Delhi District Court
M/S D.V. Mittal And Company vs (I) M/S Ufi Filter India Pvt. Ltd on 3 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA: ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE- 04
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: NEW DELHI
CS No.59162 OF 2016
Date of Institution Of Suit : 31.07.2012
File received from Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi : 06.04.2016
Date of Final Arguments : 18.01.2022
Date of Judgment : 03.02.2022
M/s D.V. Mittal and Company
Having its office at
101, Time House, 5, Community Centre
Wazirpur Commercial Complex
Delhi 110 052.
.........Plaintiff
Versus
(i) M/s UFI Filter India Pvt. Ltd.
Having its office at
K-39, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001.
(ii) Rinaldo Facchini,
Chief Financial Officer,
The UFI Group
Via Europa n. 26, 46047- Porto-Mantovano (Mn), Italy.
(iii) Manish Nagar,
Chief Financial Officer,
UFI Filter India Pvt. Ltd
Available at Plot no. 123, BCD, Sector-6
Bawal Industrial Area
District Rewari, Haryana- 123501.
(iv) Hirdesh Sharma
Chief Executive Officer
UFI Filter India Pvt. Ltd
Available at Plot no. 123, BCD, Sector-6
Bawal Industrial Area
District Rewari, Haryana- 123501.
........Defendants
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of sum of Rs.39,88,931/- alongwith interest pendente-lite and future @ 12% per annum against the defendants. Record reveals that the suit CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.1 of 36 SUNENA Digitally signed by SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:25:43 +0530 was initially filed before the Hon'ble High Court but subsequently, vide Notification no. 27187/DHC/Orgl. dated 24.11.2015, it came to be transferred to this Court on account of enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of District Courts.
2. Briefly stated the facts of plaintiff's case are that plaintiff is a registered Partnership firm registered under Indian Partnership Act, 1935 having its registered office at 101, Time House, 5, Community Center, Wazirpur Commercial Complex, Delhi. Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff through Mr. Lalit Mittal, who is one of partners of the plaintiff and has been duly authorized in that behalf vide Authorization letter dated 30.06.2012. The plaintiff concern comprised of chartered accountants and professional consultants having expertise in the field of project financing and loan appraisal with various financial institutions and bankers.
2.1 Defendant no.1 is Indian manifestation of the UFI group which is an international group having its head office at Italy dealing with filters. Defendant no.2 is the Chief Financial Officer of the UFI Group and defendant no.3 is the Chief Financial Officer of the defendant no.1. Defendant no.4 is the Chief Executive Officer of defendant no.1.
2.2 For expanding business in India, UFI group incorporated defendant no.1 company in India and decided defendant no.1 to raise finance locally in India though initially defendant no.1 was raising finance through 100 % secured 'Stand By letters of Credit' issued by the UFI Group. As said limit was getting blocked due to facilities availed by defendant no.1, defendant no.1 through defendant no.2 to defendant no.4 approached plaintiff in or around month of August 2009 for their professional services for project financing and loan appraisal to the tune of Rs.30 Crores for defendant no.1. After preliminary discussion regarding project of defendant no.1 with defendant no.2 and defendant no.3, defendant no.2 and defendant no.3 assured the plaintiff that the professional charges of the plaintiff would be duly paid by the defendants. After discussion with the defendant no.3 and defendant no.4 about the project financing / loan appraisal, plaintiff informed defendant no.3 that defendant no.1 CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.2 of 36 Digitally signed by SUNENA SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:26:01 +0530 could get a credit facility around Rs. 30 Crores from a reputed nationalized bank with a limited 'Stand by Letter of Credit of UFI Group'. Initially plaintiff agreed to take 0.90 per cent of the sanctioned amount as its professional charges from defendant no.1 for which defendant no.2 and defendant no.4 agreed and also personally guaranteed payment of the same but subsequently, the service charges of the plaintiff were increased to 1 per cent because the time taken in the assignment exceeded the expected limit. The defendants agreed for the increased professional charges for the plaintiff and defendant no.2 to defendant no.4 personally guaranteed the payment of the same.
2.3 As per common business practice plaintiff initially claimed 50 percent of the charges as advance at the time of commencement of work in November, 2009 but despite the assurances given by the defendants to pay the same to the plaintiff in due course, no amount was ever paid to the plaintiff by them. However, on the basis of assurances, representation and promises made by the defendants, plaintiff started working on the assignments and also prepared a detailed project report for defendant no.1. After several rounds of extensive meetings/ negotiation with different financial institutes, plaintiff was able to get a sanction of credit limit of Rs. 30 crores for defendant no.1 from State Bank of India Overseas Branch, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan-1, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi and conveyed the same to the defendants. After sanction of aforesaid limit, plaintiff claimed professional charges from defendants but the defendants started avoiding plaintiff on one or other pretext. Plaintiff also raised a bill on 15.10.2010 for the sum of Rs.33,09,000/- on the defendant no.1 towards professional charges but even after having received said bill, defendants failed/refused/neglected to make the payment. Finally, the plaintiff was constrained to send a legal notice dated 05.02.2011 to the defendants thereby called upon them to make the payment within 15 days. But despite due receipt of notice, the defendants neither sent any response to the legal notice nor made any payment to the plaintiff till date. As a consequence, plaintiff filed present suit before the Hon'ble High court of Delhi on 31.07.2012 for seeking recovery of sum of Rs.39,88,931/- (Rs. 33,09,000/- towards principle amount + Rs. 6,79,931/- towards interest @ 12 % per annum calculated from 15.10.2010 till the filing of the suit) alongwith pendentilite and future interest @ 12 per cent.
CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.3 of 36 Digitally signed SUNENA by SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:26:17 +0530
3. As per judicial record, defendant no.3 despite service of summons, never appeared in the matter nor filed the WS and consequently, his opportunity to file WS was closed vide order dated 07.11.2014. Later on, vide order dated 11.12.2017, defendant no.3 was also proceeded ex-parte.
4. Written statement on behalf of defendant no.1 and defendant no.4 was filed jointly while on behalf of defendant no.2, a separate WS was filed. The defence put forward by contesting defendants in their respective written statements is more or less on the same lines. The case of the defendants as put forth by way of preliminary objections is that plaintiff is not entitled to receive any amount from the answering defendants as admittedly there was no agreement between the parties for the plaintiff to base or claim any relief against the defendants. Although certain discussions between the parties for sanction of loan for defendant no.1 had taken place but said negotiations never culminated into any agreement. Further it is averred that defendant no.1 sought approval/sanction from SBI bank for a loan of Rs. 30 Crores without availing the services of the plaintiff and plaintiff had never played any role in the entire process. It is further averred that in any event plaintiff has no claim against defendant no.2 or defendant no.4 as the loan was never sanctioned to said defendants in their individual capacity but was sanctioned in favour of defendant no.1 Company. Defendants have further raised preliminary objection regarding Section 69 of Partnership Act alleging that the plaintiff firm was not registered under Indian Partnership Act, 1933 and also challenged the authorization letter in favour of Sh. Lalit Mittal through whom the suit has been filed.
4.1 In parawise reply, defendants denied the entire claim of the plaintiff as frivolous, wrong and incorrect. Answering defendants categorically denied that they had ever approached plaintiff in August 2009 or at any time for professional services for project financing or loan appraisal as alleged in the plaint. It is further submitted that plaintiff had rather approached the defendants with proposal to assist the plaintiff for availing loan from reputed bank and certain discussion also took place between plaintiff and defendants but such discussions never culminated into any agreement and therefore, the claim CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.4 of 36 Digitally signed by SUNENA SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:26:31 +0530 of the plaintiff is completely frivolous and bogus. It was specifically denied that answering defendants ever assured plaintiff for the payment of professional charges or that defendant no.2 ever gave any feedback to plaintiff about the project financing/loan appraisal of defendant no.1. It was further denied that plaintiff ever agreed either for payment of professional charges @ 0.90 percent of the sanctioned amount or the increased rate of 1 per cent as alleged or otherwise. It was further denied that answering defendants ever assured for payment of 50 per cent of the purported professional fees as advance at the time of commencement of work in November, 2009 as alleged in the plaint. All the defendants came up with the defence that there was no agreement between the parties for making any of the defendants liable for payment of alleged professional charges to the plaintiff. It is further reiterated that no professional services were ever rendered by the plaintiff to claim any amount as professional charges from defendants. Defendants categorically denied that plaintiff ever prepared any purported detailed report for defendant no.1 or ever carried out any negotiation or meetings with financial institutions on behalf of defendant no.1 for getting any loan sanctioned in its favour.
