Delhi District Court
Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd vs Picture Productions (India) Pvt. Ltd on 2 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGEII (CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CS No. 24/2010
New No.: 17946/16
Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd.
23/59 Old Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi - 110060
Through its Director
Mr. Haresh Thakur
....... Plaintiff
Versus
Picture Productions (India) Pvt. Ltd.
# 6162, Moniteth Road, Egmore,
Chennai - 600008
Through its Managing Director
Mr. Alfred Selvaraj
....... Defendant
CS No. 02/2012
New No.: 15059/16
Picture Productions (India) Pvt. Ltd.
# 6162, Moniteth Road, Egmore,
Chennai - 600008
Through its Managing Director
Mr. Alfred Selvaraj
........ Plaintiff
Versus
Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd.
23/59 Old Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi - 110060
Through its Director
Mr. Haresh Thakur
....... Defendant
Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10
Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 1 of 45
Date of Institution of CS No. 24/2010: 30.03.2010
Date of Institution of CS No. 02/2012: 31.08.2012
Judgment Reserved on: 26.12.2016
Judgment Pronounced on: 02.01.2017
JUDGMENT:
(1) Vide this combine judgment, I propose to decide two cases i.e. CS No. 24/2010 under the title 'Modern Radio House (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions (India) Pvt. Ltd.' which is the main suit and CS No. 02/2012 under the title 'Picture Productions (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House (India) Pvt. Ltd.' which is the Counter Claim. (2) In so far as the suit bearing CS No. 24/2010 under the title 'Modern Radio House (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions (India) Pvt. Ltd.' is concerned, it has been filed by Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. against Picture Productions (India) Pvt. Ltd. seeking Recovery of Rs.11,10,999/ (Rupees Eleven Lacs, Ten Thousand and Nine Hundred Ninety Nine Only) along with interest. In so far as the suit bearing CS No. 02/2012 under the title 'Picture Productions (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House (India) Pvt. Ltd.' is concerned, it is a Counter Claim filed by Picture Productions (India) Pvt. Ltd. seeking Recovery of Rs.10,00,000/ (Rupees ten Lacs only) alongwith interest.
Case of Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. (Plaintiff in CS No. 24/2010 and defendant in Counter Claim bearing CS No. 02/2012):
(3) The case of Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. (Plaintiff in CS No. 24/2010 and defendant in CS No. 02/2012) is that in May 2008 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. contacted and engaged them to Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 2 of 45 purchase and deliver an equipment i.e. 'LED Display System' at their premises for a total value of Rs.65,00,000/ (Rupees Sixty Five Lakh Only) but no written purchase order/ contract was placed by Picture Production. It is pleaded that it was also agreed that as soon as possible Picture Production would provide the duly signed and stamped Purchase Order on its letter head to the Modern Radio House after which it would apply for a bank loan to import the Equipment in India. According to Modern Radio House, on 21.07.2008 Modern Radio House requested Picture Productions through email to forward a duly signed Purchase Order on its letterhead, so that they could apply for bank loan but instead of forwarding the signed Purchase Order, Picture Productions threatened to cancel the complete order. It is further pleaded that vide email dated 18.08.2008 Modern Radio House sent a detailed clarification stating that according to the mutually agreed terms Picture Productions has to pay approximately 55% (fifty five percent) of the contract value as advance and the balance has to be paid in four equal installments after delivery of the equipment and they (Picture Productions) had to provide duly signed Purchase Order on its letter head, so that they (Modern Radio House) could get approved the Bank Loan from the Bank and due to non issuance/ production of the Purchase Order by Picture Production the delivery scheduled for the Equipment was delayed. It is also pleaded that Modern Radio House also also informed Picture Productions that they had already made a partial payment to the manufacturer for supply of the Equipment, which was ready for supply at the warehouse of the manufacturer to be released on receipt of balance payment and requested Picture Productions not to cancel the order.
Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 3 of 45 (4) It is further pleaded that after much persistence Picture Productions sent the signed and stamped Purchase Order dated 25.09.2009 on its letter head for purchase of Equipment with pixel pitch of 10mm, screen size of 3845 (W) X 2280 (H) mm with controller, interface software, Power switch and flight case of Equipment tiles. It is also pleaded that the total value of the contract amount was Rs.65 lacs plus VAT @ 4% and Rs.25 lacs to be paid as advance, Rs. 10 lac against delivery and the balance of Rs.2,60,000/ to be paid in 7 equal monthly installments from the date of delivery. According to Modern Radio House, it was also stipulated that in case if there is a delay in payment of the installments, an interest on depreciating balance @ 14% per annum compounded shall be paid over and above of the total amount of Rs.65 lacs plus VAT and it was also stipulated that the material has to be delivered within a period of 15 working days from the date of Purchase Order and in case if there is any delay in delivering the equipment an amount of Rs.10,000/ per day has to be paid to Picture Productions as Compensation. According to Modern Radio House, after receiving the Purchase Order from Picture Productions on 15.10.2008 and 20.10.2008, within the prescribed period of 15 (fifteen) working days, they (Modern Radio House) delivered and installed the Equipment at the premises of Picture Productions in Chennai and also handed over all the original papers including the warranty card issued by the manufacturer. It is further pleaded, that on 20.10.2008 the Managing Director of Picture Productions issued a certificate on their letter head certifying that the Equipment had been assembled and tested to their satisfaction. It is pleaded that after receiving the completion certificate issued by Picture Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 4 of 45 Productions, the obligation of Modern Radio House came to an end as the scope of the purchase order was only to purchase and supply the equipment at the site of Picture Productions. It is also pleaded that Modern Radio House had never undertaken to repair the equipment and also never took responsibility to provide after sale services, which is also clear from the terms and conditions of the Purchase Order, however, out of courtesy and business relationship and on request of Picture Productions, Modern Radio House once volunteered to help and repaired the equipment and sent it back to Picture Productions on 24.02.2009 at its own expenses and cost. Thereafter on 18.03.2009 in reply to email dated 05.03.2009 received from Picture Productions, asking Modern Radio House to resolve some problem in the equipment, Modern Radio House informed Picture Productions that they had asked the manufacturer to resolve the same and also requested them (Picture Productions) to release the balance amount. It is further pleaded that Modern Radio House through registered post dated 28.10.2009 once again reminded Picture Productions to release the outstanding amount of Rs.10,59,763/ (Rs. Ten Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Three only) including the delayed interest as stipulated in the Purchase order and thereafter on 30.10.2009 by email once again requested Picture Productions to release the outstanding amount with interest before 06.11.2009. It is also pleaded that Picture Productions neither replied to the email dated 30.10.2009 nor cleared the outstanding amount and hence left with no other option, Modern Radio House through its counsel sent a legal notice dated 12.11.2009 asking Picture Productions to clear the payment of outstanding amount of Rs.10,62,335/ including interest thereon, failing Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 5 of 45 which they shall be constrained to initiate legal proceedings against them for recovery of the said outstanding amount. It is also pleaded that in reply to the legal notice dated 25.11.2009, Picture Productions without referring to the terms of the Purchase order once again tried to shift the blame on Modern Radio House and refused to make the payment. It is pleaded that Picture Productions under one pretext or another delayed the balance payment and eventually raised false controversy that there was an inordinate delay in supplying the equipment and Modern Radio House did not provide the required after sales services during the warranty period. It is also pleaded that there was no delay on part of Modern Radio House in supplying the equipment and they had never agreed to provide any after sales services, to the contrary it was the Picture Productions who even after various reminders failed to give the stamped and signed Purchase Order. Therefore, Modern Radio House filed the suit bearing CS No.24/2010 seeking recovery of Rs.11,10,999/ (Rs. Eleven Lakh Ten Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Nine only) from Picture Productions.
Case of Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant in CS No. 24/2010 and Counter Claimant in CS No. 02/2012):
(5) After being served with the summons, Picture Production India Pvt. Ltd. filed its Written Statement and also filed a Counter Claim seeking recovery of Rs. 10 lacs through its Managing Director Alfred Selvraj. It has been alleged that due to delay in delivery of the equipment and delay in rectification of inherent defects, the equipment could not be effectively used on account of which they suffered losses. The case of Picture Productions is that they are into business of renting out Audio Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 6 of 45 Visual Equipment in Chennai and was in need of LED Display System.
