Delhi District Court
Gordown Woodroffe Logistics Ltd vs Sun & Moon Global Shipping Agencies Pvt. ... on 5 August, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. A.K. CHAWLA, ADJ-19 (CENTRAL),
DELHI.
Suit No. 966/08
Unique Case ID No.02401C5935532004
Gordown Woodroffe Logistics Ltd.
Through its Authorized Representative
Sh. R. Gururajan
Having its registered office at
36, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai -600 001 ..... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sun & Moon Global Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
Rimari House, A-1, Friends Colony (East)
New Delhi -110 065.
2. Able Shipping Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd.
11/13, Calicut Street,
Opposite Fort Market,
Ballard Estate,
Mumbai -400 038. ..... Defendants
Date of Institution : 01.12.2004
Date of reserving the Judgment : 24.07.2010
Date of Judgment : 05.08.2010
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of Rs.18,01,360/- (Rupees Eighteen Lacs One Thousand Three Hundred Sixty only), against the defendants jointly and severally.
2. Suit filed proceeds on the premises that the plaintiff was a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and Sh. R. Suit No.966/08 Page 1/19 Gururajan was its Power Attorney Holder. Plaintiff as well as the defendants are averred to be the Multimodal Transport Operators. It is then the case of the plaintiff, that on being approached by one of its prestigious client namely Sudarshan Overseas Ltd., an exporter, hereinafter referred to as 'the exporter', for exporting Mango pulp to various countries viz. Kuwait, Jeddah, Dammam and Singapore, the plaintiff approached the defendant No.1, a bigger Multimodal Transport Operator (MTO), to have better rates than the prevailing market rates for each container, for the various destinations. In response, the defendant No.1 is said to have quoted certain rates for the shipment to various destinations, vide fax dated 16.9.2003, a copy whereof was annexed with the plaint as Annexure-A3. In turn, the plaintiff, adding its commission, quoted the rates to 'the exporter'. After negotiations, 'the exporter' vide its fax dated 19.9.2003, is then said to have again asked for certain rates for particular destinations and the number of containers to be exported and in response thereof, the plaintiff got rates from the defendant No.1 and believing the said rates to be correct and addition its commission, quoted the rates to 'the exporter' vide letter dated 19.9.2003. Vide fax dated 23.9.2003, 'the exporter' is then said to have confirmed the rates for certain destinations, the containers required and further asked for certain details, regarding certain destinations, containers and the rates. Plaintiff is also said to have confirmed the container nos. of the destinations approved as also the shipping line, which was VISTA Lines and also gave its rates for the other destinations, which were called for, by 'the exporter'. As agreed, various transactions are said to have taken place between the exporter, the plaintiff and the defendant Suit No.966/08 Page 2/19 No.1 for shipments to destinations viz. Kuwait, Dammam and Singapore. Plaintiff then alleges that the defendant No.1 towards freight for the destination Kuwait had quoted the rate of US$ 710 per container plus other charges like terminal handling charges, bill of ladding (B/L) charges etc. and in furtherance thereof, after calculating its commission and other charges, quoted US$900 as freight charges plus other charges, to 'the exporter' and the same were accepted by 'the exporter'. According to the plaintiff, the port of discharge of such containers was Chennai. Similarly, for the shipments for Dammam, the rates quoted by the defendant No.1 were US$ 1025 as freight charges plus terminal handling charges, B/L charges etc. and accordingly, the plaintiff quoted the rates of US$ 1200 to 'the exporter', which was also duly accepted to by 'the exporter'. As for the shipment destined for Singapore, the defendant No.1 is said to have quoted US$ 225 but the plaintiff raised its bills only for the expenses, which were at actuals. It is then the case of the plaintiff that it had duly paid the bills raised on it by defendant No.1, but, inspite of the payment having been made by it, the B/Ls were not being released at their destinations and on the enquiries made by the plaintiff, defendant No.1 made excuses on one pretext or the other and brought a bad name and ill repute to the plaintiff, while the goods were perishable. On being pressurized by the plaintiff for the reasons for such delays, the defendant No.1 vide letter dated 26.9.2003, is said to have asked the plaintiff to ask 'the exporter, to make cheques in the name of defendant No.2 and at this point of time, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.1 was not directly dealing