4.2 It was further submitted without prejudice to the plea taken in WS, that in any event of the matter, defendant no.1 never availed the loan sanctioned by the SBI and in view thereof, defendant no.1 was not liable to make any payment much less the payment to the extent of 1 per cent of the sanctioned loan. It was specifically denied that answering defendants failed/refused/neglected any payment to the plaintiff by submitting that the answering defendants were never liable to make any payment for lack of any agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants. Defendants also categorically denied that any bill was raised on defendant no.1 on 15.10.2010 and pleaded that the alleged bill placed on record is a forged and fabricated bill. All the answering defendants denied that they ever agreed to personally guarantee for payment of professional charges as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendants categorically denied receipt of any legal notice dated 15.02.2011 from the plaintiff. Digitally signed SUNENA by SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:28:05 +0530 CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.5 of 36
5. In replication to respective written statements of contesting defendants, the stand taken by the defendants to refute plaintiff's claim was categorically denied as wrong and incorrect and plaintiff reaffirmed and reiterated its version as taken in the plaint. The plaintiff came up with the further plea that the scope of service of plaintiff was to get the loan sanctioned and once the loan was sanctioned in favour of the defendant no.1, plaintiff became entitled to get his due professional fee from the defendants and the fact whether defendant no.1 had actually availed the loan facility or not, did not have any bearing on the professional charges of the plaintiff.
6. After completion of the pleadings, by order dated 11.12.2017 the following issues were settled for adjudication:
1. Whether plaintiff is a registered partnership firm under the Partnership Act and is entitled to file the present suit ? OPP.
2. Whether the person who has filed the present suit, has the authority to file the suit on behalf of the plaintiff? OPD.
3. Whether this court has a territorial jurisdiction to decide and dispose off the suit of the plaintiff?
OPP.
4. Whether there is any valid binding contract between the plaintiff and defendants no.1? OPP.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of an amount of Rs.39,88,931/-alongwith interest?
OPP
6. Relief.
7. Plaintiff has led its evidence and examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2. PW1 filed his examination in chief vide affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint on solemn affirmation and relied upon following documents:
a) Copy of authorization letter in favour of PW1 as Ex.PW1/1.
CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.6 of 36 Digitally signed by SUNENA SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:28:20 +0530
b) Registration certificate of plaintiff concern as Ex.PW1/2( marked as Mark A at the time of tendering for want of original)
c) Copy of project report of defendant no.1 as Ex.PW1/3( marked as Mark B at the time of tendering for want of original)
d) Sanction letter dated 13.08.2010 issued by SBI as Ex.PW1/4.
e) Invoice dated 15.10.2020 as Ex.PW1/5 ( marked as Mark C at the time of tendering for want of original)
f) Certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act in support of computer generated documents is Ex.PW1/6.
g) Copies of e-mail exchanged between plaintiff and defendants and SBI during the period from 06.10.2009 to 15.10.2010, which are not exhibited separately in the affidavit but exhibited as Ex.PW1/6 (colly) at the time of tendering.
8. PW2 Sh. Kuldeep, UDC was a summoned witness from the office of Registrar of Firms who brought the relevant record pertaining to registration of plaintiff firm and exhibited Form A, which was earlier marked as Mark A during tendering of affidavit of PW1. While photocopy of Form B was also already on record but same was not exhibited or marked separately in evidentiary affidavit of PW1. Form A and Form B & C were filed in original only subsequently and in pursuance to said documents being taken on record, PW2 was allowed to be examined as an additional witness and during his examination Form A,B and C were exhibited as Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C respectively. PW2 deposed that as per their official record, M/s D.V.Mittal Company was a registered partnership firm w.e.f 12.06.2012.
9. The evidence of Plaintiff stood closed by order dated 01.05.2019 and the matter was listed for evidence of defendants. As already noted above defendant no.3 remained ex-parte in the matter. The evidence was led only on behalf of Defendants no.1 , 2 and 4. All the said three defendants examined only one witness DW1 who is defendant no.4 himself. Vide order 03.10.2019, the evidence of defendant was also closed. All the three witnesses examined in the case were duly cross examined by respective opposite counsels.
Digitally signed SUNENA by SUNENA
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03
13:28:33 +0530
CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.7 of 36
10. I have heard counsels for the parties and have considered the entire material on record meticulously. The counsel for parties also filed their written submissions and same is also carefully perused.
11. My issue-wise findings are as under:
ISSUE NO. 1Whether plaintiff is a registered partnership firm under the Partnership Act and is entitled to file the present suit ? OPP 11.1 The onus to prove said issue was casted upon plaintiff. The issue was framed in view of section 69(2) of Partnership Act 1932 which creates a bar for an unregistered Partnership Firm to file a suit against any third party for enforcing the right arising out of a contract. Before adverting to the evidence adduced by plaintiff in this regard, I may refer to the relevant provision of law.
11.2 Section 69 (2) of Indian Partnership Act 1932 reads as "no suit arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the person suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firm as partners in the firm."
11.3 In his evidentiary affidavit PW1 Sh. Lalit Mittal, who is one of the partners of the plaintiff firm has deposed that at the time of filing of present suit, he was the partner of plaintiff firm and was duly authorized to institute the suit, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of plaintiff vide authorization letter Ex.PW1/1. PW1 also placed on record copy of registration certificate of its firm wherein name of three persons namely Sh. L.N Mittal, Sh. Bindu Jain and Sh.
Rohit Singhal are mentioned as partners of M/s D.V Mittal and Company. Said document is copy of Form-A bearing no.552 dated 12.06.2012. As per record, the suit was instituted in the month of July, 2012. The evidence of PW1 dated 30.07.2018 vide which he tendered his evidentiary affidavit in court has been perused. The registration certificate filed on record was only the photocopy hence, at the time of tendering of affidavit of PW1, said document was marked only as Mark A for non production of original.
CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.8 of 36 Digitally signed SUNENA by SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:28:46 +0530 11.4 However, at the stage of final arguments, an application under
order 7 rule 14 CPC was moved by plaintiff for filing original Form A and Form B, and the same was allowed by this court vide order dated 31.03.2021. While allowing said application, plaintiff was also given opportunity to lead additional evidence to prove said documents by calling the original record from office of Registrar of Firms.
11.5 PW2, Sh. Kuldeep, UDC from office of Registrar of Firms & Societies, District North West, Kanjhawala, brought the original record. As per deposition of witness as per their office record, D.V.Mittal was a registered partnership firm w.e.f 12.06.2012 11.6 It has been argued on behalf of plaintiff that in the cross- examination of PW1, no suggestion was put to deny plaintiff's claim that at the time of institution of suit, plaintiff firm was duly registered with the Registrar of Firm vide registration certificate Mark A. The defendant has not put any suggestion to deny the genuineness of Mark A wherein the name LM Mittal, who is PW1 finds mention at serial no.1 as one of the partners of plaintiff firm. It is argued that at the time of filing of suit, PW1 Lalit Mittal used to write his name as L.M Mittal. Counsel further submitted that as such, there was no substantial denial as to the genuineness of document except that PW2 had brought the attested copies of said documents bearing attestation of 11.10.2012. Counsel said after registration, the original Forms were handed over to plaintiff firm, which were duly proved on record as Ex PW2/A (Form-A) and ExPW2/B (Form- B).
11.7 I have carefully perused the record which shows that said document ie. copy of Registration certificate of plaintiff firm and bunch of some emails exchanged between parties during relevant period were filed on record by the plaintiff alongwith the replication. However, subsequently, an application u/o 7 rule 14 (3) CPC was moved by plaintiff for seeking permission for placing said documents on record. Said application moved by plaintiff was allowed by the court vide order dated 10.08.2016. Later on, DW1 Hirdesh Sharma, filed his affidavit of admission and denial of the document on 22.5.2017 and in said CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.9 of 36 Digitally signed SUNENA by SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:29:01 +0530 affidavit, all the said documents filed alongwith the replication vide index dated 24.08.2013, were denied by the defendants as being photocopies/otherwise.
11.8 However, during course of trial, said documents were filed in original and also duly proved on record as Ex PW2/A (Form-A) and ExPW2/B (Form-B).
11.9 I may mention here that photocopy of any document can be admitted in evidence only subject to fulfillment of conditions enumerated in section 65 of Indian Evidence Act. In view of section 65 of Indian evidence Act, where a document is public document, certified copy of the same can be led as a secondary evidence. However, in the instant case, plaintiff has led primary evidence by filing the original documents on record and also proved them in accordance with law. In view of said circumstances, plaintiff has successfully proved on record said documents in accordance with law by leading primary evidence.