One Mr. Davinder Wadhwa the common acquaintance of Modern Radio House and Picture Productions, asked the defendant (Picture Productions) to contact the plaintiff (Modern Radio House) who was reported to be the dealer of LED Display System and other electronic equipments and accordingly the defendant/ counter claimant approached the plaintiff for purchasing LED Display System. On this the plaintiff (Modern Radio House) expressed its readiness to sell/ supply the LED Display System and further informed that they would also provide the after sales service and is having well training and competent support staff in various parts of the country including Chennai for providing after sales service. It is pleaded that the defendant convinced by the representation made by the plaintiff who assured that they (plaintiff - Modern Radio House) would be responsible for after sales service etc. and agreed to purchase the equipment after the modalities of the sale and purchase of the equipment were orally discussed. It was agreed that the price of the equipment would be Rs.65,00,000/ (Rupees Sixty Five Lacs) of which Rs.25,00,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs) was paid as advance by way of five cheques each commencing from 08.05.2008 upto 18.06.2008 and it was agreed upon by the plaintiff that it would deliver and install the LED Display System at Chennai within 15 days of encashment of two cheques which fell in the month of June 2008 since it was clearly conveyed that the Equipment was urgently required in the month of July 2008 and the remaining amount would be paid in seven equal monthly installments out of the business, the defendant would be generating through the said equipment. It was further agreed that in case of any Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 7 of 45 delay, the plaintiff (Modern Radio House) shall compensate the defendant (Picture Productions) since it was made clear to the plaintiff that the defendant would be having two programmes in the month of July 2008 and for that reason the plaintiff had to deliver the equipment in June 2008 itself. It was also agreed between the parties that the defendant would be having no relation with the manufacturer and the plaintiff would be responsible for the functioning of the said equipment, which condition was accepted by the plaintiff. Thereafter despite getting the cheques of the advance payment encashed, the plaintiff (Modern Radio House) did not deliver the LED Display System by the end of June 2008 on which the defendant conveyed that they would be cancelling the contract and would be demanding refund of the advance payment. However, since the plaintiff was unable to meet the delivery schedule despite getting the cheques encashed and due to the repeated inquiries of the defendant and threat to cancel the threat, the plaintiff instead of fulfilling its commitment, started asking for placing of purchase order. (6) According to the defendant, it was for the plaintiff to have arranged for the funds at its own level for import of the equipment and it was never stipulated that the defendant would provide any documentary support to the plaintiff for arrangement of the funds from the Bank and in order to preempt the claim of the defendant to seek the refund of the advance amount, for the first time the plaintiff sent an email dated 21.07.2008 seeking issuance of Purchase Order and also sought the attested signature of the defendant. It is pleaded that left with no choice the defendant vide its letter dated 28.07.2008 conveyed to the plaintiff that it had already lost two live outdoor programmes and in case if the Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 8 of 45 LED Display System was not supplied by 05.08.2008 the defendant would cancel the order and further requested that if the plaintiff was unable to supply the equipment, then return the money to the defendant. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff neither supplied the equipment nor it refunded the advance money and hence on 07.08.2008 the defendant wrote to Mr. Wadhwa informing him about the non delivery of LED System on time and hence they were cancelling the order for the same. The copy of the said mail was also forwarded to the plaintiff pursuant to which the plaintiff sent an email to the defendant on 18.08.2008 and raised the same issue of Purchase Order and its inability for raise the funds from the bank and also conveyed that it (Modern Radio House) took loan at higher interest rate from the third source in order to arrange the import of the LED Display System and also asked for the Post Dated Cheques and offered to give a discount of Rs.3,00,000/ against the loss of amount of interest on the advance paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that on 18.09.2008 the defendant again wrote to the plaintiff informing them that it (Picture Production) had already lost business worth Rs.9,00,000/ (Rupees Nine Lacs only) and the advance money was also lying idle with the plaintiff for the last three months and since the plaintiff was having upper hand having in receipt of huge advance money, the defendant still gave two option to the plaintiff i.e. cancel the order and refund the advance money with interest @ 25% or the material be dispatched within 15 days from the date of receipt of letter and to give credit period of seven months for the balance payment from the date of receipt of the material, upon which conditions the defendant agreed to issue to Purchase Order and accordingly issued the same on Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 9 of 45 25.09.2008 with the terms and conditions duly spelt out in the same. Prior to the same the plaintiff had insisted upon payment of Rs.10,00,000/ as further advance and the defendant had no option but to pay the said amount to the plaintiff. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff delivered the equipment to the defendant vide delivery challan dated 14.10.2008 and on 20.10.2008 the same was installed pursuant to which the defendant issued necessary certificate to the plaintiff in this regard, but the defendant started facing problems with the LED Display System since each time display system was switched on, the display was not shown on the full screen and it was haphazard and 35 to 45 single bulbs were not working properly and these bulbs showed only a red display. According to the defendant, they made a complaint to the plaintiff on 09.02.2009 on which the employees of the plaintiff took the equipment for servicing on 10.02.2009 after which the defendant sent a reminder to the plaintiff vide letter dated 18.02.2009 and thereafter the LED Wall was received back after service/ repairs. However, the defects were not removed completely on which the defendant informed the plaintiff about the same vide its mail/ letter dated 05.03.2009 informing that the defendant was still facing problem with the system as the black spots were not completely removed and Heat Sync's had fallen down and it was not advisable to use the system without Heat Sync. It is also pleaded that the defendant sent complaints/ reminders on 07.03.3009 and 10.03.2009 and it was only on 11.03.2009 that the plaintiff informed the defendant that they had forwarded the complaint to the Manufacturer and they would get back by 12.03.2009. According to the defendant, the plaintiff kept on insisting for the payment without putting the equipment in the Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 10 of 45 working condition on which they (Picture Production) made it clear that the amount of installment could be released only after the rectification of the problem on the part of the plaintiff so that the display system could be used productively. Thereafter the plaintiff asked the defendant not the link the payment with "the heat sync" and assured to get the problem rectified but on 18.03.2008 the plaintiff informed that they had asked the manufacturer to send them (plaintiff) the special fluid and instructions to fix the heat syncs and again asked the defendant to release the payment. It is further pleaded that vide communication dated 19.03.2009, the defendant made it clear to the plaintiff that they (defendant) were not in a position to use the LED Display System productively and it was not enough to sent the mail to the manufacturer and requested the plaintiff to speed up the action and rectify the defects. It is also pleaded that though the email dated 25.03.2009 contained the information that the manufacturer had sent the package to the plaintiff but the same was not sent to Chennai for getting the equipment rectified. According to the defendant, they again sent the email/ reminders to the plaintiff on 02.04.2009 for non receipt of package and the plaintiff informed through its mail that the spares are cleared from the customs today except the glue, which the airlines consider as hazardous item, hence is being sent by air mail. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff could not rectify the problem of black spots and the defendant kept on facing the problem of black spots and the defendant was unable to use the LED Display System for the programmes for which it was bought. It is further pleaded that since the problems with the LED Display System could not be rectified by the local support staff of the plaintiff, therefore at request of the plaintiff, the Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 11 of 45 defendant sent the parts of the LED Display System i.e. LED Wall for repairing along with its letter dated 13.07.2009 and it was assured by the local office of the plaintiff that the LED sent for repair would be returned after service within 10 days but the same was not returned even after more then two weeks pursuant to which the defendant sent the email on 04.08.2009 informing that they (defendant) had already lost one booking because of the delay in rectifying the defects in the LED Display System. It is also pleaded that the defendant had also conveyed to the plaintiff that it had got booking for 14.08.2009 and sought confirmation from the plaintiff whether the equipment would be repaired/ rectified before the said date but the plaintiff could not make any commitment on that account. According to the defendant, the plaintiff kept on assuring about the removing of the defect in the equipment but the same was not repaired for about three months during which the defendant lost many programmes and ultimately the plaintiff got repaired the equipment and handed over the same to the defendant on 06.10.2009. It is pleaded that the defendant could not use the LED Display System productively for about 6 months in the year 2009 due to inherent defects in the system and also due to the delay on the part of the plaintiff in rectifying the said defects and consequently suffered losses. It is also pleaded that the defendant vide its letter dated 27.10.2009 while pointing out the defects in the system as well as deficiency in the after sales service, requested the plaintiff to compensate on the price of machine since by that time the defendant had already suffered a loss of Rs.30 to Rs.35 lacs. It is further pleaded that instead of compensating the defendant, the plaintiff sent a letter dated 28.10.2009 asking the defendant to make the full payment of Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 12 of 45 Rs.10,59,763/ by 06.11.2009 failing which the plaintiff threatened to initiate legal proceedings against the defendant. It is also pleaded that the defendant wrote a letter dated 6.11.2009 to the plaintiff informing them that they (defendant) had lost the revenue during the six months of non performance of the LED Display System but they are ready to accept the nominal charges of Rs.10 lacs as non performing charges of the said LED Display System.
