Delhi District Court
M/S General Power Company Private ... vs . M/S Darcl Logistics Ltd on 4 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA JAIN,
LD. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE07, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
RCA No.23/17
M/s General Power Company Private Limited Vs. M/s Darcl Logistics Ltd
In the matter of :
M/s General Power Company Private Limited
406E, 4th Floor, International Trade Tower
Nehru Place, New Delhi110019
...............Appellant
Versus
M/s Darcl Logistics Limited
Having its registered officer at
M2, Himland House, Karampura
Commercial Company, Karampura
New Delhi.
.............Respondent
Date of institution: 09.02.2017
Date of Reserving: 19.02.2019
Date of pronouncement of order : 04.04.2019
Order on Appeal
1. This is an appeal filed by appellant/defendant against the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.10.2016 decreeing the suit for recovery of respondent/plaintiff.
2. The brief facts as averred in the case before Ld Trial Court is that plaintiff/respondent company is engaged in the business of transporting goods by road all over India. Appellant/defendant is also a company. M/s General Power Co Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Darcllogistics Ltd. Page No. 1 of 21 Plaintiff/respondent company quoted freight rates vide emails dated 07.07.2011, 08.08.2011 and 21.11.2011 to defendant/appellant for transportation of raw material Kadia Mitti Ex Bikaner to Rudrapur and from Rudrapur to various other destinations on freight rate at Rs. 1480/ & Rs. 2000/ per metric ton and same was accepted by one Mr. J.P. Samal of the appellant/defendant company vide emails dated 07.07.2011, 23.07.2011 and 22.11.2011. Thereafter, plaintiff/respondent transported the raw material to different destinations from July 2011 to December 2011 and receipt of raw material was acknowledged by respective parties and no dispute was ever raised by appellant/defendant. Thereafter, plaintiff/respondent raised various bills to the defendant/appellant for amount of Rs. 6,30,079/ out of which an amount of Rs. 4,12,095/ was paid by the defendant and outstanding amount of Rs. 2,17,984/ was remaining to be paid. The details of outstanding amount are as follows: C N Date CNS No. Loading City Delivery City Charge Freight Name Name Wt 25/Nov/2011 BKN25B BIKANER RUDRAPUR 25.10 50200 00005 01/Dec/2011 BKN25B BIKANER RUDRAPUR 27.800 55600 00006 04/Aug/2011 BKN25B BIKANER RUDRAPUR 37.700 55796 00003 18/Aug/2011 BKN25B BIKANER RUDRAPUR 38.100 56388 0004 TOTAL 2,17,984/ M/s General Power Co Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Darcllogistics Ltd. Page No. 2 of 21
3. Plaintiff/respondent requested the defendant/appellant through various emails to pay the outstanding amount but of no avail. Thereafter, plaintiff/respondent issued legal notice dated 03.11.2012 to defendant/appellant but of no avail. Thereafter, recovery suit was filed before Ld Trial Court seeking decree of Rs. 2,69,954/ alongwith interest @ 18 % per annum which was decreed vide impugned order dated 25.10.2016. Hence, this appeal.
4. Written statement was filed by defendant/appellant. It is stated that no such outstanding amount is due against defendant. It is further averred that plaintiff/respondent has claimed two amounts of Rs. 50,200/ and 55,600/ from the defendant/appellant which had already been paid by the defendant/appellant to the plaintiff/respondent and two remaining amount of Rs. 55,796/ and Rs. 56,668/ in respect of two consignment from Bikaner to Rudrapur i.e. consignment no. BKN25B00003 and BKN25B00004 are falsely claimed by plaintiff/respondent as defendant never received the alleged consignments. All the emails were denied except email dated 22.11.2011 written by defendant to plaintiff. Rest of the contents of the plaint are denied by the defendant/appellant.
M/s General Power Co Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Darcllogistics Ltd. Page No. 3 of 21
5. Replication to written statement of defendant/appellant was filed by plaintiff/respondent wherein averments made in the written statement was denied and reiterated the contents of the plaint.
6. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed on 22.01.2014.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2,69,954/ with pendente lite and future interest @ 18 % per annum from the defendant ? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff has not valued the suit property ? OPD.
3. Whether the representative of the plaintiff company is not duly authorized to institute the present suit. ? OPD.
7. Then parties led their evidence and after hearing parties, suit was decreed by impugned order dated 25.10.2016.
8. Ld counsel for appellants has argued that Ld Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment without hearing the final arguments of the appellant/defendant It is further argued that impugned judgment passed by the Ld Trial Court in violation of the provision of Order XX Rule 1 (1) CPC.
9. It is further argued that Ld Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence led by the parties.
M/s General Power Co Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Darcllogistics Ltd. Page No. 4 of 21
10. It is argued that Ld Trial Court has erred in reading the contents of the email dated 19.01.2012, even though it was admitted by counsel for appellant during the course of admission/denial in the suit. It is argued that once the document is held to be inadmissible in law, it cannot be read in evidence even though it is an admitted document. It is further argued that Ld Trial Court failed to consider that even if email dated 19.01.2012 was an admitted document, it does not absolve the respondent to prove the contents of the documents.
11. It is further argued that Ld Trial Court has failed to consider that respondent/plaintiff was dominuslitus and onus lied on the respondent/plaintiff to prove that the alleged four consignments were delivered and acknowledged by the appellant/defendant. It is further argued that impugned judgment has not even touched the testimony of PW1 in respect of the alleged invoices dated 24.08.2011, 23.12.2011, 27.12.2011 and 10.10.2011. It is further argued that Ld Trial Court overlooked the discrepancies in the alleged invoices filed by respondent/plaintiff.
12. It is further argued that that Ld Trial Court has wrongly put onus upon the appellant/defendant to prove the alleged signatures on the invoices and raising presumption against the appellant/defendant in the event of not producing Sh. J.P. Samal in the witness box by the appellant/defendant. Ld counsel has further argued that appellant/defendant nowhere in the written M/s General Power Co Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Darcllogistics Ltd. Page No. 5 of 21 statement or in the evidentiary affidavit of DW1 Sh. Amish Gupta has testified that Sh. J.P. Samal who was the exemployee of the appellant/defendant company was ever involved in negotiations with the respondent/plaintiff with respect to the alleged four consignments. It is further argued that DW1 was never confronted with the alleged endorsement on the alleged four invoices. It is stated that Ld Trial Court failed to consider that PW1 even failed to identify the signatures present on the four invoices and it also ignored that there were no signature on the invoice dated 27.12.2011 and no onus fall upon the appellant/defendant to produce Sh J.P. Samal in the witness box.
13. It is further argued that Ld Trial Court erred in concluding that DW1 never took any objection qua authorization of Sh Rajnikant Dixit as representative appointed on behalf of plaintiff/respondent company and it failed to consider the evidentiary affidavit of DW1. It is further argued that PW1 was comprehensively cross examined on his authority to testify and merely holding that no objection was raised on the propriety of execution of SPA is certainly an incorrect conclusion.
14. He has further argued that goods were never supplied as no orders were placed, no proof of delivery has been filed by plaintiff/respondent and, therefore plaintiff/respondent has failed to prove its case and impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
M/s General Power Co Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Darcllogistics Ltd. Page No. 6 of 21
15. On the other hand, Ld counsel for respondent/plaintiff has argued that order passed by Ld Trial Court is well reasoned. He has further argued that arguments never took place before Ld Trial Court is completely false. He has further argued that evidence was well appreciated and the admission made by the defendant, either during written statement or during admission/denial are not required to be proved. It is further argued that appellant/defendant has evasively denied all the averments in the written statement and appeal is liable to be dismissed.
16. I have heard the arguments and have perused the record carefully.
17. Before dwelling into the merits of the case, this court proceeds to decide the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant regarding not hearing the final arguments by the Ld Trial Court. Perusal of Trial Court record reveals that DE was closed on 23.01.2016 and matter was listed for final arguments on 12.02.2016 and again on 24.02.2016, it is mentioned in order sheet dated 24.02.2016 that " Final arguments advance. Heard in part. To come up for further remaining arguments on 30.03.2016 at 12:30 PM.