with the shipments and had engaged another MTO, who was the defendant No.2. According to the Suit No.966/08 Page 3/19 plaintiff, the B/Ls for shipment were not being released, as the payment, which was allegedly due to the defendant No.2, was not made. On enquiries, defendant No.1 is then said to have disclosed that there was difference in rates and sent the Debit Notes raised on it by defendant No.2 to the plaintiff. On the perusal thereof, the plaintiff is said to have known that the difference in rates was not minute, but beyond, double the agreed rates. As per the debit notes raised by defendant No.2 on defendant No.1, the freight charges for destination Kuwait were $1700; for destination Dammam, it were $1275; and for the destination Jeddah, it were $1350 per container. It is then alleged by the plaintiff that 'the exporter' denied making the payments for the difference and even withheld some of the bills of the plaintiff and finding no other way out, plaintiff made payment from its own pocket, so that the B/Ls could be released, as the goods were perishable. Thus, according to the plaintiff, it was coerced to make the payment to defendant No.2. According to the plaintiff, both the defendants acted arbitrarily and played fraud upon the plaintiff, to extract more money from the plaintiff and 'the exporter'. Also, according to the plaintiff, it lost its client on one side and incurred losses on account of misdeeds and unethical business transactions on the part of the defendants, on the other side. Plaintiff then also alleges that 'the exporter' not only stopped the payment of the plaintiff, it did not transact with it further. Plaintiff also alleges that whatever payments were illegally demanded by the defendants, 'the exporter' directly made the payments to the defendant No.2, as he was suffering everyday and had no other option but to make the payments, as the containers were lying at the port, attracting more expenses in terms of Suit No.966/08 Page 4/19 demurrage etc. and in the process, it subjected the plaintiff to more economical loss, as the plaintiff got deprived of its commission. According to the plaintiff, it suffered the following losses :
1 Extra payment made for 34 containers for Kuwait shipments @ Rs.12,51,200/- $800 per container.
2 Extra payment made for 22
containers for Damman Shipments Rs.75,900/-
@$75 per container.
(A) Total Rs.13,27,100/-
1 Loss of Profit on Kuwait Shipments Rs.2,97,160/-
2 Loss of Profit on Damman Shipments Rs.1,77,100/-
(B) Total Rs.4,74,260/-
Total (A) + (B) Rs.18,01,360/-
As per the plaintiff, the prevailing rate at the time of transaction was $ 1 = Rs.46. Plaintiff has also averred that the suit was within limitation, as the cause of action for filing the present suit arose in September, 2003. Suit came to be filed on 1.12.2004.
3. Defendant No.1 in the written statement filed, while denying the assertions and the allegations, alleged that the Power of Attorney dated 16.6.2003 of Sh. R. Gururajan was fabricated and not executed by a duly authorized person and no resolution dated 30.5.2001 was passed by the plaintiff and therefore, the suit was not instituted, signed Suit No.966/08 Page 5/19 and verified by an authorized person. Also, according to defendant No.1, in the business of shipping, the rates of cargo transportation change rapidly and sometimes hourly, depending upon the availability of the containers, shipping line, weight of the load to be carried, port of loading and destination, delivery terms, nature of products. Also, according to defendant No.1, the rates given to the plaintiff were general in nature and not specific, for any period or shipping line and the plaintiff had made general enquiry without specifying any time, destination or nature of cargo to be shipped and that, to the knowledge of the plaintiff, the exact rates could only be quoted after having these particulars. Also, according to defendant No.1, the said rates were not binding on the defendant No.1, as the same were given by Mr. Arshad, an employee of defendant No.1, without any authority from defendant No.1 and that, the said rates were with regard to different destinations from the port of Cochin and not ex-Chennai. Also, according to defendant No.1, even if the rates quoted by defendant No.1 in its fax dated 16.9.2003 were held to be binding on defendant No.1 (though not admitted), the same cannot be binding on defendant No.1 for any other port except when the goods were to be loaded at the port of Cochin and that, in the present case, goods were never loaded at the port of Cochin. Also, according to defendant No.1, the plaintiff's fax dated 19.9.2003 by itself made it clear that the plaintiff had not accepted the rates given by defendant No.1 and was seeking a further offer and there was no concluded contract between the parties on the basis of the rates given on 16.9.2003. Also, according to defendant No.1, it appeared that the plaintiff, M/s Sudarshan Overseas and Mr. Arshad had entered into a conspiracy to swindle money from Suit No.966/08 Page 6/19 defendant No.1 and weave a web around the defendant No.1 to entrap it and force him to pay the sum, as claimed in the suit. Defendant No.1 then alleges that it quoted its rates to the plaintiff on telephone, which are as under :
