is devoid of merits. Accordingly, I decide this issue in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 17. ISSUE Nos. 11 & 12
Since both the issues are inter-connected, thus are taken together.
Onus to prove both the issues should be upon the plaintiff.
(i) Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff vigorously contended that due to the breach committed by the defendant, plaintiff had suffered huge losses as plaintiff was compelled to procure the supply from another source at higher price. It is urged that when defendant failed to supply the material as per specification, plaintiff placed the order to another company named IPCL for Page 17 of 26 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD. supply of the material on the same terms & condition but the said company had charged higher price for the same material, thus plaintiff had suffered a total loss of Rs.20,40,971/- as mentioned in Ex. P-11. It is contended that defendant is liable to pay the suit amount along with the pendente lite and future interest.
(ii) Ld. Counsel for the defendant repudiated the said contentions by arguing that to claim the suit amount, plaintiff has to establish that the terms & conditions of the agreement entered into between plaintiff and IPCL was similar to that of the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant. It is argued that there was lot of difference between the two agreements. Even the material was not same as plaintiff had placed the order to the defendant for supply of 415 MT polythene sheets while plaintiff had placed the order upon the IPCL for the supply of 30,000 polythene covers. Defendant had to supply the polythene film in 'thaan' and not in covers. Defendant was not concerned whether plaintiff would convert the supplied polythene into covers or not. It is submitted that to convert the 'thann' into covers, it would Page 18 of 26 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD. require additional expenses of fabrication. It is argued that as there was huge variation between the two orders, hence plaintiff is not entitled to claim any amount from the defendant.
18. Ld. Counsel for both the parties fairly conceded that to claim the suit amount, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to establish that plaintiff had procured the material from another source at the higher rate on the same terms & conditions, on which defendant had agreed to supply the material but could not perform the contract.
(i) It is admitted case of the plaintiff that plaintiff had placed an order for the supply of 30,000 polythene covers to M/s IPCL vide purchase order dated 26.10.84, which is marked Ex. PW1/1. It is also undisputed fact that plaintiff had not placed any order upon the defendant to supply the polythene covers but only placed the order for supply of 415 MT polythene in 'thaan'.
(ii) It is also undisputed fact that if the manufacturer would supply the polythene in covers, he would charge extra charges Page 19 of 26 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD. for fabrication. Thus, the price quoted by IPCL for supply of 30,000 polythene cover also includes the charges of fabrication.
(iii) Perusal of the purchase orders placed upon the defendant and purchase order placed upon IPCL, reveals that there was much variations between the said purchase orders. In Ex. PW1/1 even the dimension of covers with weight was given. Similarly, the specific direction for packing of each cover was also prescribed therein. Procedure of inspection was also prescribed in detail in the said purchase order. While there was no such condition in the purchase orders marked Ex. P-5 & P-8.
(iv) In Ex. P-5 & P-8 the description of stores & specifications were given in brief running only in 4 lines while in Ex. PW1/1, the same was given in two separate heading in detail, which is running in about 50 lines. Thus, the description & specifications of the material in Ex.PW1/1 was more comprehensive while it was in brief in Ex. P-5 & P-8.
(v) In Ex. PW1/1, there was a clause of 'Requirement of Page 20 of 26 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD. film' as clause 7, which has further five sub-clauses, which give the requirement of plaintiff in detail, while there was no such clause in Ex. P-5 & P-8. Thus, clause 7 in Ex.PW1/1 was totally a new clause as the same was not part of the purchase orders marked Ex.P-5 & P-8.
(vi) As per clasue 7 of Ex.PW1/1, the supplied film should pass the test as per specification of ISI 2530-1963 and ISI 2508- 1984 also. While in Ex.P-5 & P-8 the only condition was that the film should pass the test as prescribed in the specification ISI 2508-1984.
(vii) Even bare perusal of the both the purchase orders, it becomes clear that purchase order marked Ex.PW1/1 is more comprehensive, which is running in five pages while Ex.P-5 & P-8 are in brief running only in two pages each.
(viii) There was no clause of packing, marketing & security deposit in Ex.P-5 & P-8 while the same are mentioned in detail in Ex.PW1/1. This further establishes that there was difference in Page 21 of 26 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD. the terms & conditions of both the contracts.
