Delhi District Court
M/S Azureways Cargo Pvt. Ltd vs Sh. Rakesh Juneja on 2 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH SUNIL K. AGGARWAL: ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE (CENTRAL) 10: DELHI
Suit No. 106/06
M/s Azureways Cargo Pvt. Ltd.,
252 H, Kailash Plaza, 2nd Floor,
Sant Nagar, East of Kailash,
New Delhi 110065 ..... Plaintiff.
VERSUS
Sh. Rakesh Juneja,
Prop. of M/s Bagmakers,
Vardhman Tower,
G29, Community Centre,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi18 .....Defendant
Plaint presented on 31.05.2001
J U D G M E N T :
1. This suit for recovery of Rs.3,97,159/ as Air freight charges and Rs. 57,459.93 as interest @ 18% per annum from 01.08.2000 till the date of filing of suit with pendentelite and future interest has been filed by the plaintiff, a constituted company engaged in the business of providing multiple services of transportation of cargo worldwide through air on commission basis, through its Suit no. 106 of 2006 Page no. 19 of 19 director Sh. Shyam Sunder Sharma. The defendant, carrying on his business as proprietor of M/s Bagmakers, had approached the plaintiff on 23.06.2000 for shipment of 125 packets weighing 3321 kilograms through air cargo to Charrlotte, USA, so as they reach there by 31.07.2000. As a subagent, the plaintiff engaged the Clearing and Forwarding Agent M/s Astbhuj Ocean Movers who, in turn booked Alitalia for the cargo. The said airline accepted the cargo of defendant which was successfully transported to its destination. Airway bill No. 055 4729 2523 dated 23.06.2000 was raised on the plaintiff in this behalf being the cargo agent of consigner for freight amount of Rs.3,97,159/ which was ultimately payable by the defendant. On 12.07.2000 a fax message was received from the defendant informing that only 70 packets had reached the consignee in Charrlotte while the rest were untraceable. On being inquired from the airline, the plaintiff received a fax message that 55 cartons were lifted from JFK by RFS on 13.07.2000 for the final destination to Charrlotte. In the meanwhile, the defendant had informed the plaintiff on 07.07.2000 that the shipment had delayed and would have reached destination by ship as well. The defendant had also complained to the airline about the delay.
2. The plaintiff as is customary, paid the full air freight of bill dated 23.06.2000 to the main agent, who in turn paid it to Alitalia. The defendant however has failed to make payment thereof to the plaintiff despite repeated requests and reminders. The outstanding amount is liable to be recovered with interest at agreed rate of interest of 18% per annum, therefore the suit.
3. The suit was filed under summary procedure with deficient court fee.
Suit no. 106 of 2006 Page no. 19 of 19 It was dismissed in default on 27.06.2001. On an application under Order IX Rule 4 CPC having been filed in this behalf the suit was restored on 18.07.2001. The defendant failed to pursue his application seeking leave to contest the suit which was dismissed in default on 24.01.2002 and on filing of original documents by the plaintiff, the suit was decreed on 04.02.2002.
4. An application under Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC then was filed by the defendant which was allowed on 23.07.2002 with the consent of the plaintiff and the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2002 were set aside. The defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend the suit vide order dated 02.12.2002.