Sr. No. Destination Container Rates (Rs.) Ex.Chennai
(i) Kuwait 20' 1780
(ii) Jeddah 20' 1335
(iii) Dammam 20' 1300 Also, according to defendant No.1, plaintiff's letter dated 19.9.2003 to its client was concocted, as both of them knew the rates quoted by defendant No.1 and also, in view of those rates, the rates given by the plaintiff in his alleged letter dated 19.9.2003, were impossible and unrealistic. Also, according to defendant No.1, the plaintiff had insisted that it should raise its bill in two instalments and therefore, the defendant No.1 had issued/raised the bills in two parts.
Also, according to defendant No.1, it was the own conduct of the plaintiff/its client, in not releasing the defendant's No.1 payments, which resulted in delayed release of goods and the defendant No.1 was not responsible for any withholding of any delivery of goods. According to defendant No.1, the plaintiff was informed that further payments are to be made by the plaintiff, before the goods could be released and in that regard, meeting was also held between the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and the plaintiff's client and the Managing Director of the plaintiff's client had assured the defendant No.1 that all the payments were released to be plaintiff and the plaintiff also assured to clear the difference in payment of the consignment. It is Suit No.966/08 Page 7/19 also alleged by defendant No.1 that the defendant No.1 had issued debit notes but the plaintiff neither made the payment to defendant No.1 nor at the port of destination. Defendant No.1 has also alleged that it was known to the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 was not direct agent of any shipping line and the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 were in constant touch with each other, during the entire shipment and that the letter dated 26.9.2003 was issued, as the goods were not released on account of freight charges of defendant No.2 having been not paid in toto. Also, according to defendant No.1, since the payments of defendant No.1 were not made in full, the defendant No.1 could not make payments further and that, the debit notes raised by defendant No.1, were raised in accordance with the terms settled between the parties and were correct. Also, according to defendant No.1, the plaintiff's client made the payment and the plaintiff had no cause of action against defendant No.1.
4. Defendant No.2 in the written statement filed, in addition to replying to the averments and the allegations made in the plaint, has taken a plea that the plaintiff had not come to the Court with clean hands and had suppressed material facts; and that, there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant No.2. Also, according to the defendant No.2, the defendant No.1, who was a Multimodal Transport Operator (MTO), had approached it for rates of container for the shipment to various destinations, as he fell short of containers for such destinations and to get possible rates, asked for the rates for each container for the various destinations and the defendant No.2 had given certain rates and after certain negotiations, the Suit No.966/08 Page 8/19 defendant No.1 had confirmed the rates of container, for the shipments to various destinations. Also, according to defendant No.2, the defendant No.1 accepted the charges for destination Kuwait US$1700, for Dammam US$1275 and for Jeddah US$1350 per container, which were quoted by the defendant No.1, for shipment to various destinations. Also, according to defendant No.2, the various shipments were sent for destinations Kuwait, Daman, Jeddah through the defendant and that, during this business transaction, the defendant No.2 raised the bills on defendant No.1, as per the rates agreed between them. Defendant no.2 also denied the assertion of the plaintiff that the suit was within limitation.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed as follows:
(1) Whether the plaint has been signed, verified and suit instituted by a competent person? OPP (2) Whether there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant No.2? OPD2 (3) Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD2 (4) Whether this Court has no territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD2 (5) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees? OPD2 (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.18,01,360/- from the defendants?