19. Considering the above, I am of the view that plaintiff had not placed the order for supply of polythene covers upon M/s IPCL on the same terms & conditions, on which the order was placed upon the defendant. Moreover, the material in both the contract was not same as in Ex.PW1/1 plaintiff had placed the order for supply of polythene covers, while in Ex. P-5 & Ex.P-8 plaintiff placed the order for supply of polythene films in thaan. Even PW2 also admitted in his cross-examination that polythene sheets and polythene covers are two different issues and the same can not be compared with each other.
20. Plaintiff claimed that from the supply of 415 MT of polythene films for which order was placed upon the defendant, plaintiff had to prepare 7241 polythene covers. Admittedly, the neither the weight nor the dimensions of the covers were mentioned in Ex.P-5 & P-8. On the contrary, in Ex.PW1/1 not only the weight of the each cover but also the dimensions of the same were also mentioned. Unless the plaintiff had disclosed the Page 22 of 26 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD. weight of each cover in Ex.P-5 & P-8, it is not even possible to say that only 7241 covers could be prepared from the total supply of 415 MT of polythene films.
21. Admittedly, plaintiff had written a letter dated 11.06.85 to the defendant, which is marked Ex.PW1/D2 wherein plaintiff claimed that plaintiff had procured the covers from IPCL @ Rs.1409.19 per cover while the cost of cover to be supplied by the defendant would be Rs.1374.68, thus plaintiff claimed difference of Rs. 34.51 per cover, in total claimed Rs.2,49,886. Subsequently, plaintiff raised its claim to the tune of Rs.6,24,936.58 in its letter dated 10.02.87.
(i) Subsequently, plaintiff had written a letter dated 27th April 1987, which is marked Ex.PW1/P-3 wherein it is claimed that plaintiff had paid Rs.1625/- per cover to M/s IPCL and claimed difference @ Rs.184.80 per cover and also claimed interest on the difference amount and also testing charges etc. In total, plaintiff claimed Rs.20,40,971.55. Page 23 of 26
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD.
(ii) Now, the question arises whether plaintiff had paid Rs.1625/- per cover to M/s IPCL or not? Admittedly, in Ex.PW1/1 the agreed rate of per cover was Rs.1264/- excluding excise duty & sales tax. Plaintiff had filed the invoices issued by M/s IPCL. Perusal of the same reveal that M/s IPCL had charged the rate between Rs.1264/- to Rs.1318/- per cover. But, plaintiff had passed the payment @ Rs.1264/- per cover only because as & when M/s IPCL had charged at the excess rate, there is cutting at the said amount and bill was passed @ Rs.1264/- only. Thus, the claim of the plaintiff that the payment was made @ Rs.1625/- per cover is contrary to the invoices filed by the plaintiff.
(iii) As already stated that the rate of Rs.1264/- per cover also includes the fabrication charges while no fabrication charges was included in the rate quoted by the defendant. Admittedly, fabrication charges are not separately mentioned in Ex.PW1/1. Unless it is established how much amount was charged by M/s IPCL towards fabrication, it is not possible to calculate the cost of cover, which were to be prepared by the Page 24 of 26 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD. plaintiff from the supply to be made by the defendant.
22. Pondering the entire on-going discussion, I am of the opinion plaintiff failed to prove that plaintiff had sustained any loss due to the breach committed by the defendant. Admittedly, plaintiff had not claimed any general damages on account of harassment etc due to the breach of the agreement.
23. Mulling over the entire afore-going discussion, I am of the opinion that there was not only substantial variations among the terms & conditions of both the contracts but also the material in both the contracts was quite different. Further, I am also of the view that plaintiff failed to establish that plaintiff had sustained any loss due to breach of the contract. Accordingly, to my mind, plaintiff is not entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant.
24. In the light of above, discussion, I decide both the issues against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. Page 25 of 26
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD.
25. RELIEF In view of my findings on the issue nos. 11 & 12, I am of the opinion that plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, I hereby dismiss the present suit. No order as to cost. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court On this 12th day of May, 2008 ( Pawan Kumar Jain) Additional District Judge, Fast Track court, Delhi Page 26 of 26