11.10 In the light of above evidence, the pre requisite condition of section 69 (2) of Indian Partnership Act, which prohibits an unregistered partnership firm from suing any third party to raise a claim based on a contract, stands duly ful-filled. As regards alleged cutting on document Ex.PW2/A is concerned, I may note that same appears to be there in the date of joining of Partners in plaintiff firm. But indisputably, the plaintiff firm was registered with Registrar of Firms on 12.06.2012 and there is no overwriting or cutting in said date. The suit was instituted in July,2012 i.e subsequent to said date of registration, and as on that date, the name of L.M Mittal is reflected as one of the partners of said firm. Hence, I do not find any merits in this objection raised against genuineness of said document.
11.11 In view of the aforementioned discussion, I reach to the conclusion that the plaintiff has successfully proved that plaintiff firm being duly registered with Registrar of Firms on date of filing of suit, was entitled to file present suit. The issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
Digitally signed by SUNENA SUNENA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03
13:29:14 +0530
CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.10 of 36
ISSUE NO.2
Whether the person who has filed the present suit, has the authority to file the suit on behalf of the plaintiff? OPD.
12. The onus of proving said issue is upon the defendants. In written statement, defendants have taken a specific objection that the authorization letter in favour of Lalit Mittal through whom suit has been filed, is an invalid document. Authorization letter was filed by the plaintiff alongwith plaint and same was also denied by the defendants in the affidavit of admission and denial. Said authorization letter has been mentioned as Ex.PW1/1 in the evidentiary affidavit of PW1 wherein he has deposed that he was partner of plaintiff firm at the time of filing of suit and was duly authorized by the plaintiff to initiate legal proceedings, sign and verify pleadings and take necessary steps against the defendants vide authorization letter Ex.PW1/1. As per section 69 (2) Indian Partnership Act, a suit on behalf of registered firm can be filed only by the person whose name is shown as partner of said firm in the register of firms. It is contended that in the document Ex PW2/A, the name of L. M Mittal is reflected as one of the partners of said firm, while the suit has been filed by Lalit Mittal who is not the same person whose name is reflected in the register of firms. Therefore, the suit has not been filed by an authorized person. Ld Counsel has also drawn attention of this court to the cross examination of PW1 where suggestions in this regard have been put to PW1 though same were denied as incorrect.
12.1 Here, I may mention that section 69 (2) of Indian Partnership Act lays down two pre conditions for maintaining a suit filed by a partnership firm against a third party for raising any claim arising out of a contract. First condition is that the partnership firm shall be registered with the registrar of Firms and second is that the person suing on behalf of partnership firm shall be shown as one of the partners in the record of Registrar of Firm. The document relied upon by the plaintiff to prove both the said conditions is Ex PW2/A. In view of my finding on issue no.1, the said document has been duly proved in accordance with law by the plaintiff and hence, this issue is also liable to be CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.11 of 36 Digitally signed by SUNENA SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:29:26 +0530 decided in favour of plaintiff and against defendant. Defendants have failed to adduce any evidence to show that Lalit Mittal and L.M.Mittal are two different persons as alleged, whereas, the suggestions put to PW1 in this regard were categorically denied by him. In cross examination PW1 has emphatically deposed that the name L.M.Mohan written at serial no. 1 of Mark-A (ExPW2/A) was his name as his full name was Lalit Mohan Mittal and at the time of filing of the suit, he used to write his name as L.M.Mittal. Said testimony has remained unrebutted from defendant side.
12.2 In view of above discussion, issue no.2 is also decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.3 Whether this court has a territorial jurisdiction to decide and dispose off the suit of the plaintiff?
OPP.
13. The onus of proving this issue was upon the plaintiff. As per plaintiff's case, the registered office of defendant no.1 was at K-39, Connaught Circus, New Delhi which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and besides this even the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court because, the loan was sanctioned in favour of defendant no. 1 by SBI, Overseas Bank branch at Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. As per the plaintiff's case the professional fees @0.9% was payable to plaintiff on the sanctioned loan amount and plaintiff's services were hired by defendants for sanction of said loan from a reputed bank, pursuant to which plaintiff had processed the matter with the SBI Overseas Bank branch at Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, from where credit facility was finally sanctioned in favour of defendant no. 1.
13.1 In this regard, plaintiff has placed on record various correspondences exchanged between said branch of SBI and plaintiff. The sanction letter Ex.PW1/4 dated 13.08.2010 of SBI addressed to Managing Director, UFI Filters India Pvt ltd, which is an undisputed document, also shows CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.12 of 36 Digitally signed by SUNENA SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:29:39 +0530 that the same was issued from aforementioned branch, falling within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.
13.2 It is also noteworthy that the defendants have neither disputed that the registered office of defendant no.1 was situated at Connught Circus, New Delhi nor that the branch of SBI bank from where the loan was sanctioned in favour of defendant no.1 was at Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, by virtue of Section 20 (a) & (c) of CPC, this court does have the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain present suit. This issue is accordingly, decided in favour of plaintiff against the defendants.
ISSUE no.4 Whether there is any valid binding contract between the plaintiff and defendants no.1? OPP ISSUE NO.5 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of an amount of Rs.39,88,931/- alongwith interest?
OPP
14. In the instant case, the onus to prove both the above issues was upon the plaintiff. The two issues have been taken together as they are interconnected and common evidence has been adduced by the parties on the same. In order to prove said issues, plaintiff examined PW1 Lalit Mittal who is one of the partners of plaintiff firm. PW1 filed examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. As per the deposition of PW1, defendant no.1 is the Indian manifestation of UFI group which is a well known international group having its head office at Italy, interalia engaged in the business of manufacturing various kind of filters. Defendant no.2 is the chief financial officer (CFO) of UFI group whereas, defendant no.3 is the Chief Financial officer (CFO) of defendant no.1. Defendant no. 4 is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of defendant no. 1. PW1 further deposed that in order to expand business in India, UFI group had decided that defendant no.1, who was initially raising finance secured by 100% CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.13 of 36 Digitally signed by SUNENA SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:29:49 +0530 Standby Letters of Credit issued by UFI group, should raise finances locally in India so that the 'Standby Letters of Credit' of UFI group did not get blocked due to investments made in defendant no.1 and therefore, defendant no.1 through defendant no.2 to 4 had approached plaintiff in August 2009 for their professional services for the project financing and loan appraisal to the tune of Rs.30 Crores for defendant no.1.
14.1 PW1 deposed further that discussions were held between plaintiff and defendant no.2&3 regarding project of defendant no.1 and plaintif was assured to be paid the professional fees. Further that, as per the feedback of defendant no.2 about the project financing and loan appraisal of defendant no.1, defendant no.1 could get the credit facility from a reputed nationalized bank with limited 'Standby Letter of Credit' of UFI group. PW1 further deposed that plaintiff agreed to take 0.9% of the sanctioned amount as professional charges from defendant no.1, and defendant no.2 to 4 agreed for the same. Further that, subsequently the service charges of the plaintiff were increased to 1% as the defendants changed their expected terms for loan, which led to several rounds of negotiations with the bank. PW1 further stated that as per the common business norms and practice, plaintiff initially claimed 50% of the professional charges as advance at the time of commencement of the work in November 2009, which the defendants though promised to pay in due course but, no amount was actually paid by the defendants. Further that on the basis of assurance, representations and promises made by the defendants, plaintiff however, started working on assignment of the defendants and prepared a detailed project report for defendant no.1.
14.2 Further as per deposition of PW1, several rounds of extensive meeting and negotiations were carried out by plaintiff with different financial institutions and finally plaintiff got sanctioned a credit limit of Rs.30,10,00000/- for defendant no.1 from SBI, Overseas branch Jawahar Vyapyar Bhawan 1, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. PW1 further deposed that plaintiff conveyed the defendants about sanction of said credit limit and asked them for payment of its professional charges but the defendant started avoiding plaintiff on one or other pretext. Thereafter, plaintiff raised the bill dated 15.10.2010 for the sum of Rs.
CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.14 of 36 Digitally signed SUNENA by SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:30:04 +0530
33,09,000/- on defendant no.1 towards professional charges but even after receiving the same, defendants failed, refused and neglected to make the payment. As per deposition of PW1, plaintiff thereafter, sent a legal notice dated 05.02.2011 and called upon the defendants to make the payment within 15 days but, despite receipt of said notice, defendants failed to make any payment.