OPP Suit No.966/08 Page 9/19 (7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP (8) Relief.
6. Plaintiff in support of its case, examined PW1 Sh. R. Ashok, and closed PE. In his deposition by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, PW1 deposed, what was averred to in the plaint besides exhibition of the documents, which is not being reproduced, for the sake of brevity.
7. Defendant No.1 in support of its case, examined DW1 Sh. Pritam Narang and closed PE. In his deposition by way of affidavit Ex.D1W1/A, DW1 deposed, what was averred to in the written statement besides exhibition of the documents, which is not being reproduced, for the sake of brevity. Defendant No.2 did not lead any evidence.
8. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
9. My issue-wise findings are as follows:
ISSUE NO. 1:
Whether the plaint has been signed, verified and suit instituted by a competent person? OPP As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff was a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and Sh.R.Gururajan was its Power of Attorney Holder. But for such averments, the plaint is totally silent as regards any resolution of the Suit No.966/08 Page 10/19 Board of Directors of the plaintiff, authorizing any person to sign and verify the plaint and institute the suit on its behalf or for any board resolution, granting a power of attorney for the said purposes. Similar is the situation with the affidavit Ex.PW1/A, tendered in evidence by the sole plaintiff's witness PW1. Though, the plaint appears to have been signed by Sh.Gururajan, there is nothing on record to show that he was a principal officer of the plaintiff. Mere averment in the plaint that Sh.Gururajan was a power of attorney holder of the plaintiff, when, even no such power of attorney in his favour, has come to be proved on record, leaves no doubt that the plaintiff has miserably failed to discharge its burden on the issue in hand. Assuming, Sh.R.Ashok of the plaintiff, held a valid SPA Ex.PW1/1, it by no means goes to prove that the plaint was signed and verified and suit instituted by a duly authorized person on behalf of the plaintiff.
In view of the foregoing, issue in hand is answered in the negative.
ISSUE NO.2 :
Whether there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant No.2? OPD2 It is the own case of the plaintiff that it transacted with the defendant no.1, for the shipment of the goods of the exporter to different destinations and was shocked to receive the letter dated 26.9.03 from the defendant no.1, to make future payment to the defendant no.2. The suit filed by the plaintiff entirely proceeds on the premises that the plaintiff quoted its rates to its client-exporter on the premises of the rates quoted by the defendant no.1 vide fax on Suit No.966/08 Page 11/19 16.9.2003 and/or negotiations dated 19.9.2003. Cause of action of the suit, as such, is founded on the quotations of the defendant no.1 only.
During the course of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff also fairly conceded that the defendant No.2 did not raise any bill on the plaintiff and that, apart from the letter dated 26.9.2003 Ex.PW1/13 written by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff, there was no document to show any privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant No.2. A communication between defendant No.1 and the plaintiff, whereby the defendant No.1 requested the plaintiff to make future payments to defendant No.2, ipso facto is not sufficient to establish any privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant No.2. I have therefore, no hesitation in concluding that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant no.2. Issue in hand is answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO.3 :
Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD2 Onus to prove the issue in hand was upon the defendant No.2 to discharge. In the written statement filed by defendant No.2, the defendant has simply averred for the suit being not within limitation in response to the averments made in the plaint that the cause of action for filing the present suit first arose in September, 2003. During the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the defendant placing reliance upon Sec. 24 of the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act', strenuously contended that the limitation for filing the suit was nine months from the date of delivery of goods or the date, when the goods should have Suit No.966/08 Page 12/19 been delivered. In his submissions, counting the period from September, 2003, the suit filed on 1.12.2004, was barred by limitation. In the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff however, the provisions of the said Act were not applicable, as the transportation of goods was by sea only and not by any multiple mode. In support of his such submissions, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff placed reliance upon (2008) 2 SCC 79 Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. & Anr. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the Ld. Counsel for the parties but find no force, in the submissions made. Sec. 24 of 'the said Act' is as under :
"The multimodal transport operator shall not be liable under any of the provisions of this Act unless action against him is brought within nine months of -
(a) the date of delivery of the goods, or
(b) the date when the goods should have been delivered, or
(c) the date on and from which the party entitled to receive delivery of the goods has the right to treat the goods as lost under sub-section(2) of section 13."
