Delhi High Court
M/S. Siemens Ltd. vs M/S. Nova Iron & Steel Ltd. on 18 September, 2012
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) No.1660/1998
% 18th September, 2012
M/S. SIEMENS LTD. ...... Plaintiff
Through: Appearance not given.
VERSUS
M/S. NOVA IRON & STEEL LTD. ...... Defendant
Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The subject suit was filed by the plaintiff- M/s. Siemens Ltd for recovery of Rs. 56,44,842.05/-. The suit is filed for recovery of amount alongwith interest with respect to various machinery and equipments supplied and details of which are given in para 6 of the plaint. As per para 6 of the plaint, the total amount of machinery and equipments supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant comes to approximately Rs. 1.37 crores. In para 10 of the plaint, the amount which is claimed to be balance due to the plaintiff is only Rs. 24,35,837.10/-.
2. Defendant filed the written statement and denied its liability on CS(OS) No.1660/1998 Page 1 of 4 the ground that machinery and equipments supplied by the plaintiff were defective.
3. The following issues were framed in this suit on 11.12.2007:-
"1. Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and determine the suit? (OPD)
2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (OPD)
3. Whether the goods supplied by the plaintiff were not as per specifications? If so, its effect? (OPD)
4. Whether the plaintiff was called upon and required to remove the machinery? If so, its effect? (OPD)
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any amount for supply of machinery? If so, the extent thereof? (OPP)
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate, on what amount and for which period? (OPP)
7. Relief."
Issue No.1
4. Issue No.1 with regard to territorial jurisdiction was held in favour of the plaintiff by a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court dated 28.2.2008.
Issue Nos.5 and 6
5. In spite of repeated opportunities, plaintiff failed to lead evidence. The evidence of the plaintiff was closed vide order dated 27.4.2010. This order has become final as this order has not been challenged thereafter. As the plaintiff did not lead evidence, the counsel for the defendant also on the same date i.e. 27.4.2010 made a statement that defendant also does not want to lead evidence. No doubt, as per the issues CS(OS) No.1660/1998 Page 2 of 4 framed, onus of issue Nos.2 to 4 is on the defendant, however, onus of issue Nos.5 and 6 is on the plaintiff. The onus of these issues was on the plaintiff inasmuch as it is clear from paras 6 and 10 of the plaint, the plaintiff claims not the total amount of machinery and equipments supplied but only an amount of Rs. 24, 35,837.10/-. Therefore, it is clear that as per the plaint various amounts were paid to the plaintiff and plaintiff has only claimed the balance due of Rs. 24,35,837.10/- out of amount of approximately Rs. 1.37 crores. The plaintiff therefore had to lead evidence to show how the amount as claimed in para 10 of the plaint was due to the plaintiff and which is the subject matter of issue No.5.
6. So far as the aspect of minutes of meeting dated 12.8.1995 as stated in para 10 of the plaint, the defendant in para 10 of the written statement has specifically denied that these minutes of meeting were ever signed by its officer. Defendant has specifically denied these minutes of meeting. In fact, I find that only a typed copy of these minutes dated 12.8.1995 is on record and which typed copy does not contain signatures either on behalf of the plaintiff or on behalf of the defendant.
7. In view of the fact that it was the plaintiff which had to lead evidence and no evidence whatsoever has been led on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has failed to prove its case and therefore the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed by deciding issue Nos.5 and 6 against the plaintiff. CS(OS) No.1660/1998 Page 3 of 4 Issue Nos.2 to 4
8. Since plaintiff has failed to prove issue Nos.5 and 6, there is no need to give any decision on issue Nos.2 to 4, onus of which was on the defendant.
Relief
9. In view of aforesaid, the suit of the plaintiff is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 Ne CS(OS) No.1660/1998 Page 4 of 4