14.3 It was further deposed by PW1 that plaintiff had sent various e-mails to defendants for asking them to provide documents/data for processing their request for credit facility and in pursuance to that defendant company had sent various e-mails to answer the queries raised by the plaintiff from time to time. Further, it was testified that all the negotiations regarding finalization of the credit facility to defendant and payment towards professional charges were made through e-mails and infact, e-mails were also exchanged between SBI and the plaintiff regarding proposed facility of defendant no.1. In the affidavit, PW1 has relied upon the project report as Ex.PW1/3, the sanction letter of SBI dated 13.08.2010 as Ex.PW1/4, the invoice/bill dated 15.10.2010 as Ex.PW1/5 and the various e-mails exchanged between plaintiff and defendants as well as with SBI during the period between 06.10.2009 till 15.10.2010 exhibited as EX.PW1/6(colly) at the time of tendering of affidavit. The certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act in support of computer generated records/documents is Ex.PW1/6.
14.4 PW1 was duly cross examined by defendants' counsel. In the cross- examination, PW1 deposed further that plaintiff had got the approval of credit facility for defendant no.1 from the bank upon the verbal instructions of defendant no.2 to 4. He deposed further that there was no authorization provided to plaintiff by defendant no.2 to 4 before giving said verbal instructions on behalf of defendant no.1. PW1 voluntarily deposed that being the CFO of the company, it was presumed that they had the authority to instruct in that regard. PW1 further deposed that defendant no.2 to 4 had given personal guarantee for payment of the professional fees of the plaintiff at the time when they had given the verbal mandate to get said facility from the bank.
Digitally signed by SUNENA SUNENA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2022.02.03
13:30:31 +0530
CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.15 of 36 14.5 PW1 testified further in his cross that defendant no.2 to 4 had met him personally at their factory at Bawal at the time of starting the deal for defendant no.1. PW1 further deposed that at the time of said meeting with them (defendant no.2 to 4), he had informed about the fees of the plaintiff as 0.9% of the sanctioned amount but, he (PW1) did not ask for any written confirmation in respect of said mandate to secure credit facility for defendant no.1 or for personal guarantee of defendant no.2 to 4 for the payment of plaintiff's dues. PW1 further deposed that in response to plaintiff's email dated 16.11.2009 whereby he had informed defendant no.3 about the professional charges of plaintiff, defendant no.1 had sent all the documents sought by plaintiff vide said email dated 16.11.2009, so as to make it obvious that defendants had agreed to the fees of 0.9% of the sanctioned amount. PW1 further deposed that said email dated 17.11.2009 in response to email dated 16.11.2009 was sent by defendant no.3 on behalf of defendant no.1.
14.6 PW1 deposed further that he had been exchanging emails with defendant no.1 through defendant no.3, who was the CFO of defendant no.1. PW1 categorically denied the suggestion that neither defendant no.2 nor defendant no.3 nor any other defendant had given any confirmation vide email dated 17.11.2009 or any other email. PW1 deposed further that had it been so, then they (defendants) would have sent the decline mail whereas, they had sent all the required documents as asked in email. PW1 categorically denied that defendant no.3, who was dealing with him (PW1) was never authorized by defendant no. 1 at any point of time and deposed further that many a times communication were also made with defendant no. 2 who had also visited SBI branch with defendant no.3 after the sanction of loan. PW1 denied that defendant no.2 to 4 were never authorized by defendant no.1 at any point of time. PW1 reiterated that defendant no.3, being the CFO of company and defendant no. 2, being the CFO of UFI group, were duly authorized. PW1 denied that defendant no.2 to 4 being only the officials/employees of the company were not authorized/empowered to give any mandate to the plaintiff in respect of the loan facility. Digitally signed SUNENA by SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:30:43 +0530 CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.16 of 36 14.7 PW1 deposed further that had it been the case, defendant no.1 should not have provided all the documents which it had given to plaintiff through defendant no.2 and 3 for sanction of credit facility. He denied the suggestion that defendant no.1 had never supplied any documents to plaintiff or that any document supplied by defendant no.3 was not done on behalf of defendant no.1 PW1 further deposed that he had supplied Mark B (project report) to defendant no.1 and 3 and also handed over them the physical copy of said report. He denied the suggestion that Mark B was never prepared by defendant no.1 or that it was never supplied to them. PW1 voluntarily added that if no such project report had been prepared then SBI would have never sanctioned the loan. He further deposed that professional charges were to be paid after sanction of credit facility and defendant no.1 to 4 were duly informed about the same.
14.8 In his cross examination, PW1 deposed further that though plaintiff had asked for 50% of the professional fees in advance but same was not agreeable to defendant no.1 to 4 and therefore, professional fees was made payable only after sanction of credit facility. He deposed further that no invoice was raised in respect of 50% of advance fee upon the defendants. Further that no time line was fixed to get the loan facility done. Further as per PW1, the mandate to get said credit facility was not for any specific financial institution. Further that for securing credit facility for defendant no.1, he/PW1 had facilitated with HSBC bank and SBI and had extensive meeting with the officials of said bank alongwith defendant no.2 to 4 in the factory of defendant no.1 at Bawal as well as in respective branches of HSBC and SBI in the year 2009. PW1 categorically denied that since approximately one year was taken for sanction of credit facility, therefore, the very purpose to get the sanction was defeated.
14.9 PW1 denied the suggestion that sanction of credit facility was done by the defendants on their own without any help of plaintiff. PW1 further denied the suggestion that since defendant no.1 never availed the sanctioned credit facility, therefore, defendants were not liable to pay any amount to plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that as per the sanction letter, initially only Rs. 17,60,00,000/- was to be released. He deposed further that except email dated CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.17 of 36 Digitally signed SUNENA by SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:30:57 +0530 16.11.2009, he did not have any other document to show that defendants had agreed to give professional charges upon sanction of credit facility. PW1 admitted the suggestions that plaintiff did not exchange any email with defendant no.2 before August 2010; and that he never exchanged any email with defendant no.1 and that defendant no.2 vide email dated 07.09.2010, informed plaintiff that nothing was due to them as they had not availed even a penny from SBI. PW1, however, categorically denied the suggestions that defendant no.1, 2 and 4 had no role to play in getting the credit facility sanctioned through the plaintiff; and that defendant no.3 had been exchanging documents with the plaintiff without any authority from defendant no.1; and that defendant no.2 had never visited the SBI with PW1.
14.10 In response to a suggestion that defendant no.3 was exchanging documents with plaintiff without any authority of defendant no.1, PW1 further deposed that had that been the case, there would have been no occasion for forwarding the e-mails exchanged between defendant no.2 and defendant no.3, to the plaintiff. PW1 admitted the suggestion that vide email dated 02.08.2010, defendant no.2 informed that no proposal from SBI would be accepted/approved without approval of the President of the group. PW1 also admitted that Mark C (the invoice) was never sent to defendant no.1 and deposed that same had been sent to defendant no.2 as well as to the President of UFI group vide email dated 15.10.2010. He denied the suggestion that no attachment was sent with email dated 15.10.2010 to defendant no.2 or President of UFI group and reiterated that invoice had been attached.
14.11 In answer to the question as to whether PW1 has any document to show any request made to defendant to raise demand of payment after sending Mark C, PW1 replied that there was no such document, though he (PW1) had requested for the same to defendant no.2 and to the group President in September 2010. He further deposed he had verbally asked for the payment of said invoice Mark C from defendant no.1, 2 and 4. He denied the suggestion no such payment was asked from defendants at any point of time. PW1 referred to email dated 15.10.2010 regarding invoice sent to group CFO filed on record. PW1 admitted that neither legal notice mentioned in para no.12 of his affidavit CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.18 of 36 Digitally signed by SUNENA SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:31:10 +0530 nor its postal receipts were part of court record but he denied that said legal notice dated 05.02.2011 was never sent to defendants.
14.12 He denied the suggestion that defendants were not liable to make payment in respect of Mark C; or that defendant company never exchanged any email with plaintiff; or that defendant company never authorized defendant no.2 to 4 to give any mandate to plaintiff; or that Directors of defendant no.1 had never passed any authorization in favour defendant no.2 to 4 for availing credit facility for defendant no.1 through plaintiff; or that defendant no.2 to 4 had never given their personal guarantee in respect of professional charges of plaintiff; or that defendant no.1, 2 and 4 were not liable to pay any amount to plaintiff on account of non availing of sanctioned credit facility; or that any emails if exchanged by defendant no.3 were exchanged in his personal capacity. PW1 categorically denied the suggestion that emails Ex.PW1/6 (colly) were fabricated. He further denied the suggestion certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as well as the emails Ex.PW1/6 (colly) were not genuine documents or that defendant no.1, 2 and 4 had never given any specific instruction to plaintiff as stated in para 18 of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. PW1 also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that his entire evidence was based on concocted averments.