5. In written statement, the defendant has raised preliminary objections, denying the liability to pay any amount to the plaintiff as the suit suffers from concealment, suppression of vital facts and malafide intention as there are admitted defaults, failure and neglect in performing the contractual obligations by the plaintiff causing substantial loss to the defendant and its overseas buyer in which respect a complaint has already been filed before The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi on the ground of 'deficiency in services'. The suit therefore is devoid of cause of action and plaintiff is trying to gain out of its own wrong. It is alleged that the suit has neither been filed by a competent person nor is verified as per rules. Defendant claims to be a reputed and government recognized export house. M/s H.B.D. Inc., USA had placed a purchase order dated 21.06.2000 on him for supply of 3000 pieces of iron covers to be delivered by 30.06.2000. Defendant discussed the dispatch of consignment to its buyer in USA with plaintiff who promised and undertook to ensure the Suit no. 106 of 2006 Page no. 19 of 19 delivery of consignment at destination by 30.06.2000 positively. On the basis of their promise/undertaking, the plaintiff had engaged them as C & F Agent and delivered the goods at their godown on 23.06.2000. Plaintiff was responsible for ensuring safe and timely delivery of the consignment to the consignee. The plaintiff had engaged M/s Astbhuj Ocean Movers and Alitalia without the consent of the defendant. The overseas buyer had entered into a contract for supply of consigned goods to various departmental stores in USA. It was therefore of utmost importance that the goods reach them by 30.06.2000. To the shock and surprise of all however only 70 packets were delivered to the consignee belatedly on 09.07.2000. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff had written letter dated 07.06.2000 (should be 07.07.2000) to the airline expressing resentment for nondelivery of consignment on the stipulated date. The airline was questioned about the purpose of sending the cargo by air when it could have reached the destination by sea in less than four weeks time. A copy of said letter/fax message was received by the defendant. The entire consignment was thus delivered by the plaintiff to the consignee in piecemeal basis till 27.07.2000. M/s H.B.D. Inc., USA in their letter dated 10.07.2000 had interalia expressed that Alitalia should have reduced the rate for delayed delivery of consignment. They had lodged a claim of 21,900$ on the defendant due to delay in delivery of goods attributable to the'deficiency in service' rendered by the plaintiff. As a fair businessman, the defendant has owned the commitment and compensated the buyer by remitting 20,000$ by way of foreign bank draft dated 08.01.2001 against their claim.
6. Any consignment from India would have taken 56 days in reaching the destination Charlotte, USA by air while it takes 24 days on being ferried Suit no. 106 of 2006 Page no. 19 of 19 through sea. The difference in freight however is of about 7:1. The defendant thereafter raised debit note dated 21.09.2001 for Rs.10,31,445/ on the plaintiff with request to remit the amount but plaintiff neither denied the liability nor paid the amount. The demand for payment of Rs.11,31,445/ inclusive of interest @ 24% per annum from 08.01.2001 to the date of notice was again raised by the defendant through legal notice dated 25.10.2001 but plaintiff did not pay any heed. The defendant then filed consumer complaint, which is pending.
7. On merits, it is stated that after delivery of goods to the plaintiff it was the responsibility of plaintiff to ensure its timely delivery to the consignee at destination by appropriate mode. The averment of plaintiff having paid the freight as per AWB dated 23.06.2000 is denied. The AWB and receipt are termed to be false/fabricated and afterthought. It is denied that the defendant is liable to pay any amount whatsoever to the plaintiff under the circumstances explained or that there was any agreement between the parties regarding the rate of interest. On these averments dismissal of the suit has been urged.
8. In replication, while reiterating the contents of plaint and refuting those of the written statement, plaintiff has claimed that 30.06.2000 was only the stipulated dated of delivery but not the deadline. Otherwise the consignee would have rejected the consignment at the destination. So far as the correspondence between defendant and his buyer is concerned, it does not bind the plaintiff who was just a cargo agent for booking the airline for airlifting the cargo. It has been reiterated that no time was fixed for delivery of the consignment. The plaintiff cannot be made liable for the claim met by the defendant without notice Suit no. 106 of 2006 Page no. 19 of 19 unilaterally nor can it be debited to them. The airline or the defendant having made payment to the purchaser in USA is controverted. The defendant had delivered the consignment to the carrier directly after engagement of airline by the plaintiff through M/s Astbhuj Ocean Movers. It is stated that the delivery of consignment on 27.07.2000 cannot provide any cause of action to the defendant for any grievance or to seek damages. The grievance was rightly raised against the carrier who has already compensated him. Merely because the compensation was inadequate, the liability cannot be fastened on the plaintiff.
9. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 28.01.2003:
1. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit as so stated in preliminary objection no. 1 of the written statement? OPD.
2. Whether the suit has been signed, verified and filed by a duly authorized person? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount? OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest, if so, then at what rate and to what extent? OPP.
