Delhi District Court
Tis Hazari CourtDelhi vs M/S Continental Carriers Pvt. Ltd on 29 February, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIKRAM CIVIL JUDGE OF (NORTH) DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTDELHI
Suit No. 554/06 [CS (OS) 1648/91]
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF DAMAGES
Unique ID No.02401C0074052002
MEMO OF PARTIES:
New Friend & Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
A Company duly registered having Registered office at,
5 Bhamashah Marg,
Delhi110009.
Plaintiff.........
Versus.
1. M/s Continental Carriers Pvt. Ltd.,
G12 Marina Arcade,
Cannaught Circus, New Delhi
and at:
37 H Cannaught Circus, New Delhi
2. M/s Paramount Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd.,
36 Genting Lane 0800
Minwa Industrial Buildings,
Singapore 1334.
3. M/s Univac Precision Engg. Ltd.,
0101, Block 3012,
Ang Mo Kio Industrial Park I
Singapore 2056.
Defendants.....
Date of Institution of suit : 08.05.1991
Date on which judgment reserved : 27.01.2012
Date of announcement of common judgment : 29.02.2012
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment I shall decide the suit for recovery of RS. 2,74,646.25/-.
2. Brief facts as per plaint are that plaintiff is a private limited company, duly incorporated. The suit is filed through Sh. Arun Shankar Goela duly authorized representative. The plaintiff entered into an agreement with defendant no.3 for purchase Suit No. 554/06 [CS (OS) 1648/91] 1 of one unit NISSEI Plastic injection Machine Model PS-80F12ASE complete with NC8000F & SSE Super Save Energy System and standard accessories comprising Spring Nozzle & Standard Nozzle, Adiabatic Plate, Spare Receptacle, Mould Cooling System (16 Chambers) and Nissuui Kako Hopper Drier Model FNH-1A. The supply was agreed with defendant no.3 for Singapore $ 645,000/-, inclusive of all freight, packing, insurance & other charges constituting the CIF value at New Delhi. The consigned goods were sent from Singapore in container No. CITU 3801944 weighing 7500 Kgs. aboard the vessel LM Noble Lady vide Bill of Lading describing the place of delivery as New Delhi ICD. The transport freight prepaid at Singapore.
3. Defendant no.1 is duly approved IATA Cargo Agent, Sea Freight Operator and approved Custom House Agent. Defendant no.2 is the Cargo Handling Agent of defendant no.1 in Singapore. Plaintiff received Cargo Arrival Notice dated 20.03.1989 from defendant no.1. As per notice plaintiff was required to pay a sum of Rs. 4100/- towards container handing charges and delivery charges. Plaintiff made payment of RS. 4100/- to defendant no.1. Cargo Arrival Notice mentioned that vessel LM Noble Lady was expected to berth within a few days from the date of Cargo Arrival Notice, but, plaintiff did not received delivery orders drawn on custom authorities even after expiry of a reasonable period of time. Defendant no.1 was inquired repeatedly but no satisfactory response was received. Having failed to obtain any satisfactory response from defendant no.1 regarding whereabouts of the consignment the plaintiff company deputed its Managing Director to meet defendant no.2 at Singapore and locate the whereabouts of consignment. In a meeting at Singapore office on 29th Apr. 1989, the Managing Director of plaintiff was informed that owing to a "regrettable error" on the part of defendant no.1 and 2 the consignment had been wrongly consigned to Bombay as port instead of New Delhi ICD as originally contracted. Defendant no.2 further assured the Managing Director of plaintiff that they would render all possible help and assistance including payment of expenses to retrieve the consignment and forward it to New Delhi ICD as contracted. This was confirmed to plaintiff in writing vide telex no. UP2/B/9123 dated 02.05.1989.