(7) According to the defendant, the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 12.11.2009 which was duly replied to by them on 25.11.2009 and raised a counter claim of Rs.30 lacs. It is pleaded that the defendant had placed the order for supply of LED Display System with the plaintiff by 15.06.2008 and the urgency of the supply was duly communicated to the plaintiff but despite taking an advance of Rs.25 lacs, the plaintiff did not adhere to the said schedule on account of which the defendant raised a claim of Rs. 9 lacs on account of loss of business vide its letter dated 18.09.2008 and besides the loss of business, the defendant also suffered loss of interest on the advance money of Rs.25 lacs which interest comes to Rs.2,60,417/. According to the defendant, the plaintiff was well aware of the fact that when IPL matches were held in India, the equipments of the defendant were used at the Chepauk Stadium during IPL 2008 whenever Chennai Super Kinds match took place (7 matches) and when the IPL matches of 2009 took place at South Africa, the defendant had an inquiry to put up LED Screen at a predominant place in Chennai City whenever Chennai Super Kings matches were displayed but for the reason of non working of LED Display System, the defendant could not accept the same, otherwise the defendant could have generated a business of Rs.
Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 13 of 45 6 lacs. It is pleaded that this was besides the regular business the defendant would have generated in its ordinary and usual course of business. It is also pleaded that though the damage caused to the defendant on account of loss of goodwill, cannot be fathomed in terms of money, yet by a conservative estimate the loss suffered by the defendant has been assessed at Rs.10 lcas only. According to the defendant, though the plaintiff is liable to pay a sum of Rs.47,60,417/, yet as intimated to the plaintiff earlier, the defendant has restricted its claim to Rs.10 lacs only on account of business loss etc. but this claim is besides the amount of Rs.3 lacs which the defendant is claiming as set off.
Reply of Modern Radio House to the Counter Claim of Picture Productions:
(8) The plaintiff Modern Radio House in its reply to the Counter Claim has denied the various allegations made by the defendant and has denied that it was the responsibility of the plaintiff for providing after sale services. It is pleaded that the defendant is attempting to improve its case set up in the written statement filed by the defendant in order to justify their illegal counter claim. It is further pleaded that no assurance was given and the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was only in respect of the supply of the equipment with all after sale service and defects covered by the warranties of the manufacturers. It is also denied that the plaintiff was responsible for maintenance of the equipment and that the balance amount was to be paid out of the revenue generated from the use of the system. It is denied that the defendant had lost any live outdoor programme as claimed. It is pleaded that the delay in execution Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 14 of 45 was on account of non issuance of the Purchase Order by the defendant.
The plaintiff has also denied having received any letter dated 07.03.2009 and 10.03.2009. According to the plaintiff, its obligations ended on 20.10.2008 when the equipment was installed and the completion certificate was issued by the defendant. It is denied that the defendant had suffered any loss of business as claimed by the, ISSUES FRAMED:
(9) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 31.08.2012 the Ld. Predecessor of this Court had framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.11,10,999/ from the defendant? (OPP)
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? (OPP)
3. Whether the amount of Rs.3,00,000/ is to be set off against the claim made by the plaintiff in the present suit? (OPD)
4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts, if so, its effect? (OPD)
5. Whether Sh. B.K. Sharma is duly authorized to pursue the matter on behalf of the plaintiff vide Board Resolution dated 02.07.2012? (OPP)
6. Whether the defendant is entitled to recovery Rs.10,00,000/ from the plaintiff, as claimed in the counter claim? (OPD)
7. Whether the defendant is entitled to interest on the same, if so, at what rate and for which period? (OPD) Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 15 of 45