5. Relief.
10. Defendant had filed an application U/s 65 (c) of The Indian Evidence Act r/w Section 151 CPC for leading secondary evidence in respect of the fax messages on the ground that the ink of the original got evaporated after some time and therefore, their photocopies may be allowed to be tendered. Further print outs of emails are sought to be proved contending that due to limited space in the e Suit no. 106 of 2006 Page no. 19 of 19 mail box of the defendant, the originals had to be erased/obliterated. The application was dismissed on 11.11.2003 as it was pursued without first issuing notice to the opposite party U/s 66 of the Evidence Act.
11. An application U/o 7 rule 11 CPC by the defendant for rejection of plaint on the ground that the party to whom the plaintiff has dishonestly and mischievously made payment, has not been impleaded, further the plaint is totally silent about obtaining consent/authorization of the defendant for making such payment and therefore, plaintiff is itself to blame for having paid without authorization. It was dismissed on 03.03.2004. CM (M) no. 697/04 filed against the said order by the defendant was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 15.07.2005.
12. Plaintiff has examined its director Sh. Shyam Sunder Sharma as PW1 in support of its case who has narrated the facts and proved Certificate of incorporation of plaintiff as Ex. PW 1/1, Extract of Board Resolution dated 08.05.2001 passed in the meeting of Board of Directors of plaintiff as Ex. PW 1/2 and the receipt of payment made to M/s. Astbhuj Ocean Movers as Ex. PW1/D1. The plaintiff had closed its evidence on 30.05.2003.
13. Defendant although had filed his affidavit on 30.07.2003 yet did not turn up either for tendering it or for facing the cross examination even on availing 8 opportunities. The evidence of defendant was therefore, closed on 26.08.2004.
14. An application U/s 151 CPC was filed by the plaintiff for marking Suit no. 106 of 2006 Page no. 19 of 19 exhibits on the admitted documents. On the submission on behalf of the plaintiff that the documents have been admitted by the parties in pleadings, the application was disposed off on 03.11.2004 with the observations that such admitted documents will be considered without being formally exhibited.
15. The parties took various adjournments for holding negotiations for compromise over about a period of 2 years. The suit was decreed for the second time on 28.07.2007. The defendant had filed an application U/o 47 R/w Section 151 CPC aggrieved by the judgment. The review application was allowed on 04.02.2009 with the consent of plaintiff.
16. On the defendant belatedly filing the copy of affidavit of Sh. Shyam Sunder Sharma filed before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in this case elicited objections from the plaintiff. The production of document was however allowed vide order dated 17.05.2010.
17. I have heard learned Counsels for the parties and also carefully perused the written submissions filed on their behalf as well as the judicial record. Although not a part of defence of the defendant yet a grievance was raised in the review application about plaintiff suppressing the reasons for not impleading the necessary parties i.e. M/s Astbhuj Oceans Movers & Alitalia. When the plaintiff had its claim only against the defendant, there was no legal requirement to implead the so called necessary parties who could at best be the witnesses in the present context. Perused from another angle while the defendant had directly raised a claim for compensation on Alitalia yet did not implead it in the complaint filed Suit no. 106 of 2006 Page no. 19 of 19 before the State Consumer Disputes Commission. The two referred concerns therefore, were neither necessary not proper parties so far as the scope and parameters of present suit are concerned.
The issuewise findings of the court are recorded hereunder:
18. Issue no. 1: 18(a) Main thrust of the defendant in the written submissions is on this issue. It is contented that the plaint is stoically silent about the consent or authorization of the defendant for making payment to any person, who is an absolute stranger to the present proceedings. The defendant was not even taken into confidence in this behalf. Having admitted that the transaction remained unfulfilled due to nondelivery of the contracted goods at the agreed destination on or before the stipulated date, the plaintiff was under moral and legal duty to inform the defendant before proceeding to pay to the Airline. The plaintiff shall suffer the natural consequences of manifest breach of duty/deliberate inaction. It is also contended that since there is no agreement between the parties, the defendant is not bound by the preemptive payment made by the plaintiff and the suit is bad for want of cause of action. Grievance about not impleading the Airline and its agent in the suit has also been raked up.