4. During first week of May 1989 plaintiff was informed by defendant no.1 that as the consignment was wrongly consigned to Bombay as the port of delivery, due to error of defendants, the custom authorities had taken over the consignment and same had to be cleared at Bombay instead of New Delhi. Plaintiff informed the defendant no.1 that Suit No. 554/06 [CS (OS) 1648/91] 2 this was not possible as the import license under which the consignment had been imported, specifically stated New Delhi as port of clearance and the Import license was registered at New Delhi, therefore consignment had to be forwarded to New Delhi ICD as contracted. Thereupon defendant no.1 asked plaintiff company to make ex-gratia payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- as a temporary measure to enable defendant no.1 to move the consignment to New Delhi. On receiving this request the plaintiff made it clear to defendant no.1 that since the company was suffering heavily on account of non-delivery of the subject consignment, it was agreeable to make ex-gratia payment requested by defendant no.1 upon the specific understanding that said amount would be refunded to the plaintiff company as early as possible. The understanding was reproduced in writing and delivered and confirmed to the defendant no.1, and simultaneously plaintiff authorized its Bombay based customer to make payment of Rs. 1,00,000/-, which was duly done on 30th May, 1989 and duly acknowledged by defendant no.1.
5. Plaintiff finally received consignment at New Delhi ICD on 23rd June, 1989 and it was cleared after carrying necessary formalities after payment of custom duties. It is stated that the consignment was not delivered in March 1989 and the delay in delivery from March 1989 to 23rd June, 1989 occurred solely due to negligence and default of defendants. It is further stated in the plaint that due to non delivery of consignment at New Delhi plaintiff made repeated inquiries and put tremendous inconvenience and harassment and delay in installation of machinery leading to huge losses, not only on account of delay but also for rapid fall in value of Indian Rupee vis-a-vis Singapore Dollar which would correspondingly increase the custom duty and also the interest accruing on the amount of suppliers invoice already paid by the bank. Despite several reminders when plaintiff did not receive the refund, plaintiff issued notices dated 18.07.1990 and 25.08.1990 upon defendant no.1 asking reimbursement of loss of plaintiff with interest. The notices were duly received but defendant chose not to reply.
6. Plaintiff has claimed recovery of amount from defendants in following manner;
1.Refund of temporary advance of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest @ 22% for ten months(from 20.03.1989 to Jan. 1990) Rs. 18333 and interest @ 22% for twelve months (from Feb. 1990 to Feb 1991) Rs. 22,000/-. Total Rs. 1,40,333/-
2.Difference on account of exchange rates Rs. 0.265 per S $ i.e. S $ 645,000 x 0.265 = 17,095/-.
3.Amount recoverable for excess custom duty paid on account of fall in value of Rupee Suit No. 554/06 [CS (OS) 1648/91] 3 i.e. @ 40% on Rs. 17,095 = 6,838/-.
7. As per plaintiff, it is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 2,74,646.25 in all along with interest. As per plaintiff cause of action in favour of plaintiff and against defendant arose when defendants failed to deliver the consignment in March 1989 and delivered after 3 months. It also arose on 30 May, 1989 when Rs. 1,00,000/- was advanced to defendant no.1 and the defendants failed to return in spite of reminders and written notices to defendant no.1. As per plaintiff the suit falls under Jurisdiction of this Court as defendant no.1 works for gain in Delhi, demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- was made in Delhi and the amount was to be refunded in Delhi.
8. In written statement defendant no.1 raised objection as to authority of Sh. Arun Shankar Goela to file and prosecute the suit on behalf of plaintiff. Defendant no.1 admitted the some of the paras as matter of record but denied that defendant no.2 is the cargo handling agent of the defendant no.1 in Singapore. It is stated that defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 are two separate and distinct legal entities and there is no connection between two except that both the defendants are IATA agents and as such are to render services to their respective customers/clients as and when the documents are sent or received. It is stated that defendant no.2 elected to send documents of shipment to the defendant no.1 as such defendant no.1 had to render the services to plaintiff in getting the clearance done of its shipment handled by defendant no.2 at Singapore.
9. Defendant no.1 further stated that there was no mistake on the part of defendant no.1 in non delivery of shipment as defendant no.1 came into picture only when the shipment was dispatched from Singapore. Defendant no.1 further took the defence that there is no privity of contract between plaintiff and defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 also stated that assurance if any for refund of money were given by defendant no.2 and not by defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 denied that it informed that there was error on its part, it had no connection with the shipment of plaintiff at Singapore. Defendant no.1 came into picture only when defendant no.2 asked it to render assistance to plaintiff in India in clearance and other information about the shipment in terms of IATA Rules.