18. On 30.03.2016 it is mentioned in order sheet that "Remaining final arguments advanced on behalf of Ld Counsel for the plaintiff. Heard in part. At this stage, both the sides have submitted that they shall file the written M/s General Power Co Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Darcllogistics Ltd. Page No. 7 of 21 arguments in precise form on next date of hearing with advance copy to either sides.
Heard. Allowed. To come up for filing of written
submissions and remaining final arguments on
26.04.2016 at 02:00 PM".
19. On 26.04.2016, Ld Trial Court was on leave and date was given i.e. 12.07.2016.
20. On 12.07.2016 matter was transferred and was adjourned to 21.07.2016.
21. On 21.07.2016, it was recorded that "both the proxy counsels submit that they want to file written submissions in the matter. However, the main counsel for both the parties are not present today. Both the counsels are directed to file written submissions today itself with advance copy to be supplied to opposite parties. Put up for clarification/orders on 29.07.2016."
22. It is matter of record that written arguments on behalf of both the parties are on record. Parties were heard in part before the Ld Transferor Court and it was the own submissions made by counsel for the parties that they wished to file written arguments and only then the matter was listed for clarification/orders. Therefore, alleging that final arguments were not heard M/s General Power Co Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Darcllogistics Ltd. Page No. 8 of 21 is completely not acceptable. Perusal of record reveals that case was listed for clarification/orders for almost six to seven dates and learned counsel for appellant/defendant could have approached the court in between the dates, in case he desired to address oral arguments before the court but no such effort was made and in fact allegation has been made that judgment was pronounced all of a sudden. These arguments are completely baseless and are turned down.
23. Ld counsel for appellant/defendant has challenged the entire judgment on the premise that despite the failure of the plaintiff/respondent to prove its own case and discharge its onus of proving the recovery, suit has been decreed.
24. In order to prove the case, respondent/plaintiff has placed on record e mail dated 07.07.2011, 08.07.2011, 16.07.2011, 22.07.2011, 23.07.2011, 21.11.2011, 22.11.2011, 02.12.2011, 19.01.2012, 26.07.2012 and 06.08.2012. Four invoices dated 24.08.2011 alongwith consignment note dated 04.08.2011, invoice dated 23.12.2011 alongwith consignment note dated 01.12.2011, invoice dated 27.12.2011 alongwith consignment note dated 25.11.2011 and invoice dated 10.10.2011 alongwith consignment note dated 18.08.2011 have been filed on record. All these invoices and the consignment notes have been denied by the defendant in the written statement and during admission/denial of documents. During the course of M/s General Power Co Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Darcllogistics Ltd. Page No. 9 of 21 cross examination of plaintiff witness/PW1, it has been recorded that : "From Rudrapur the raw material Kadia Mitti was sent to various other destinations i.e. Kolkatta, Belgaon and some other station but I do not remember. The present case pertains to transportation of raw material from Bikaner to Rudrapur. It is correct that when the goods are transported from one destination to other, the carrier carries a consignment note which mentions the value of goods being transported. However, we do not charge the value of the good transported but freight charges and we accordingly raise invoice on freight charges. I have stated in para 6 of my affidavit that whenever material was transported a receipt to the effect that material was delivered in sound condition was duly acknowledged by the respective parties. Here while saying respective parties I refer to the defendant. The defendant had acknowledged about the receipt of goods on the consignment note. It is correct that all the consigned note Ex PW1/4 (colly) does not bear any such acknowledgment by the defendant. It is correct that the consignment number on invoice dated 24.08.2011 is of M/s General Power Co Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Darcllogistics Ltd. Page No. 10 of 21 different series from the invoices dated 23.12.2011, 27.12.2011 and 10.10.2011 as the later three bills contain four zero and one number while the first bill contains a slash and three zero but it is wrong to suggest that bill dated 24.08.2011 is forged and fabricated. (Vol. This difference in consignment number has arisen due to change of software as earlier "VINES" was being applied and later "SAP" was introduced). The invoice dated 24.08.2011 was served upon the defendant by the Field Executive of plaintiff/respondent company. Mr. J.P. Samal used to receive the invoices on behalf of the defendant company. We never insisted for stamp of the company on the invoices raised upon the defendant at the time of receipt as the proof of delivery furnished by the defendant company already used to be stamped. On every invoice the official of plaintiff/respondent company used to obtain receipt from the official of the defendant company. The bills dated 23.12.2011, 27.12.2011 and 10.12.2011 were also received by Sh. J.P. Samal on behalf of defendant company. The point A at bills dated 24.08.2011, 23.12.2011, 27.12.2011 and 10.10.2011 M/s General Power Co Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Darcllogistics Ltd. Page No. 11 of 21 may be the signatures of the receiver on behalf of the defendant company. I cannot admit or deny the suggestion that on the bill dated 27.12.2011 there are no signature of the receiver at point A and it only mentions the word 'received' in short form. I cannot admit or deny the suggestion that on the bill dated 10.10.2011 the signature of the receiver at point A are different and it does not mention the word 'received'. I cannot admit or deny the suggestion that on the bill dated 23.12.2011 the signature of the receiver at point A are different and it does not mention the word "received".