A bare perusal of the abovesaid Section of 'the said Act' would show that the limitation on action provided therein, in relation to the liability of the multimodal transport operator, is only as regards the provisions of 'the said Act'. Which of the provision of 'the said Act', attracts the applicability of Sec. 24 of 'the said Act', none of the counsel for the parties have adverted to. Suit filed by the plaintiff is not in relation to any loss, damage or delay in delivery of the goods but for excessive transportation charges and withholding of goods at Suit No.966/08 Page 13/19 port of discharge, for sometime on account of non payment thereof. There is also nothing on record to show that the consigner-the exporter had made any declaration of interest, in timely delivery and that was accepted to by the multimodal transport operator i.e. any of the defendants. There is also no evidence on record that the transportation of the goods was by sea only inasmuch as, the defendant No.2 has not led any evidence to any effect, though the burden on the issue in hand, was heavy upon the defendant No.2 to discharge. Needless to say, there is neither any averment nor any evidence has come to be led to show that the defendant No.1 or the defendant No.2 were the owner of the vessel(s) of transportation and the goods were transported from port to port only. In view thereof, the reliance placed upon Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. (Supra), is also misconceived. I therefore, do not find that the provisions of the said Act were attracted in the case in hand and thereby, attracted sec. 24 of 'the said Act'. Issue in hand is therefore, answered in the negative.
ISSUE NO.4 :
Whether this Court has no territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD2 Onus to prove the issue in hand was upon the defendant No.2 to discharge. Neither any evidence has come to be led nor any submissions have come to be made on behalf of defendant No.2 on the issue in hand. In para-32 of the plaint, the plaintiff has averred that the transactions took place in Delhi and the defendant No.1 had its office in Delhi and therefore, this Court had the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and try the matter. In the written statements filed, I Suit No.966/08 Page 14/19 do not find any specific denial to such averments of the plaintiff. It is thus admitted that not only a part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court but one of the defendants i.e. Defendant No.1 also carried on its business, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Part of the cause of action, as also one of the defendants carrying its business activities within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, invests this Court with the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Suit is filed for the recovery of an amount less than Rs.20 Lacs and thereby, this Court also has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. I have therefore, no hesitation in concluding that this Court has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Issue in hand is therefore, answered in the negative.
ISSUE NO.5 :
Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees? OPD2 No submission on the issue in hand has come to be made. Ld. Counsel for the defendant No.1 during the course of hearing conceded that the suit was properly valued and on going through the record, I do not find for the suit having been not properly valued for the purposes of court fees. Issue in hand is therefore, anwsered in the negative.
ISSUE NO.6:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.18,01,360/- from the defendants? OPP Suit No.966/08 Page 15/19 In paras-7 to 10 of the plaint, the plaintiff has averred as follows :
"7. That the Defendant No.1 gave certain rates for the Shipment to various destinations. A fax of the rates was sent to the Plaintiff Company on 16.09.2003 by the Defendant No.1. ........................."
8. That in pursuance to the said rates the Plaintiff Company after calculating its Commission quoted the rates to its exporter i.e. Sudharshan Overseas Limited.
9. That after certain negotiations with the exporter, the exporter via its fax dated 19.09.2003 asked for certain rates for particular destinations and the number of Containers to be exported. .............................................................................."
10. That in response to the said fax dated 19.09.2003, the Plaintiff Company got rates from the Defendant No.1 and believing on the said rates to be correct, the Plaintiff Company after calculating its commission, quoted the rates to its exporter vide letter dated 19.09.2003. ..................."