10. Defendant no.1 further denied that there was any understanding given by defendant no. 1 about the refund of advance of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is stated that said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was accounted against expenses for transportation of consignment from port of Bombay to New Delhi. Defendant no.1 also stated that it only Suit No. 554/06 [CS (OS) 1648/91] 4 handled shipment in India and there is no negligence on its part. The error if any in documentation was at Singapore. Rest of the averments in plaint are denied as incorrect.
11. Defendant no.2 also filed its written statement and took preliminary objection that there is no privity of contract between plaintiff and defendant no.2. Defendant no.2 took further objection that it resides and works for gain in Singapore and there is no cause of action arisen against it in Delhi, hence liable to be dismissed. Defendant no.2 denied each and every paras of plaint as incorrect and wrong or for relating to defendant no.1.
12. Plaintiff did not file any replication to the written statements of defendant no.1 however filed replication to written statement of defendant no.2. In replication plaintiff denied preliminary objections as false and baseless. Plaintiff stated that defendant no.2 is an associate of defendant no.1 at Singapore who handled the consignment and arranged its dispatch. It is stated that the bill of lading for the dispatch of consignment reflects the privity of contract. Plaintiff further stated that the courts in Delhi have jurisdiction as the consignment was to be delivered at Delhi. Further the defendant no.1 have its office at Delhi. On merits plaintiff reiterated the contents of plaint and denied those mentioned in written statement.
13. From pleadings on 05.03.2002 following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the plaint has been instituted by a duly authorized person and Sh. Arun Shankar Goela is authorized to prosecute the present suit on behalf of plaintiff company? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim suit amount from plaintiff? OPP.
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to claim interest? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
4. Whether there is no privity of contract between plaintiff and defendant no.2/ OPD.
5. Whether the suit against defendant no.2 could not be instituted in Delhi and the suit is liable to be dismissed? OPD.
6. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD.
7. Relief.
14. In PE Sh. Lalit Shankar Goela Director/Principal officer of the plaintiff filed his affidavit Ex.Pw1/A. The contents of Ex.Pw1/A are reproduction of plaint. Along with Ex.Pw1/A, Pw1 produced some photocopies of documents mark A to C and Mark D1 Suit No. 554/06 [CS (OS) 1648/91] 5 to 11. Pw1 was cross examined by counsel for defendant no.1 and defendant no.2. In cross examination Pw1 admitted that the consignment was from Singapore, the charges were prepaid and it came through sea. Pw1 also admitted that goods were not handed over by plaintiff to defendant no.1 and the bill of Lading was not issued by the defendant no.1. Pw1 stated that bill of lading is not a contract between plaintiff and defendant but a contract with shipping company and supplier after plaintiff placed order. Pw1 also admitted that defendant no.1 informed the arrival of goods at bombay. In cross examination plaintiff referred to letters dated 20.05.1989 and 09.12.1989 asking the defendant no.1 to refund the loan. These letters were exhibited as Ex.Pw1/D1 and Ex.Pw1/D2 respectively. Pw1 also stated in cross examination that he didn't inquire from the supplier about the place of destination after placing order and checking documents. Pw1 is not aware whether any demand notice was sent to defendant no.1 or not.
15. In cross examination by counsel for defendant no.2 Pw1 stated that he has a board resolution to depose on behalf of plaintiff. This board resolution was produced and taken on record as ex.Pw1/D3, but, Pw1 admitted that he did not filed board resolution earlier nor mentioned about it in affidavit. When asked about the resolution in favour of Sh. Arun Shankar Goela to sign, verify and institute the plaint, Pw1 stated that he did not know whether any such authority is filed in record or not. On his authority to depose in this case Pw1 stated that he was appointed about one year back but he do not know the date when he was so authorized. Witness was directed to check the record and after seeing the record Pw1 admitted that there is no resolution in favour of Sh. Arun Shankar Goela. Pw1 further stated that Sh. Arun Shankar goela has now resigned from the plaintiff Company.