18(b) By dissecting para 12 of the plaint sentencewise, it is contended that the first stated cause of action makes no mention of the defendant and the plaintiff was required to seek recovery from the Airline who was the beneficiary of payment received from them. The second cause of action indicates that the contract was breached by plaintiff and his principal about which the defendant had complained about delayed delivery of part of the consignment at destination. The Suit no. 106 of 2006 Page no. 19 of 19 stated cause of action cannot be construed against the defendant. In the next pleaded cause of action, the plaintiff has mischievously concealed the date of stipulated delivery on 30.06.2000 having been mentioned in the fax. Such a material suppression of fact does not provide a valid cause of action to the plaintiff. Similarly, the delayed delivery of balance consignment at the destination provides a cause of action to the defendant against the plaintiff and not viceversa. The last stated cause of action also did not accrue to the plaintiff as it could not have made payment to the Airline after knowledge of nondelivery of consignment by the due date. It is further argued that there is no question of cause of action continuing and subsisting in favour of the plaintiff.
18(c) For all practical purposes the issue was decided with the dismissal of application U/o 7 rule 11 CPC of the defendant on 03.03.2004 which order was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court on 15.07.2005 in CM (Main) No. 697/2004. However, it may further be observed that the bundle of facts put forth by the plaintiff brought about a detailed reply of the defendant containing objections, reservation and resentment but also prompted the defendant to file a Complaint No. 367/2001 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi seeking compensation/damages of total Rs.11,31,445/ from the present plaintiff. Since the plaintiff claimed to have made payment to the airline through their agent M/s Astbhuj Ocean Movers on behalf of the defendant and is seeking to realize the same through this suit, which is being denied by the latter, there is sufficient cause of action for filing the suit The grievance of the defendant about non impleadment of M/s Astbhuj Ocean Movers and Alitalia in these proceedings looses significance on being perceived in the background that he had directly Suit no. 106 of 2006 Page no. 19 of 19 approached the Airline for seeking compensation for delayed delivery of consignment obviously as principle of the plaintiff, a C & F Agent and did not implead either of them in the complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service. Had he been really serious about the necessity of said parties, at least he would have impleaded them in his own initiated legal action. In the light of these observations, the issue is decided in negative.
19. Issue No. 2: 19 (a) It is strongly argued on behalf of the defendant that the witness of plaintiff did not submit any proof of being a director. The original minute book containing the Board Resolution in his favour was not produced in the court. The court therefore cannot assume the existence of facts which the plaintiff has failed to prove despite having been provided adequate opportunity since the framing of issues.
19 (b) The claim of PW 1 that his position of director in the plaintiff company is mentioned in 'memorandum of articles' indicates his incompetence as he lacks the basic knowledge that there is no such document in existence. The witness further did not clearly tell about the number and description of the other directors of the plaintiff. The board resolution filed in the case has been signed by PW 1 himself who has failed to prove his connection with the plaintiff. Moreover Ex. PW 1/2 does not bear the signatures of Managing Director and seal of the plaintiff and therefore is good enough for waste paper basket as has been held in 'AIR 1981 P & H 333'. Reliance has also been placed upon 'Binani Metals Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 1991 RLR (Note) 86', where the plaintiff having given Suit no. 106 of 2006 Page no. 19 of 19 evidence that the plaint has been signed by a duly authorized person but did not give any proof that it is a duly registered corporate, it was held that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.