15. In order to rebut the plaintiff's case, defendants also examined one witness Sh. Hirdesh Sharma as DW1. In the plaint, DW1 Hirdesh Sharma, has been arrayed as defendant no.4. DW1 deposed that he was the CEO and one of the directors of defendant no.1 company and had personal knowledge about the present matter and was well conversant with facts and circumstances of the case. As per his deposition, there was no agreement between the parties for the plaintiff to base or raise any claim of professional fees against defendant no.1. DW1 further deposed that plaintiff was not entitled to receive any amount from defendants as alleged in the suit. As per his (DW1) deposition, there were certain discussion between the parties for sanction of loan from the bank but, said discussion never culminated into agreement of any kind and loan services from SBI were never availed by defendant no.1 at any point of time.
Digitally signed by SUNENA SUNENA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03
13:31:25 +0530
CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.19 of 36
15.1 DW1 further deposed that defendant no.1 independently on their
own sought approval/sanction of SBI for loan of Rs.30,00,000/- without availing any services from the plaintiff and plaintiff had no role to play in the entire process of seeking approval and sanction of facility from the bank. DW1 deposed that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of defendant, plaintiff could not raise any claim in any manner whatsoever against defendant no.4 because, the loan had been sanctioned in favour of defendant no.1 and defendant no.4 was only the authorized representative/employee of defendant no.1 and therefore, defendant no.4 could not be held personally liable in any manner for any alleged liability of defendant no.1. He further deposed that defendant no.3 was not in employment of defendant no.1 since 24.09.2010 and as such, he (defendant no.3) was not authorized to act on behalf of defendant no.1 or to enter in any contract with plaintiff on behalf of defendant no.1. He further deposed that it was plaintiff who had approached defendant no.1 with the proposal to give assistance to defendant no.1 for availing loan services from a reputed bank and some discussions also took place between plaintiff and defendant but, said discussion never culminated into any agreement as alleged or otherwise nor any services were availed from plaintiff by defendant no.1 as alleged.
15.2 DW1 further deposed that no correspondence were ever exchanged between plaintiff and defendant no.1 or defendant no.4 and for any correspondence exchanged between plaintiff and defendant no. 3, the other defendants could not be held responsible much less the defendant no.1. Further that defendant no.3 was never authorized by defendant no.1 to deal with plaintiff. He further deposed that defendant no.1, 2 or 4 had never agreed for payment of purported professional charges to the plaintiff nor any such discussion ever took place between plaintiff and defendants nor defendant no.2 or 4 ever undertook any personal guarantees for payment of any such charges as alleged by the plaintiff. He further deposed that purported project report was a fabricated report/document as the same was never prepared at the behest of defendant no.1, 2 or 4. DW1 further deposed that defendant no.1 had never availed any loan sanctioned by SBI, therefore, on this count also neither defendant no.1 nor any of the other defendants were under any obligation to CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.20 of 36 Digitally signed by SUNENA SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:31:39 +0530 pay alleged professional fees to the plaintiff as claimed in the present suit. He also denied to have received any legal notice or invoice from plaintiff either by himself or by defendant no.1 and 2 at any point of time.
15.3 DW1 was extensively cross-examined by the plaintiff. In cross- examination, DW1 deposes further that he joined defendant no.1 in the year 2007 as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and continued to hold the same position till date. He deposes further that defendant no.1 was incorporated in the year 2006 and started its commercial sale in March 2008. Further that defendant no.1 was wholly subsidiary company of UFI filter SPA (parent company) and he (DW1) used to report to managing director of parent company. DW1 further deposed that defendant no.2 was the Finance Head of parent company in the year 2009-2010 and Chief Finance Officer (CFO) of defendant no.1 (i.e defendant no.3 herein) was reporting to him (DW1) for administrative purposes while for technical issues, CFO of defendant no.1 was reporting to defendant no.2. He further deposes that for CFO, the technical issues would be relating to the finances of the company such as accounting and raising finance for the company. Further he deposes that at the time of sanction of credit facility to defendant no.1 by SBI vide Ex. PW1/4, defendant no.3 then CFO of defendant no.1 company was dealing with SBI on behalf of defendant no.1.
15.4 DW1 was further put a question as to whether he had gone through any document/correspondence that defendant no.1 had with SBI to get the above-said loan sanctioned in the year 2008-2010 and in answer to said question, DW1 deposed that he could check the record of the defendant no.1 and would produce such document/correspondence, if any available with defendant no.1. Pursuant to said answer of DW1, his cross-examination was deferred with direction to the witness to bring relevant documents on next date. On next date i.e. on 03.10.2019, DW1 again stepped into the witness box and deposed that as regard the document sought from him during his last cross- examination, he could only find the emails exchanged between defendant no.2 and defendant no.3 pertaining to proposed loan sought to be sanctioned from SBI for defendant no.1 and said emails are already part of court record marked as Ex. PW1/6 (Colly) at page no.13 which was marked as Mark X. He deposed CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.21 of 36 Digitally signed by SUNENA SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:32:02 +0530 further that he could not find any correspondence between defendant no.3 and SBI as there was a virus attack in the computer/email system of defendant no.1/company and all the old email record had become corrupt.
15.5 DW1 further stated that the above referred email marked as Mark X had been procured from head office Italy. He admitted the suggestion that email [email protected] was the official email ID of defendant no.3 i.e. CFO of defendant no.1. As per the deposition of DW1, defendant no.3 had been fired by defendant no.1 before institution of present case, therefore, there was no occasion for DW1 to speak to defendant no.3 after going through the documents filed by plaintiff in the present case. He deposed that no inquiry had been conducted into the allegations raised against defendant no.3 pursuant to which he was retrenched from services. He denied the suggestion that defendant no.3 had simply resigned from defendant no.1 or that there were no allegations raised against him (defendant no.3). He further deposed that defendant no.1/company used to engage services by issuing work orders signed by him (DW1) and since he (DW1) had not issued any work order in favour of plaintiff, therefore, he could say that plaintiff had never been authorized by defendant no.1/company.
15.6 In answer to the question, what action did the defendant no.1 take against plaintiff, defendant no.3 or SBI for passing on various vital information regarding defendant no.1, the witness deposed that they had not taken any action either against plaintiff or against SBI and except firing defendant no.3, no punitive action was taken against defendant no.3. He denied the suggestion that no action was taken against them as they were working as per the mandate/instructions of defendant no.1 and 2. He further deposed that for authorizing plaintiff to work on behalf of defendant no.1, defendant no.3 was fired.
15.7 As per DW1, he came to know about the fact that plaintiff was working on behalf of defendant no.1 only in September 2010 when defendant no.2 visited India in that connection. He further deposed that he was never aware about alleged visit of defendant no.2 to SBI with the plaintiff. He denied that he was deliberately feigning ignorance about said meeting. He further CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.22 of 36 Digitally signed SUNENA by SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:32:18 +0530 deposed that based on his discussion with defendant no.2, he (DW1) could say that defendant no.2 never assured plaintiff for any payment of fee. He denied the suggestion that defendant no.2 or he himself (DW1) had assured for payment of fee to plaintiff. He admitted suggestion that defendant no.1/company intended to raise funds from the financial institution during relevant period of 2009-2010.
15.8 DW1 admitted the suggestion that defendant no.3 was authorized to interact with various financial institutions to raise funds for defendant no.1. He deposed further that he (DW1) was aware that SBI had sanctioned the loan to defendant no.1. He deposed further that loan facility from SBI however, was not availed by defendant no.1 after assessment of the same by the Board of parents company. He denied the suggestion that plaintiff worked on behalf of defendant no.1 on the instructions of defendant no.1/company or that defendant no.2 being the finance head of the parents company duly assured for payment of fee to the plaintiff. He admitted the suggestion that plaintiff was working on behalf of defendant no.1. He however, denied that plaintiff was so authorized by defendant no.1 or that defendant no.3 being CFO of defendant no.1 company was duly authorized to engage the services of plaintiff or to commit for payment of professional fee of the plaintiff on behalf of defendant no.1.
15.9 DW1 admitted the suggestion that it was the internal business of defendant no.1 to hire or fire any employee like defendant no.3 and any outsider had no role to play in that regard. He admitted the suggestion that plaintiff firm had raised its invoice upon defendant no.1 but he was not aware whether invoice was forwarded to defendant no.2 nor he was personally aware whether said invoice was even received by defendant no.1. He further admitted the suggestion that defendant no.2 disputed the payment of fees on behalf of defendant no.1 to the plaintiff and defendant no.2 had also sent one of the emails in that regard. Pursuant to said answer, DW1 was asked that wouldn't it automatically mean that defendant no.2 had received the invoice of the plaintiff to which witness answered that he could not infer the same.