16. Witness was then questioned on Ex.Pw1/D3 and Pw1 admitted that in Ex.Pw1/D3 it is not mentioned as to which board meeting it was passed or on what date. Pw1/3 also admitted that Ex.Pw1/3 is not certified by any Director or Company Secretory on behalf of plaintiff company. Pw1 further stated in cross examination that Sh. A. S. Goela met defendant no.2 personally, during period of transaction and stated that the telex massage Mark D5 dated 02.05.1989 was received from defendant no.2. In later part of cross examination Pw1 admitted that all the events which had taken place on 19.04.1989 were told to him by his brother Sh. A. S. Goela. Pw1 also admitted that shipment of consignment by defendant no.3 was at instruction of plaintiff to send it by Suit No. 554/06 [CS (OS) 1648/91] 6 the best possible freighter/shipping agent. Pw1 also admitted that defendant no.2 issued Bill of lading in pursuance of invoice of defendant no.3 dated 23.02.1989. Pw1 further stated that he know only the bare outlines but the details of procedure followed is with in the knowledge of his elder brother. Pw1 admitted that the bill of lading contains the destination as New Delhi via Bombay. With Pw1 plaintiff closed its PE.
17. In DE defendant no.1 filed affidavit of Sh. JC Sharma as D1w1. In his affidavit D1w1 stated that he is a regional manager with defendant no.1 and is conversant with facts of case. D1w1 stated that defendant no.1 is an IATA approved Company and under the rules of IATA all the agents are required to handle shipments of other IATA agents whenever routed through them. D1w1 also stated in his affidavit that in present case defendant no.2 elected to rout the documents through defendant no.1 to render the services to plaintiff in connection with shipment. He deposed that whenever the information was received from defendant no.2, same was conveyed to plaintiff. D1w1 further stated that there was no mistake on the part of defendant no.1 or 2 in dispatch of shipment from Singapore to Bombay as the shipment was sent by sea as such it was to came to Bombay as the shipping company had filed manifest with the customs at Bombay where destination was shown as Bombay. D1w1 further submitted that the freight charges to the plaintiff was that of from Singapore to Bombay. Dw1 further stated in affidavit that no assurance with regard to anything was given to plaintiff by defendant no.2. He further stated that there was no understanding for refund of the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- advanced to defendant no.1 as it was advanced by plaintiff to bring the shipment from Bombay to Delhi by Road and the same was accounted against various expenses. D1w1 further stated that shipment was transferred from Bombay to Delhi through Silver Marine Times and all the invoices and bills were handed over to plaintiff. D1w1 also stated that there was no understanding for refund of the same. D1w1 further stated in his affidavit that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been accounted for without any protest and the said advance was given to defendant no.1 for and on behalf of defendant no.2 on whose instruction defendant no.1 handled the shipment of plaintiff from Bombay to Delhi.
18. In cross examination D1w1 stated that since there was a confusion as the container came by sea the matter in question was referred to him. D1w1 stated that he came into picture in this case only when the case was referred to him otherwise he was not dealing with the case. D1w1 stated that confusion was created by consignee that the Suit No. 554/06 [CS (OS) 1648/91] 7 shipment should have come to Delhi not at Bombay. Later part of cross examination is for the procedure of shipment to which D1w1 stated that handling/transshipment of a consignment has to be on the basis of Bill/AWB/Bill of Lading. D1w1 stated that the document FBL 007018 is House bill of lading. D1w1 stated that handling of consignment was on the basis of master bill of lading. D1w1 denied the suggestion that consignment was handled on the basis of document numbered FBL 007018. D1w1 stated that information which was received from Singapore from defendant no.2 is the master bill of lading and shipping manifest on which a cargo arrival notice was issued to plaintiff. D1w1 denied the suggestion that House Bill of lading was sent along with cargo arrival notice to plaintiff and stated that this document is directly sent to the consignee by the shipper. D1w1 denied that the consignment was handled on the basis of document mark D or on the basis of bill of lading Mark B. D1w1 stated that document mark B is house bill of lading as it is issued by defendant no.2. D1w1 also stated that defendant no.1 cannot issue the master bill of lading as it was to be surrendered to the agents of carrier at the time of giving delivery order. D1w1 admitted that letters Ex.Pw1/d1 and Ex.Pw1/D2 were received and amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was received by defendant no.1, but stated that he cannot say wheher any reply to Ex.Pw1/D1 &2 was issued or bill for receipt of Rs. 1,00,000/- was issued. With this witness defendant no. 1 closed DE. No DE lead by Defendant no. 2.