Further in 'NIBRO Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., 41 (1990) DLT 633', it was held that signing and verification of the plaint is different from filing the suit by a competent person. Powers of the company vest with the Board of Directors. Individual director cannot, without specific resolution of the board, institute a suit. It has thus been contended that the by withholding the best proof of existence of the power of the company to initiate the present legal proceedings, the issue deserves to be decided in negative. 19 (c) The lone witness of plaintiff has claimed himself to be the Director of the plaintiff. True that he did not produce any document issued by the plaintiff accepting him as its Director but his holding such position has not been controverted by the defendant by giving suggestion in crossexamination. The fact that witness fumbled by mentioning 'memorandum of articles' and that the decision of the company are recorded in account file does not eschew the veracity of his testimony. The witness was competent to sign and verify the pleadings as a principal officer of the plaintiff by virtue of holding such position as per the provision of Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC. The witness was specifically empowered to institute the suit in court of law by virtue of Resolution Ex. PW 1/2. It has been contended that the authenticity of extract has not been duly proved by the witness by producing the original minute book. The contention however needs to be repelled. The witness had deposed about maintaining the record of Board meetings of the plaintiff. No suggestions contrary thereto were given to him in cross Suit no. 106 of 2006 Page no. 19 of 19 examination. He was also not asked to produce the originals in court for purposes of verification. No rule of procedure or practice has been cited on behalf of the defendant to discard the extract of a document certified by the person who himself appears as a witness of party a later point of time. It has been held in 'IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd. Vs. Santosh Khosla, 187 (2012) DLT 729' that Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC refers to competence to sign and verify pleadings. It also includes concomitant power to institute the suit. Once a person signs and verifies the plaint as a principal officer, the suit is validly instituted in terms of Order XXIX CPC. Reference on the ratios in 'United Bank of India Vs. Naresh Kumar, AIR 1997 SC 3' and 'Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Smt. Suman Sharma, 2011 (1) AD (Delhi) 331' has been placed therein. 19 (d) Plaintiff being a juristic person can act and conduct itself only through human agents. A person projecting himself to be its duly authorized Director engaging the services of lawyers bearing his fee besides court fee and clerical expenses and producing the relevant documents cannot be termed to be a stranger to the entire fact situation as the defendant desires this court to hold. Only a person holding a responsible position in the establishment of juristic person and competent to take decision in its favour will so do. The competence of signatory to the pleadings who has almost regularly been following the suit cannot be diminished or undervalued. The issue therefore is decided in affirmative.
20. Issue No. 3: 20(a) It is vehemently contented on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff is not entitled to any amount from him firstly because it has completely failed to Suit no. 106 of 2006 Page no. 19 of 19 prove having parted with any amount on the authorization and with the consent of the defendant. Plaintiff is not entitled to claim the sum allegedly paid to a stranger without knowledge of defendant. It is stated that one may lodge a claim under a contract after meeting contractual obligations to the satisfaction of other parties which is totally absent in the present suit. In fact the plaintiff is obliged to compensate the defendant for the loss cause to them for breach of contract. The plaintiff has written to its own principle that there was no use of sending of cargo by Air by the exporter if it was to reach in more than a week's time as he could well have sent it by sea and saved cost. Even the Airline realized the inordinate delay in delivery of the consignment on 12.07.2000 & 25.07.2000 by sending letter dated 14.07.2000 in which they had regretted the resultant inconvenience. 20 (b) Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand argued that the plaintiff had paid air freight of Rs. 3,97,159/ for the consignment on behalf of the defendant vide receipt Ex. PW 1/D1 and is therefore entitled to be reimbursed. Even the defendant in his claim letter dated 25.07.2000 had included said freight in the damages. He therefore cannot take a somersault and deny the liability therefore particularly when Alitalia has already settled his claim vide their letter dated 06.10.2000. It is stressed that the plaintiff had never given any undertaking relating to the timely delivery of consignment at the destination. Its role was limited and it has no control over the movement of cargo by the Airline nor had any of its officials flown with the consignment. Referring to Section 19 & 29 of The Carriage by Air Act, 1972, it has been stressed that it is the carrier that is liable for damages occasioned due to delay in the carriage interalia of goods by Air and that too on claim being lodged within a period of two years from the date Suit no. 106 of 2006 Page no. 19 of 19 of arrival at destination. The terms and conditions of airway bill also indicate the liability of shipper for the charges for carriage in accordance with Carrier's Tariffs Conditions of Carriage and related Regulations. It is lastly submitted that the defendant cannot claim compensation on account of delayed shipment on the one hand and deny his liability to pay the carriage charges on the other. 20 (c) The defendant has discerned and projected the deposition of PW 1 that no agreement was executed between the parties to contend that there was no privity with plaintiff. The attempt is futile as the fact remains that the plaintiff was instrumental in clearing and forwarding the Charlotte consignment of defendant even without any written terms. The witness has confirmed that consignment actually reached destination in two installments of 70 packets on 08.07.2000 & remaining 55 packets on 27.07.2000. In latter part of crossexamination, the witness deposed that ordinarily a consignment can reach USA by air in 67 days but at peak time it may take 2425 days.