8. Whether the counter claim filed by the defendant is without any cause of action, if so, its effect? (OPP)
9. Whether the equipment supplied by the plaintiff was under manufacturer warranty? (OPP)
10. Relief.
EVIDENCE:
(10) In order to prove its case, the plaintiff Modern Radio House has examined its Director namely Haresh Thakur as PW1 as its sole witness the defendant Picture Productions has examined its Managing Director Alfred Selvaraj as DW1 and Sh. Devender Wadhwa as DW2. (11) For the sake of convenience, the details of the witnesses examined by the parties and their deposition are put in a tabulated form as under:
Sr. No. Name of witness Deposition
Plaintiff's Witness
1. Sh. Haresh PW1 Sh. Haresh Thakur is the Director of Modern
Thakur (PW1) Radio House who in his examination in chief by way of
affidavit Ex.PW1/A has corroborated what has been earlier stated in the main plaint. He has placed his reliance on the following documents:
1. Extract of board resolution which is Ex.PW1/1.
2. Copy of email dated 21.07.2008 is Ex.PW1/2.
3. Copy of email dated 28.07.2008 which is Ex.PW1/3.
4. Copy of email dated 18.08.2008 which is Ex.DW1/4.
5. Copy of purchase order dated 25.09.2009 which is Ex.PW1/5 Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 16 of 45
6. Copy of delivery challan dated 14.10.2008 which is Ex.PW1/6
7. Copy of completion certificate dated 20.10.2008 which is already Ex.DW1/6.
8. Copy of email dated 09.02.2009 which is Ex.DW1/7
9. Copy of email dated 05.03.2009 which is Ex.DW1/17
10. Email dated 18.03.2009 which is Ex.PW1/10.
11. Copy of email dated 25.03.2009, 04.08.2009 and 08.10.2009 which are Ex.PW1/11, Ex.PW1/12 and Ex.PW1/13 respectively.
12. Copy of letter dated 27.10.2009 which is Ex.PW1/14.
13. Copy of letter dated 28.10.2009 which is Ex.PW1/15.
14. Copy of email dated 30.10.2009 which is Ex.PW1/16.
15. Copy of legal demand notice dated 12.11.2009 which is Ex.PW1/17.
16. Copy of reply dated 25.11.2009 to the legal notice which is Ex.PW1/18.
17. Copy of statement of account dated 20.03.2010 which is Ex.PW1/19.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant Picture Productions, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That his company had no concerned with the defendants or its official Directors etc. prior to this deal.
That the deal in the present transaction was direct and they had met at the office of Modern State Services of Mr. Wadhwa.
That the deal regarding the purchase of equipment and its modalities were finalized in the office of Sh. Devender Wadhwa but it was not effected through him and he had only facilitated the meeting.
That the said modalities were not in writing but were oral.
That he does not remember the exact date of meeting but it should be around May or June 2008.
Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 17 of 45 That he does not recollect the number of cheques given to him by the defendants towards advance payment and also cannot tell about the individual amount of the cheques. That he does not recollect having issued any receipts towards the receipt of said cheques at any point of time nor can he produce any such receipt.
That five post dated cheques of Rs.5 lacs each were issued to him by the defendant but he does not recollect if they were dated 08.05.2008, 13.05.2008, 17.05.2008, 09.06.2008 and 18.06.2008.
That he had verbally demanded the purchase order from the defendant during the course of negotiations and there was no written documentation or communication in this regard.
That he has filed his affidavit of evidence after checking up the books of account.
That in his affidavit he has only reflected the payment of Rs.5 lacs after checking up of books of account.
That he does not recollect if the defendant started claiming the refund of the amount after 15.06.2008 on his failure to supply and install the systems.
That there was no agreement for the purpose of installation and it was only a supply deal because he had made it clear to the defendant that his staff was not trained in installation and it is his staff who had to deal with the same.
That it was only a simple purchase order with no such conditions.
That he is an importer of LED Systems but he is not a regular importer and he required the purchase order despite the deal being oral in order to crystallize the deal.
That he does not recollect any communication from the defendant dated 28.07.2008 regarding cancellation of agreement if the supply is not made on time i.e. till 05.08.2008 and there was no written agreement at that time.
That no system was supplied till 05.08.2008 and there was no agreement for supply of Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 18 of 45 equipment by 05.08.2008.
That he does not recollect any communication from the defendant for refund of the amount since he was not able to make the supply of the equipment by 05.08.2008 but in so far as Sh.