Digitally signed SUNENA by SUNENA
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03
13:32:34 +0530
CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.23 of 36
15.10 In answer to the question, why defendant no.2 had not appeared as
witness in this case to defend himself or to defend defendant no.1, witness replied that he (DW1) was authorized to depose on behalf of defendant no.1 but was not authorized by any document to depose on behalf of defendant no.2. DW1 denied the suggestion that DW2 did not step into the witness box as he accepted all the averments of the plaint against defendant no.1 and 2. He denied the suggestion the plaintiff was entitled to the sum of Rs.39,88,931/- from the defendants or to any interest thereon. DW1 denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
16. From the pleadings and aforementioned evidence on record, it is an undisputed position that plaintiff and defendants had entered into some discussion for the purpose of availing loan facility for defendant no.1 through some reputed bank. Here, I may refer to examination in chief of DW1 wherein, he deposed that certain discussions between the parties for sanction of loan for defendant no.1 from some bank took place but, said discussion never culminated in any sort of agreement. As per deposition of DW1, it was plaintiff who had approached defendant no.1 with the proposal to give assistance to defendant no.1 for availing loan services but no services were actually availed from the plaintiff by defendant no.1 in any manner. He further deposed that no correspondences were exchanged between and plaintiff and defendant no.1 or between plaintiff or defendant no.4 and for the correspondences, if any exchanged between plaintiff and defendant no.3, the other defendants could not be held liable as defendant no.3 was never authorized by defendant no.1 to deal with plaintiff. DW1 further deposed that the purported project report allegedly prepared by defendant no.1 was a fabricated report and same was never prepared at the behest of defendant no.1 or defendant no.4.
16.1 It is also an admitted position on record that the State Bank of India (SBI) vide letter dated 13.08.2010, which is available on record as Ex.PW1/4 had sanctioned the credit facility in favour of defendant no.1. In the written statement defendants have claimed that without availing the services of plaintiff, defendant no.1 had independently sought approval/sanction from the CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.24 of 36 Digitally signed SUNENA by SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:32:56 +0530 bank SBI for a loan facility of Rs.30 crores and plaintiff had no role to play in securing said sanction for defendant no.1 .
16.2 On the other hand, it is vehemently argued on behalf of plaintiff that pursuant to an oral agreement between plaintiff and defendant no.1 through defendant no. 3 (CFO of defendant no.1), plaintiff had pursued the matter with different banks for sanction of loan in favour of defendant no.1 and several rounds of negotiations took place with different banks as well as the defendants and thereafter, on the basis of various details sought from defendants from time to time, plaintiff prepared a detailed project report of defendant no.1 which was finally submitted with the bank. And only after considering said project report, finally SBI bank sanctioned the loan/credit facility in favour of defendant no.1.
16.3 It is further vehemently argued that under Indian Contract, an oral agreement is equally valid and enforceable in law. In the instant case, oral agreement was entered into plaintiff and defendant no.1 company through its Chief Financial Officer, defendant no.3 and existence of said agreement can easily be inferred from various written communication exchanged between the parties. In this regard, attention was drawn to the email letter dated 16.11.2009 written by plaintiff to CFO of defendant no. 1, Manish Nagar i.e defendant no.3 at his official email address [email protected]. Counsel says that vide said letter, plaintiff had referred to their earlier discussions through which it was finalized between plaintiff and defendant no.3 that the professional charges of plaintiff would be 0.9% of sanctioned limit plus service tax for proposal of credit facility of Rs. 27 crores. Vide same very letter, defendant no.3 Manish Nagar was further asked for supplying the certain documents for the appraisal of the bank. Since said letter has been relied upon as the very basis of alleged oral agreement between the parties, I deem it appropriate to reproduce the same and same reads as under:
From: DV MITTAL ([email protected]) To: [email protected];
Date: Mon, 16 November, 2009 11:42:30 AM Cc:
Subject: Re: Credit Facilities of Rs.27 crores Dear Manish, CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.25 of 36 Digitally signed SUNENA by SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:33:12 +0530 Following documents are required by the bank for appraisal.
1. Previous 3 years Balance Sheets
2. Current Year Provisionals
3. Detail of the New Project Also, as finalized between us our professional charges will be 0.90% of sanctioned limit + service tax extra, for this proposal of the credit facilities of Rs.27 crores.
Lalit Mittal D.V.Mittal & Co.
Chartered Accountants 16.4 In response of above-mentioned letter dated 16.11.2009, CFO, defendant no.3 Manish Nagar vide email dated 17.11.2009 provided the plaintiff with all the list of machineries planned for the project of defendant no. 1 and also attached therewith 3 files for giving the details of the documents asked for by the plaintiff in its previous letter dated 16.11.2009. There is another e-mail communication dated 26.11.2009, vide which auditor's report for the year 2009 was also supplied to the plaintiff by defendant no.3. Plaintiff has also placed on record email letters dated 10.12.2009, 31.12.2009 and 30.01.2010, written by plaintiff to defendant no.3 for providing plaintiff various other details mentioned in the letters. In the letter dated 30.1.2010, defendant no.3 provided all the requisite details to the plaintiff as per plaintiff's request for enabling it to process defendants' case for sanction of loan in favour of defendant no.1. Even letter dated 20.02.2010 and 24.02.2010, clearly shows that defendant no.3 had been regularly providing all the documents and details to the plaintiff for sanction of the loan facility for defendant no.1.
16.5 Further, it is evident from the e-mail dated 25.02.2010 written by plaintiff to Sh. Ravinder Mishra of SBI that plaintiff had been supplying the requisite information and documents to SBI bank after collecting the same from defendant no.3. There is also an email from Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma of UFI Filter India Pvt ltd. i.e. defendant no.1 to the plaintiff for providing capital advance details of December 2008 and 2009 and copy of same was also forwarded to defendant no.3. The email dated 08.04.2010 from plaintiff to defendant no.3 is for asking some more documents like bio-date of Manish Nagar and Hirdesh Sharma i.e. defendant no.3 and 4 herein, certain quotations CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.26 of 36 Digitally signed by SUNENA SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:33:24 +0530 for the machines to be ordered and names of the supplier under consideration, estimated value of machines, land papers like allotment letter and agreement etc. In response to said letter, plaintiff was sent CV of both two persons Manish Nagar and Hirdesh Sharma vide email dated 10.04.2010. Vide email letter dated 17.04.2010 and 27.04.2010, plaintiff forwarded letter from SBI bank received by plaintiff for asking certain more details about defendant no.1. Pursuant to said communications, defendant no.3 sent audited balance-sheet of defendant no.1 to the plaintiff. Vide another letter 03.5.2010, plaintiff was further supplied with the certificate of BNP Paribas, Corporate and Investment Banking whereby said bank certified that defendant no.1 had been maintaining satisfactory current account with them since 04.04.2007.
16.6 There is another letter dated 10.05.2010 written by SBI bank to the plaintiff vide which the plaintiff was provided with the terms and conditions proposed for UFI Filter Pvt Ltd. with the rider that final terms and conditions applicable would be those approved by sanctioning authority. The Said letter was forwarded by plaintiff to the mail address of defendant no.3. Even subsequently, plaintiff sent various documents received from SBI to the defendant no.3 with a request to fill the details in document and send them back to plaintiff. Even letter dated 20.05.2010 from plaintiff to defendant no.3 and the reply of defendant no.3 to said letters on the very same date makes it very clear that defendant no.3 was constantly pursuing the matter with plaintiff and plaintiff in turn was pursuing it with SBI for sanction of loan facility in favour of defendant no.1.
16.7 The trail of mail exchanged between plaintiff and defendant no.3 and between plaintiff and SBI bank has been placed on record as Ex.PW1/6 (colly) and in support of saidvcomputer generated bunch of emails, certificate of section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act has also been filed on record as Ex.PW1/6. In the entire cross-examination, except putting a bald suggestion to the effect that said documents Ex.PW1/6 (colly) & Ex.PW1/6 are fabricated documents, no other evidence has been adduced by defendants to substantiate or support said plea. Digitally signed SUNENA by SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:33:35 +0530 CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.27 of 36 16.8 The defence set up by defendants in written statement is that defendant no.3 was never authorized to hire the services of plaintiff for securing loan/credit facility for defendant no.1. It is further the defendants' plea that it is the independent efforts of defendant no.1 without any role of plaintiff that led to sanctioning of loan in favour of defendant no.1 by the SBI.