20 (d) The witness of plaintiff was not at all crossexamined about having definitely assured the defendant that the consignment will be delivered through the airline at destination by stipulated date. The plaintiff neither exhibited nor exercised control whatsoever over the working/movement of airline. Its job ended on delivery of goods to the airline with specification that it should reach destination by 30.06.2000/01.07.2000 and ensuring that route charted by them so proposed. Just because the plaintiff had raised the grievances of delayed/non delivery of consignment on hearing from and on behalf of the defendant, not only reflects the existence of relationship of agency but also it did not own the fault Suit no. 106 of 2006 Page no. 19 of 19 itself. Even if the defendant had not suggested the name of Alitalia to the plaintiff, it performed the job to his satisfaction as no reservation is alleged to have been expressed whenever airway bill was supplied. The defendant on his part did not whisper either in pleadings or in crossexamination of PW 1 as to by which airline he intended to carry his consignment.
20 (e) Much hue and cry was raised by the defendant by contending that he had to compensate foreign buyer for the loss occasioned to him due to delayed delivery of subject consignment. No correspondence with said buyer whatsoever has been proved in the case. No evidence has been led about M/s H.B.D. Inc. having actually being compensated. It is absurd and incomprehensible that the defendant would pay $20,000 to his foreign buyer when the value of goods ordered by them forming part of subject consignment was just $9,000. The hullaballoo about the inordinate delay in delivery of consignment did not see the refusal to take delivery by the foreign buyer at the first instance. 20 (f) The plaintiff although should have remained vigilant and more careful in protecting the interest of defendant by seeking concession/compensation from the airline including through M/s Astbhuj Ocean Movers before proceedings ahead to pay the full carriage charges of consignment yet the liability met bonafide under tacit consent of the defendant binds him under section 223 of the Contract Act. Looking from another angle, the plaintiff had not performed the ground work for the consignment of the defendant gratuitously. Having nowhere disputed the realization of value of goods from the foreign buyers, the defendant obviously enjoyed the fruits of services of plaintiff and is therefore liable to reimburse it Suit no. 106 of 2006 Page no. 19 of 19 under Section 70 of The Contract Act. Reliance in this respect is placed upon the ratio in 'M/s S. N. Nandy & Company Vs. M/s Nicco Corporation Ltd., CS (OS) No. 2448/2000 decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 23.02.2011'. The sum & substance of discussion is that the plaintiff is entitled to be reimbursed only the carriage charges by the defendant as against their bill of Rs.4,00,635/. The issue therefore is decided in affirmative.
21. Issue No. 4: When there are no written terms to govern the relationship of parties, there is obviously no discussion or agreement about the payment of interest on delay in making payment. The defendant on his part has miserably failed to prove having adversely suffered at the hands of foreign buyers due to delayed deliver of consignment. The plaintiff however has been able to show having paid the carriage charges of the consignment on his behalf. The defendant was primarily liable to make said payment. Just because of the tenacity of defendant its capital got stuck and deprived of the opportunity of further investment and multiplication. Even if, there are no settled terms of payment of interest between the parties, the one found entitled deserves the refund of principal amount with reasonable interest not by way of penalty but because it is normal accretion of the capital which includes the element of saving him from devaluation of money over the years. The facts and circumstances of the case and to balance the interest of both sides, the grant of interest at the rate of 10% per annum with effect from 01.08.2000 on the principal amount is deemed expedient and justified. The issue is decided accordingly.
Suit no. 106 of 2006 Page no. 19 of 19 22. Issue No. 5:
In view of above discussions, the suit is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against he defendant in the sum of Rs. 3,97,159/ with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 01.08.2000 till realization and proportionate costs of the suit. Decree sheet be accordingly prepared.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 2nd August, 2014 (Sunil K. Aggarwal) Addl. District Judge (Central)10 Delhi.
Suit no. 106 of 2006 Page no. 19 of 19