"It is wrong to suggest that all the four invoices are forged and fabricated and no such invoice was raised upon the defendant. The invoice number in bill dated 10.10.2011 at point B and similarly in other bills dated 24.08.2011, 23.11.2011 and 27.12.2011 at point B are of the customer whose goods were transported by the company. It is correct that the invoice dated 10.10.2011 mentions that rate of freight as 0.00 at point C, while other invoices mention the rate of freight as 2000.00. M/s General Power Co Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Darcllogistics Ltd. Page No. 12 of 21 (Vol. This is clerical mistake due to upgradation of software.) It is correct that I have not disclosed about this mistake in my plaint."
25. Since all the invoices alongwith consignment notes have been denied and witness could not identify the signatures of the person who has received these invoices on behalf of defendant, it has been argued that these invoices and the consignment notes have not been proved, therefore, case is not proved. Admittedly, the signature of the representative of the appellant/defendant on these invoices have not been proved. DW1 during his cross examination has admitted that Sh J.P. Samal was the employee of the company when the transaction between plaintiff/respondent and appellant/defendant took place, meaning thereby that certain business transactions had taken place between the plaintiff/respondent and appellant/defendant company. Apart from these documents, certain emails have also been placed on record but for two have been denied by appellant/defendant, one email dated 22.11.2011 is admitted in para 4 of the reply on merits in the written statement to have been written by appellant/defendant to plaintiff/respondent and second email dated 19.01.2012 has been admitted by the counsel for appellant/defendant during admission/denial of documents. Ld Trial Court has given a beautiful description in para no. 33 of the impugned judgment stating that doubts have M/s General Power Co Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Darcllogistics Ltd. Page No. 13 of 21 been raised with regard to legal propriety and admissibility of the computer printouts and, therefore, emails Ex PW2/1 & Ex PW2/2 are held to be inadmissible, however, Ld Trial Court taken into account admitted email dated 19.01.2012. It is the argument of Ld counsel for appellant/defendant that once emails were held to be inadmissible, therefore, this admitted email could not have been read. In this regard, the provisions of Order XII CPC which deals with admissions becomes relevant.
26. Order XII Rule 3A CPC provides as under: " Notwithstanding that no notice to admit documents has been given under Rule 2, the Court may, at any stage of the proceeding before it, of its own motion, call upon any party to admit any document and shall, in such a case, record whether the party admits or refuges or neglects to admit such document." This provision is on a upper footing. Email dated 19.01.2012 was admitted during the regular course of admission/denial of documents whereas this provision provides that court can ask any party at any stage, to admit any documents.
27. Order 12 R.6 pertains to judgment on admission and reads as follows: Judgment on admission :
(1) where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, M/s General Power Co Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Darcllogistics Ltd. Page No. 14 of 21 the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.
(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub rule(1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.
28. It is well settled principle of law that U/O 12 R. 6 CPC, the plaintiff would be entitled to a judgment on admissions of facts having been made either in the pleadings or otherwise, whether oral or in writing.