19. Counsel for defendant no.2, only, appeared for addressing final arguments and the proxy counsel for plaintiff submitted that written submissions are on record which will be sufficient to decide the case. Even counsel for defendant no.1 submitted that his written submissions are sufficient. Therefore, on the basis of limited arguments, written submissions on record and from the record available, my finding on each issue is as follows:-
20. ISSUE No.1:- Whether the plaint has been instituted by a duly authorized person and sh. Arun Shankar Goela is authorised to prosecute the present suit on behalf of plaintiff company?
The onus to prove this issue is on plaintiff. At the time of filing of plaint, Sh. Arun Shankar Goela did not file any authorization letter on behalf of plaintiff Company. Sh. Arun Shankar Goela is stated to be Managing Director of the company but no record is produced to show that Sh. Arun Shankar Goela was managing Director or being Managing Director he was authorized to sign, verify and institute the plaint.
Suit No. 554/06 [CS (OS) 1648/91] 8Even Pw1 did not filed any such authority in the name of Arun Shankar Goela. Plaintiff has not even produced the Memorandum/Article of Association of company to show if Sh. Arun Shankatr Goela was Managing Director of the company. Even Pw1 did not proved that he is authorized to depose on behalf of plaintiff. The authority letter Ex.Pw1/D3 as produced by Pw1 is not certified. Further Pw1 has not produced the minutes of resolution in which he was authorized to depose for company. Pw1 came in witness box as one of director but Pw1 also did not produce any record to show that he is director in the plaintiff company. Hence, this suit was not instituted by person duly authorized by the company. The issue is therefore decided against plaintiff.
21. The main issue, to have the authority of sh. Arun Shankar Goela to institute suit has gone against plaintiff. In absence of any authority to file suit the suit can not continue therefore suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground only. However since it is required to give findings on all other issues for complete disposal of case, the other issues are also taken.
22. ISSUE No.2:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim suit amount from the defendants?
The suit for the finding of issue no.1 goes, however if the suit would have been instituted by duly authorized person, the claim is that plaintiff ordered the shipment from Singapore from defendant no.3. This defendant no.3 was given up on 01.11.2001. The shipment was sent by IATA agent in Singapore i.e. defendant no.2. The claim of plaintiff is that the shipment was to be delivered in New Delhi ICD as per bill of lading. It is admitted case of plaintiff that it received Cargo Arrival notice in the vessel LM NOBLE LADY, however it is claimed that this notice was sent by defendant no.1 on 20.03.1989 for which defendant no.1 required a sum of Rs. 4100/-, which was paid to defendant no.1. It is the claim of plaintiff that it has been informed that consignment has been wrongly consigned to Bombay as port of delivery instead of New Delhi ICD as originally contracted. Non of the documents placed by plaintiff are in original. Only photocopies are on record as Mark D1 to D11. The claim of plaintiff is that the shipment was sent to Port of Bombay owing to mistake on the part of defendant no.1 and 2. Here it is important to note that the shipment was sent through Vessel LM NOBLE LADY. If it is the claim of plaintiff that the shipment was to be delivered to New Delhi ICD directly from Singapore then the claim is either false or mistaken. Reason being New Delhi cannot be a port. Geographically and factually no vessel can Suit No. 554/06 [CS (OS) 1648/91] 9 deliver shipment directly to Delhi. To ship a consignment directly to Delhi it has to be through AIR. Therefore if, the shipment was meant to be shipped through vessel LM Noble Lady it has to go to some port in coastal line in India and then it has to be delivered to New Delhi ICD through air or road or rail. Therefore the claim of plaintiff that shipment was sent wrongly to Bombay Port is false. Further the Bill of lading produced by plaintiff himself, though in photocopy, marked B also shows that delivery was to be made to Delhi via Bombay. Therefore in any case the shipment has to be delivered to Delhi via Bombay.