A bare perusal of the abovesaid pleadings in the plaint, especially reading paras 7 & 10 in conjunction with each other, only suggests that on 19.9.2003, the plaintiff was furnished new rates by defendant No.1. What were the rates so quoted by the defendant No.1 on 19.9.2003 and the mode and the manner thereof, the pleadings in the plaint are totally silent. Evidence led by the plaintiff by way affidavit Ex.PW1/A is verbitem, what is stated in the plaint. As such, there is no material on record to show as to what were the rates for transportation, quoted by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff on 19.9.2003 and believing which, the plaintiff adding its commission, quoted the Suit No.966/08 Page 16/19 rates to 'the exporter'. Suffice to say, these were not the same, as quoted on 16.9.2003. It is also so made clear by PW1 during cross, when he deposed that the rates quoted in Ex.PW1/5, were based upon the information taken from defendant No.1 on telephone. Who gave such information and to whom, and what was the information so given, nothing has surfaced on record. When that is so, in the absence of the proof of the exact rates quoted by the defendant No.1 on 19.9.2003, on the basis whereof, the plaintiff, adding its commission, quoted the rates further to 'the exporter', the very foundation of the suit claim is shaken. Quite interestingly then, as per rates quoted by defendant No.1 on 16.9.2003 vide fax Ex.PW1/3, the freight rates are quoted Ex-Cochin, whereas the goods in question to different ports have been loaded Ex-Chennai. It is nowhere the case of the plaintiff that the freight charges Ex-Cochin and Ex-Chennai were the same. Geographic locations of Cochin and Chennai are of course, quite distinct and would naturally, attract different freight charges. Rates may also, vary on account of different facilities available at different ports. PW1 during cross however says that the rates of Chennai and Cochin were taken by them to be similar, since there was not much difference in the rates Ex-Chennai and Ex-Cochin. If there was no much difference between the rates Ex-Chennai and Ex-Cochin, it was for the plaintiff to prove so, by cogent evidence, but not even an iota of evidence to that effect has come to be led. While doing so, the plaintiff of course, would have been required to even detail, the extent of little difference of rates. In the given situation, the suit claim founded on the rates quoted Ex-Chennai, while the goods were dispatched Ex-Chennai, in the absence of any cogent evidence and the Suit No.966/08 Page 17/19 circumstances, is ill founded. Besides the foregoing, who actually paid and what amount, towards the excessive charges claimed by defendant No.2 for the release of the goods at the port of discharge, pleadings as also the evidence led by the plaintiff, is totally vague. In paras-23 & 26 of the plaint, the plaintiff has averred as follows :
"23. That finding no way out in the said situation and in order to retain its client, as well as reputation, the plaintiff company had no other option but to make payments of its own pocket so that the B/Ls should be released. .................................................................
26. That the plaintiff company had no other option but to make payments to Defendant No.2. ....................................................................."
In para-27, the plaintiff has then alleged as follows :
"............................................................................... The Exporter not only did stop the payments to the Plaintiff Company but also did not transact with it further. Further, whatever payments which were illegally demanded by the Defendants, the Exporter directly made the payments to the defendant No.2 as he was suffering every day and had no other option but to make the Payments as the containers were lying at the port attracting more expenses in terms of demurrage etc. ......................................................"
The abovesaid pleadings by itself are contradictory and create serious doubt as to who, actually made payment of any Suit No.966/08 Page 18/19 demands, excessively raised. Plaintiff for the reasons unexplained, has not even chosen to examine 'the exporter', for whom the plaintiff made any payment or suffered any losses.
In view of the aforegoing, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff has miserably failed to discharge the burden on the issue in hand. Issue in hand is therefore, answered in negative.
ISSUE NO.7:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP Though in view of findings on issue No.6, the issue in hand has become infructuous, suffice to say, the plaintiff has not led any evidence for its entitlement of any interest. Issue in hand is therefore, answered in negative.
RELIEF:
Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Announced in the open Court (A.K. Chawla)
on 5th day of August, 2010 Addl. Distt. Judge -19 (Central)
Delhi.
Suit No.966/08 Page 19/19