29. It is not disputed that process of admission/denial on documents was conducted in the court and learned counsel for defendant has admitted this e mail dated 19.01.2012, therefore, there cannot be any doubt on the admissibility of this email. Admittedly receiving of this email would not amount to admitting the contents given in the email. The admission is only to the effect that these contents given in the email were send to the addressee. Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that facts which have been admitted need not be proved. Therefore, in light of aforesaid Section, sending of this email by the plaintiff to defendant cannot be disputed and has been admitted by the counsel for defendant during admission/denial and, therefore, this email cannot said to be inadmissible in evidence only with respect to sending to the same to the plaintiff and readin M/s General Power Co Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Darcllogistics Ltd. Page No. 15 of 21 its contents and not off course considering them to be true. This email is reproduced herein as under: Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 02:54 PM "Kamal Singh (Officer Marketing, GGN) <[email protected]> To [email protected] CC: "Pankaj Goyal (Sr. Manager, Marketing Corp.)"
<[email protected]>, "Rajnikant Dixit (Salex, Corporate OfficeGGN)" <[email protected]> Dear Jai Prakash Ji, I am sending you the details of all the bill which we have already submitted to you kindly acknowledge the same. One more request sir that you make commitment for the payment but not complete it we are really facing a lot problem because of the late payment. Kindly give us an exact date at which payment will be made total outstanding amount is 434729 and out of which overdue amount is Rs. 328929/ Customer name Bill No Due Date O/S Amount Overdue General Power Company Pvt Ltd COS25G000012 24.11.2011 56388 56388.00 General Power Company Pvt Ltd COS25G00009 24.11.2011 55600 0.00 General Power Company Pvt Ltd COS25G000010 10.02.2012 55600 0.00 General Power Company Pvt Ltd COS25G/0006 24.09.2011 15750 15750.00 General Power Company Pvt Ltd COS25G/0007 30.09.2011 107596 107596.00 General Power Company Pvt Ltd COS25G/0008 07.10.2011 49999.95 49999.95 General Power Company Pvt Ltd COS25G/0009 08.10.2011 55796 55796.00 General Power Company Pvt Ltd COS25G/0010 08.10.2011 21000 21000.00 General Power Company Pvt Ltd COS25G/0011 10.10.2011 22400 22400.00 Darcl Kamal Jeet Singh OfficerMarketing Darcl Logistics Ltd (Formerly Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation Ltd Corporate OfficeGurgaon +919312266053 www.darcl.com M/s General Power Co Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Darcllogistics Ltd. Page No. 16 of 21
30. The said email contains bill no. COS25G000012 and COS25G/0009 which pertains to consignment note BKN25B00004 & BKN25B00003 for an amount of Rs. 56,388/ & Rs. 55,796/ respectively. In the written statement, defendant has categorically denied having received these two consignments in paragraph E of preliminary objections and has stated that since defendant never received these alleged consignments, amount of Rs. 55,796/ & 56,388/ in respect of these consignments is not due. It is pertinent to mention here that these consignments notes alongwith invoices have not been proved in accordance with law but admitting having received this email shows that plaintiff has raised a demand in respect of these two consignment notes for the said amount upon the defendant. Defendant has not offered any explanation or has not shown its response to the email dated 19.01.2012 rebutting the claim of the plaintiff towards these two consignments or all the consignments mentioned in this email. Since this email has been admitted to have been received by defendant, it was incumbent upon defendant to produce the relevant documents in order to show what response was sent to this email in case no such work was done by plaintiff. The fact that defendant/DW1 has admitted business relationship between the plaintiff/respondent and defendant/appellant, therefore, defendant/appellant should have fairly come up with its statement of accounts showing that which M/s General Power Co Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Darcllogistics Ltd. Page No. 17 of 21 consignments were received. In the absence of proving any response to said e mail dated 19.01.2012 written by defendant/appellant to the plaintiff/respondent goes against the defendant/appellant. It is a matter of record that despite admitting the email account of the defendant/appellant by DW1 during cross examination, all emails put on record by plaintiff/respondent have been evasively denied by defendant/appellant. It is not explained as to how these consignment numbers appeared in the admitted email dated 19.01.2012. It is pertinent to mention here that suit has been filed in the year 2013. Any motive cannot be imputed upon plaintiff to put these consignment numbers without any rhyme or reason for the same amount in the email written during the regular course of business in the contemporary time period. It was upon the defendant to rebut the same which has not been done.