23. Further claim of plaintiff is that the freight was prepaid therefore it made payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- to defendant no.1 reserving right to claim refund to which defendants agreed. Although some letters are on record to show that plaintiff made payment to defendant no.1 under protest but there is no such record of conversation in response that defendant agreed to refund that payment. It could not have been. The plaintiff basis the ground for protest as the bill of lading shows that freight was prepaid, therefore plaintiff was not liable to make payment till Delhi. However it is incorrect. Whenever a bill of lading is made in respect to any consignment in a vessel the term freight prepaid means that the consignee is not required to make payment of freight for the delivery of consignment in ship. If the freight is prepaid it means that it is prepaid for the transportation in vessel only. Although the shipment was to be delivered in Delhi, but unless there is previous arrangement as to transportation of consignment from Bombay Port to Delhi ICD, the shipper there in Singapore cannot pre pay the freight. To pre pay the freight there must be an identified transporter which would make delivery to the plaintiff in Delhi ICD. Plaintiff appears to be mistaken from the invoice Mark A which shows Port of Shipment as Singapore and Port of Destination as New Delhi ICD. New Delhi ICD is not a port. No ship can ever come to New Delhi ICD, therefore, freight prepaid must only be up to Bombay where the consignment arrived in vessel LM Noble Lady. There was mistake from the side of cosigner as well as consignee with regard to port of destination. If the shipment was to be delivered directly it would have been sent through Air Cargo otherwise, for Marine Cargo prepaid freight would be up to port of delivery only which is Bombay Port not New Delhi ICD. Therefore, there was mistake since very beginning for not assigning the mode of transportation of Cargo from Bombay Port to New Delhi ICD.
24. Unfortunately in this case neither plaintiff produced any document to show that Suit No. 554/06 [CS (OS) 1648/91] 10 there were pre arrangement or pre contract of mode of delivery from Bombay to Delhi, neither defendants produced anything. The case is of plaintiff, which is a company to be represented through duly authorized person. But, the person who has filed this suit on behalf of plaintiff has not produced any document on record which could show that he was authorized to sue defendants or there was any resolution in the plaintiff company to institute the suit against defendants. This also creates doubt if plaintiff company actually intended to sue defendants for this reason.
25. Further claim of plaintiff is, for account of loss of revenue for excess payment of custom duty due to delay in delivery and change of value of Rupee. As already held that there is no mistake in delivery delay could not be attributed to the defendant no.1 or to defendant no.2. The shipment has to reach New Delhi via Bombay and from Bombay it had to be sent by road/rail transport. Further plaintiff has not produced anything on record to show such loss.
Therefore plaintiff is not entitled to claim suit amount from defendants, even if the suit would have been filed by duly authorized person.
26. ISSUE No.3:- Interest on recovery. As issue no. 2 has gone against plaintiff question of interest does not arise.
27. ISSUE No.4:- whether there is no privity of contract between plaintiff and defendant no.2?
Onus to prove this issue was on defendant no.2. Defendant no.2 has not lead any evidence, neither any one came to depose in this regard. However, the objection of privity of contract is on the ground that the contract of plaintiff was with defendant no.3 alone to whom plaintiff has given up and defendant no.2 was engaged for shipment by defendant no.3 in its independent capacity. The objections seems to be reasonable however, defendant no.2 has not produced anything on record that it was engaged by defendant no.3 independently and not for plaintiff. The issue is therefore decided against defendant no.2. Similar objection of privity of contract was taken by defendant no.1 but no such issue was framed.
28. ISSUE No.5 whether the suit against defendant no.2 could not be instituted in Delhi and liable to be dismissed for this ground. Here again defendant no.2 has not lead any evidence. However the defendant no.2 is a shipper and the shipment was to be delivered in Delhi. Therefore if there would have been any negligence resulting in loss of plaintiff, New Delhi being the place of delivery and the place where the loss would Suit No. 554/06 [CS (OS) 1648/91] 11 have occurred due to such mistake, the suit could have been instituted in Delhi. The issue is therefore decided against defendant no.2. As per section 20 of CPC a suit can be filed in the jurisdiction of court where the cause of action, wholly or in apart, arise.
29. ISSUE No.6:- Whether the suit is not maintainable? Onus to prove this issue was on defendant however no inputs are given by defendants. Written arguments also in this aspect are of no use. However when trial has completed the issue itself loses relevance. Hence given up.
RELIEF:-
in view of the findings of issue no.1 and 2 the suit of plaintiff is dismissed Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court on VIKRAM
29.02.2012 CJ02 (North)/Delhi
29.02.2012
Suit No. 554/06 [CS (OS) 1648/91] 12
29.02.2012 Suit No. 554/06
Present: None.
Vide Separate judgment the suit of plaintiff is dismissed.
Decree sheet be prepared.
File be consigned to Record Room.
VIKRAM
CJ02 (North)/Delhi
29.02.2012
Suit No. 554/06 [CS (OS) 1648/91] 13