16.9 However, the aforementioned stance taken by defendants that it was their own independent efforts without any intervention of plaintiff, which led to sanction of loan in their favour, does not seem convincing for the reason during whole trial, defendants did not adduce a single document to show that they were pursuing the matter directly with SBI nor the defendants examined any witness from the bank itself to prove said fact that SBI bank was directly approached by defendants for credit facility for the defendant no. 1.
16.10 DW1 at the time of his first cross-examination on 03.08.2019, was put a question about any document/correspondence which defendant no.3 ever had with SBI to get the loan sanctioned in the year 2008-2010, to which he replied that he would bring said documents after checking record of defendant no. 1 company on next date and accordingly, his cross was deferred as he was directed to bring said documents. On 03.10.2019, the witness deposed that he could only find one email exchanged between defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 3 pertaining to the proposal of loan from SBI and said e-mail was also already part of court record marked EX.PW1/6 (colly) at page 13. The said letter is was marked as Mark X and same is reproduced hereunder as:-
From: Rinaldo Facchini (mailto:[email protected]) Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 1:37 PM To: Finance Cc: [email protected] Ect: Rif: FW: urgent information please Manish, We could rollover only first contract and get profit from the second contract; however, 3:30 p.m.italian time is ok for me. For SBI I'm still waiting for their official proposal....unless I will not receive official proposal, make examination, got approval from our President we cannot accept line of credit or other.
Thanks and Regards
Rinald
CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.28 of 36
Digitally signed by
SUNENA SUNENA
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03
13:33:56 +0530
Rinaldo Facchini
Chief Financial Officer
GGG Group
16.11 The aforementioned letter clearly shows that defendant no. 2 was
well aware about the matter being processed by defendant no. 3 with SBI bank for grant of loan. Further, vide letter dated 04.08.2010, written by Ravinder Mishra of SBI to defendant no. 3 defendant no. 3 was informed regarding the sanction of the facility subject to defendant no.1 company obtaining an external rating. Pursuant to said letter, defendant no. 3 conveyed said requirement of external rating to defendant no.2, to which defendant no. 2 replied vide email dated 02.08.2010, and informed defendant no. 3 that there was no rating for Italian companies. There is nothing on record to show that defendant no.3 was pursuing the matter with SBI directly. Whereas, plaintiff has placed on record the entire trail of mails exchanged between plaintiff and defendant no. 3 clearly showing that defendant no. 3 had been all along availing the services of plaintiff to pursue the matter with SBI for sanction of loan for defendant no.1 and from time to time he (defendant no.3) was sending all the requisite information to plaintiff to further process the matter with SBI for said purpose. There is one more letter dated 27.05.2010 (5:25:32 pm) from Vinod Kumar Sharma, who as per deposition of DW1, was working under the instructions of his boss i.e. defendant no.3. Vide said letter forming part of Ex.PW1/6 (colly), Vinod Kumar Sharma sent HSBC solvency certificate to plaintiff D.V Mittal and also sent copy of said letter to defendant no.2 Rinaldo Facchini at his mail address [email protected] as well as to defendant no.3 at his e-mail address [email protected].
16.12 Here, I may also refer to letter dated 07.09.2010, written by plaintiff to defendant no. 2 whereby, defendant no. 2 was requested to release the professional charges allegedly due to plaintiff. In said letter, it was further stated that plaintiff had been dealing on the proposal for last one year and but for the efforts of plaintiff, the defendant no.1 would have never got the loan facility sanctioned without personal guarantee/corporate guarantee in India.
However, in response to said letter, defendant no. 2 seems to have denied any liability towards plaintiff simply on the ground that no loan was actually availed CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.29 of 36 Digitally signed by SUNENA SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:34:24 +0530 from SBI by the defendants. There is nothing mentioned in said letter to show that defendants had got said sanction from SBI by their own independent efforts or without any role of plaintiff as alleged in the WS nor defendant no. 2 even took any such stand that defendant no.3 was not authorized on that behalf to avail the services of plaintiff for the purpose of securing loan for defendant no. 1. Rather said letter goes to show that said defendant tried to avoid the liability towards plaintiff on the pretext of not having actually available any loan from SBI despite sanction of said facility in favour of defendant no.1. For easy reference, said email letter of defendant no. 2 addressed to plaintiff is reproduced as under :
Subject: Rif Request
From: Rinaldo Facchini ([email protected])
To: [email protected];
CC: [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected];
Date: Tuesday, 7 September 2010 7:00 PM
Dear Mittal,
Please make reference to our conversation we had last week and make a proposal; for sure actually we didn't get even one rupia from SBI and nothing is due to your person; please keep comments like unprofessional for other situations and other comments; for the future your're kindly request to take action only with written letter.
Best Regards Rinaldo
17. A valid agreement is said to have all the essentials of a valid contract that being (1) Proposal (2) Acceptance (3) Lawful Object (4) Lawful Consideration (5) Capacity to Contract. The Indian Contract Act 1872, section 2(e), defines an agreement as "every promise and every set of promises, forming the consideration for each other is an agreement." A promise is essentially an offer or a proposal, made by a person or an entity, towards another. The assent of the other, results in the acceptance of the offer; thereby creating an agreement.
17.1 It is important to note that all contracts are valid agreements but not all agreements qualify as valid contracts. Ideally, there are two types of agreements i.e oral agreements and written agreements. Written agreements are any form of agreements, which are reduced to writing in simple composition CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.30 of 36 Digitally signed by SUNENA SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:35:16 +0530 of text, and are express in nature. Valid written agreements have a greater evidentiary value in the court of law, since it is easier to peruse and understand. Oral agreements, on the other hand, consists of words, gestures, symbols by which one party conveys a promise or a set of promises to another, which, on acceptance by the other party, becomes a valid oral agreement. They may be express or implied in nature. An oral agreement is equally valid as a written one and also legally enforceable in the court of law. The legality of an oral agreement cannot be questioned, if it falls under the ambit of the requirements stated in section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
17.2 This was substantiated by the Delhi High Court, in the case of Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Vinod Kumar Alag AIR 1991 Delhi 315, whereby the Court held that even an oral agreement can be a valid and enforceable contract. Therefore, in the strict sense, it is not essential that a contract must be in writing, unless specified by law or the parties themselves contemplate the reduction of terms of agreement to writing.
17.3 The same was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Alka Bose vs. Parmatma Devi & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 6197 OF 2000], whereby the Court held that even a sale agreement can be oral and have the same binding value and enforceability, as a written agreement. The agreement should be in tandem with the essentials listed in section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and thus, will have the equal force of evidentiary value, as a written one.
17.4 In case of S.V. Narayanaswamy vs. Savithramma 2013R.F.A. No. 1163 of 2002 c/w R.F.A.No.1164 of 2002 Karnataka High Court, the Appellant sought to prove the existence of a oral agreement, which was vehemently claimed to exist, with respect to sale of property. With the onus to prove being on the Appellant, it did so, by producing cheques of several amounts, towards the entire consideration of the property. By producing various pieces of evidence, which indicated towards a whole, the court upheld the existence of the oral agreement, based on the scrutiny of the evidence provided. Thus, oral agreements, although may sound like a bag of quagmire, CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.31 of 36 Digitally signed SUNENA by SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:35:30 +0530 can be proved in a court of law, through several circumstantial evidence. Even with several witnesses to prove the existence of an agreement, the court is often taken to task to prove and ascertain the terms and conditions of the oral agreements.