31. Apart from these two consignments, there are two other consignments with number BKN25B00005 & BKN25B0006, though invoices with respect to these consignments have been denied, however, in the written statement defendant/appellant has categorically stated with respect to these two consignments, that amount of Rs. 50,200/ & 55,600/ were already paid by defendant to plaintiff/respondent. Though, during cross examination of DW 1, he has stated that they were pertaining to previous transaction, however, in the written statement, it is categorically stated in para no. D of preliminary M/s General Power Co Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Darcllogistics Ltd. Page No. 18 of 21 objection that " plaintiff/respondent has claimed two amounts of Rs. 50,200/ and 55,600/ from the defendant/appellant in the present suit which admittedly are already paid earlier by the defendant/appellant to the plaintiff/respondent." This averment in the written statement clearly shows that answer has been given with respect to amount mentioned in consignment number BKN25B00005 & BKN25B00006. It is a matter of record that defendant/appellant has not produced any document to show that these amounts were ever paid to the plaintiff/respondent. Since, there has been admission on the part of the defendant/appellant that this amount has already been paid, therefore, burden was upon the defendant/appellant to prove that these amounts were paid and even in case it is alleged by DW1 that these payments were made for some previous transaction, defendant/appellant ought to have proved those previous transactions during his evidence which was not done. Defendant/appellant has failed to prove the payment towards these two amounts, therefore, plaintiff/respondent is entitled to recover these two amounts. As far as other amount of Rs. 55,796/ & Rs. 56,388/ are concerned in respect of consignment number BKN25B00003 & BKN25B00004, since these payments were also raised during regular course of business and defendant/appellant has not shown anything as to how it dealt with these demands during that period, this court cannot ignore these facts and can only state that since onus to prove the M/s General Power Co Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Darcllogistics Ltd. Page No. 19 of 21 invoices was upon the plaintiff, therefore, plaintiff is only entitled to any recovery. The conduct of the defendant completely shows that there had been evasive denials in the entire written statement, throughout the pleadings of the defendant. In view of these circumstances, it is held that plaintiff/respondent is entitled to recover all the four amounts towards all four consignments.
32. Another argument is with respect to authority of PW1 to depose. In this regard, testimony of PW1 is very relevant. PW1 has relied upon SPA in his favour executed by Sh. Pradeep Bansal coupled with GPA in favour of Pradeep Bansal alongwith extract of Board Resolution passed by Board of Directors of the plaintiff company. During cross examination of plaintiff witness, original minutes book was produced which contained reference of execution of GPA in favour of Pradeep Bansal who executed SPA in favour of PW1. SPA was stated to have been executed at Hissar though it is stated during the course of arguments that Pradeep Bansal was not present at Hissar, however, cross examination of PWPW1 stated that Mr Pradeep Bansal was present at Hissar when the SPA i.e. Ex PW1/1 was executed. It is pertinent to mention here that person in whose favour SPA is executed need not be present before the attesting authority. The documents placed on record by plaintiff's witness completely shows his authority to depose on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent company and, therefore, argument with respect to M/s General Power Co Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Darcllogistics Ltd. Page No. 20 of 21 authority of PW1 not in order is liable to be turned down.
33. In view of the aforesaid observation, impugned judgment is upheld. Appeal is dismissed.
34. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room. TCR be sent back to concerned court alongwith copy of order. Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA JAIN Announced in the open court JAIN Date: 2019.04.09 15:23:50 +0530 on 04.04.2019 (VANDANA JAIN) ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE07/ SOUTH EAST DISTRICT/SAKET COURTS/ NEW DELHI/04.04.2019 M/s General Power Co Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Darcllogistics Ltd. Page No. 21 of 21