18. It is pertinent to note here that proposal or acceptance of proposal need not to be always explicit or in words. As per section (8) of Contract Act, performance of the conditions of a proposal, or the acceptance of any consideration for a reciprocal promise which may be offered with a proposal, is an acceptance of the proposal. As per section (9) of Contract Act, a proposal or acceptance of proposal may be express or implied. In this regard, I may refer to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 'M/s Forbes Gokak LTd. Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation', OMP no.306 of 2000 dated 01.02.2010, wherein, it has been held that :-
"8. A reading of Sections 8 and 9 of the Contract Act, shows that it is not necessary that a contract can be entered into only either by means of a formal contract or by a specific acceptance. Acting upon the terms as offered by one party, would also amount to entering into the contract by virtue of Section 8. Further, in terms of Section 9, the contract can be implied i.e implied by way of parties acting under the same. There is an important difference between the issue of consensus ad idem for entering into a contract and the issue of acting upon the terms offered by one party as per Section 8 although any one term is not agreed upon. This aspect has to be borne in mind while discussing this issue. Before a contract is entered into there are offers and counter-offers, and unless there is a consensus ad idem, there is no contract. This of course, is the law and there is no doubt to this proposition. However, where besides the issue of lack of consensus ad idem as to one of the terms, if, on the basis of offer made by one party, the other party acts upon the same, a contract definitely stands entered into as regards the terms acted upon by virtue of Section 8. After all, the person to whom the offer was made of performance, could have very well, in his complete freedom of action, rejected the offer and need not have acted upon the terms. However, it is not open to a person to say that he has acted upon the offer, yet, there is no concluded binding contract simply because he has written a letter stating that he does not agree to one of the terms and that thereby there was no consensus ad idem with regard to contract as a whole. In my opinion, writing a letter after acting upon an offer is not good enough to affect the finality of the contract entered into. In fact, if the contract was not to be entered into then, in terms of Section 8, the person to whom the offer was made should not have acted upon the same. Once there is acting upon the terms of the offer, simply writing a counter letter, but, also simultaneously performing the contract will not absolve the person from his legal obligations under the contract by virtue of the language of Section 8 of the Contract Act. In CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.32 of 36 Digitally signed SUNENA by SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:35:44 +0530 such cases when the contract is otherwise concluded, the effect of one of the terms being not agreed upon, will not affect the sanctity of the contract as a whole and the effect of one term being not agreed upon or being illegal as incapable of being performed will have to be tested on the principles of severability of the clause, an aspect which will be dwelt upon hereinafter."
19. Even in the instant case, had there been no acceptance on the part of defendants, there was no question of defendant no.3 answering to all the queries of plaintiff or keep providing plaintiff all the details/documents/information etc. required by plaintiff for processing defendant's case with SBI bank. There is no room for any doubt that defendant no.3, CFO of defendant no.1 company, was well aware that plaintiff had been processing defendant no1's matter with SBI for sanction of loan facility for defendant no.1 and all said information from him was collected for said purpose only. Even defendant no.2, CFO of parent company was also always kept in loop as defendant no.3 was directly reporting to defendant no.2 for all the financial issues of defendant no.1 as also admitted by DW1 during his cross-examination. The e-mail communication ExPW1/6 (colly), more particularly, the two letters dated 02.08.2010 of defendant no. 2 pursuant to plaintiff's email communication with defendant no.3 vide letter dated 31.07.2010, clearly suggests that defendant no.2 had been providing all the requisite information to defendant no.3 as per the requirement of SBI. There is no iota of evidence on record to show that defendants at any point of time were directly dealing with SBI. Whereas, plaintiff has adduced ample documentary evidence to show that for loan appraisal for defendant no.1, SBI was gathering all the information regarding defendant no.1 only through plaintiff.
19.1 In the backdrop of said circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of defendant no.1, 2 or 4 to say that defendant no.3 was not authorized by defendant no.1 to avail services of plaintiff for said purpose. Defendant no.3 was indisputably the Chief Finance Officer of defendant no.1 company and by virtue of very nature of his position in the company, he (defendant no.3) was deemed to have implied authority to take decisions in the financial matters of defendant no.1 company. A third party who is an outsider dealing with a company, is not expected to ask CFO of said company to first show him his written authorization CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.33 of 36 Digitally signed by SUNENA SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:35:55 +0530 to deal with him on behalf of company. Hence, in my considered view defendant no.1 cannot be allowed to shy away from its liability arising out of an agreement entered into by defendant no.1 with plaintiff through its CFO i.e defendant no.3 for hiring plaintiff's services for securing sanction of loan facility in favour of defendant no.1. It is interesting to note that as per DW1, defendant no.1 used to hire services by issuing work order signed by him (DW1) and since he had not issued any such work order to plaintiff, therefore, plaintiff was not authorized to work on behalf of defendant no.1. Whereas, as per his (DW1) own deposition, defendant no.3 was CFO of defendant no.1 and only for administrative purposes, he (defendant no.3) was reporting to DW1 and for all technical issues including finance matters and matters pertaining to raising loans etc, defendant no.3 was directly reporting to defendant no.2. Hence, the reason put forth by DW1 for plaintiff having been not authorized for want of his approval i.e. approval of defendant no.4, is not at all convincing.
19.2 There is one more argument raised on behalf of contesting defendants that since SBI had sanctioned the loan after about one year of defendants' request, the very purpose of sanction of loan got frustrated and that is why defendant no.1 never availed any loan/credit facility from SBI. Therefore, no liability can be fastened upon defendants to pay any professional charges to the plaintiff. However, the above contention raised by defendants also does not hold any water in as much as the loan was sanctioned by SBI on 13.08.2010 and till that time defendant no.3 was vigorously pursuing the matter with SBI through plaintiff. There is absolutely no communication from defendants' side either with SBI or with plaintiff so as to show that any time line was fixed for securing credit facility in favour of defendant no.1 or to infer that time was the essence of said contract.
19.3 As per the documentary evidence on record, matter was sincerely pursued by plaintiff throughout and time to time various information was required by SBI and same was made available to the bank by the plaintiff after collecting the same from defendant no.3, who in turn at times sought such information from CFO of parent company i.e. defendant no.2 herein, to whom CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.34 of 36 Digitally signed by SUNENA SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:36:06 +0530 defendant no.3 was directly reporting for all the financial matter of defendant no.1.
19.4 Even in aforementioned email letter dated 07.09.2010 sent to plaintiff, there is no such mention that any delay in performance of contract or delay in sanction of loan was the reason for not availing the loan facility from the bank. Whereas, PW1 in his cross-examination dated 01.05.2019, categorically deposed that there was no time line fixed to get the loan facility done and there is no rebuttal from the defendants' side to said claim of plaintiff. As per the terms of agreement as reflected in the correspondences exchanged between the parties more particularly, letter dated 16.11.2009, the plaintiff's job under the agreement was to secure sanction of loan facility in favour of defendant no.1. Accordingly, plaintiff's entitlement for professional charges became due upon the sanction of loan by SBI on 13.08.2010, irrespective of the fact whether any loan was actually taken by defendant no.1 from the bank. Hence, aforementioned plea taken by the defendants for denying the liability towards plaintiff for payment of professional fees is meritless and liable to be rejected.
20. In the light of above discussion, the probability of circumstances are in favour of the plaintiff and plaintiff has successfully proved the existence of a valid binding contract between the plaintiff and defendants no.1. Plaintiff has, however, failed to prove the alleged subsequent modification of the contract for enhancement of professional fees from 0.9% to 1%, as except the verbal deposition of PW1 there is no supporting evidence on record. In view thereof, plaintiff is only entitled for the payment @ 0.9% of the sanctioned limit of Rs.30 Crores which will come out to Rs.27,00,000/- + GST on said amount as per the terms of aforementioned contract. Plaintiff has claimed the recovery against all the defendants jointly and severally, however, on account of the fact that admittedly, the loan was sanctioned in favour of defendant no.1 company, no liability can be fastened upon the other defendants who were merely acting on behalf of defendant no.1. Further, there is no iota of evidence regarding the alleged claim of plaintiff that defendants no.2, 3 and 4 had given their personal guarantee for payment of professional fees/charges to the plaintiff.
CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.35 of 36 Digitally signed SUNENA by SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.02.03 13:36:21 +0530 20.1 In the light of aforementioned discussion, plaintiff is entitled for
recovery of Rs.27,00,000/- + GST (to be calculated as per the current prevalent rate). Since, the plaintiff has failed to prove any contract with regard to payment of interest on delayed payment, I am not inclined to award any pre suit interest in favour of the plaintiff especially when the defendant has categorically refused to have received any legal notice from the plaintiff and plaintiff has not even filed on record either original notice or its dispatch receipt during trial. In the plaint, plaintiff has also claimed pendente-lite and future interest @ 12% per annum. However, keeping into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to award 9% per annum interest on the decreetal amount from the date of institution till the realization of the same. In view of above, both the issues no.4 and 5 are accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
RELIEF
21. In the light of my above findings on the issues, suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed for a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- + GST (to be calculated as per the current prevalent rate) with pendente-lite and future interest @ 9% per annum. Cost of suit is also awarded to the plaintiff.
21.1 Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to Record
Digitally signed
Room. by SUNENA
Announced in the open court.
SUNENA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2022.02.03
13:36:32 +0530
(Sunena Sharma)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code DL00222
PHC/ND/03.02.2022
CS no.59162 of 2016 M/s D.V Mittal vs. M/s UFI Filter India Pvt Ltd. & ors. Page no.36 of 36