Devender Wadhwa is concerned, he is not aware of any communication by the defendant to him.
That he does not recollect about any such communication to the plaintiff company or to Sh. Devender Wadhwa by email dated 07.08.2008.
That the official email ID of the plaintiff company is [email protected].
That Ms. Roohi Thakur is the Director of the plaintiff company and the mail dated 07.08.2008 which is Ex.DW1/3 on the previous date, is shown to have been received as per the above document.
That he does not recollect having placed any order of the equipment with the principal company after encashment of first cheque.
That he also does not recollect having placed any order of the equipment with the principal company after encashment of all five cheque.
That he had placed the order later on to import the equipment but he does not recollect the date or the month, though the order was placed in the same year i.e. 2008.
That he does not recollect having admitted to the defendant in the month of August 2008 regarding delay in the supply of the equipment.
That vide mail dated 18.08.2008 Ex.DW1/4 he has admitted the delay in delivery of machines but he has given the reason for the delay in purchase order.
That he does not recollect having made any offer to the defendants for compensating for the delay in supply of the equipment.
That vide email Ex.DW1/4 an offer was given bit it was towards the loss of interest on account of the amount encashed by them.
That he does not recollect the name of the bank from which he had applied for loan and when Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 19 of 45 and for what amount.
That the defendant gave the purchase order Ex.PW1/5 after receipt of email Ex.DW1/4 and the reasons for discount of Rs.3,00,000/ has been mentioned in the said letter.
That to the best of his knowledge, he has not withdrawn the offer of discount of Rs.3,00,000/ by any written communication.
That the defendant has not denied in writing the offer of discount of Rs.3,00,000/ but he has not accepted the same either.
That the defendant after certain period of time started making complaints regarding malfunctioning/nonfunctioning of the system supplied by the plaintiff.
That the plaintiff got the system repaired / rectified from time to time at the cost and expenses of the plaintiff, which services were provided as a gesture of goodwill as the plaintiff did not need to provide any service or parts under the written contract.
That he did not inform the defendant that plaintiff was not obliged to provide after sale service to the defendant under the said purchase order.
That he does not recollect whether the spares or parts required for repair of the system was always done through the plaintiff and the defendant had no role to play.
That they need not refer the defendant to manufacturer since all the warranty cards were handed over to the defendant.
That he does not recollect whether there is any document showing delivery of warranty card to the defendant but all warranty cards are part of the standards packaging of the equipment.
That all equipment was handed over to the
defendant in original packaging which
contained the warranty card.
That the plaintiff was in direct touch with the
manufacturer regarding the defects in the
display of the LED system.
That the plaintiff used to receive the material
for repairing the default of system pertaining to the defendant and plaintiff used to forward the Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 20 of 45 same to the defendant and the plaintiff used to receive spare part material for a number of clients from different manufacturers from time to time, in the case of defendant it was done voluntarily.
That the plaintiff's email id is [email protected] and the plaintiff communicates with defendants as well as other clients through this email ID.
That the emails Ex.PW1/10 and Ex.PW1/11 show that the plaintiff was directly dealing with manufacturer with respect to special fluid, instruction and to fix the heat sinks and repairing the system of defendant after receiving the same.
That he does not remember whether any person with the name of Jai Kumar was there as a representative of the plaintiff company in Chennai.
That he does not recollect whether the system was delivered by the defendant to the representative of the plaintiff company there at Chennai on 13.07.2009 and the same was sent to Delhi on 14.07.2009.
That he cannot recognize the signatures of Mrs. Jai Kumar on Ex.DW1/28 and Ex.PW1/DX1 at point marked A on each of the documents.
That he does not recollect having received the system in July 2009 for repair.
That Bhanu Rao and Mayank were employees of his company but he is not aware of any communication between Bhanu Rao and the defendant company regarding the repair of system and collecting the same in the month of October 2009 which mail is Ex.DW1/32 but the email ID of Bhanu Rao was [email protected].
That he does not remember if Mr. Joshi was working as an Engineer / Technician in plaintiff company who used to be sent to Chennai for training and educating the Engineers of the defendant company.
Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 21 of 45 That he cannot admit or deny the document Ex.DW1/3 which was sent to the plaintiff company on the mailing ID but he has admitted the mailing ID of his company as mentioned on the same and the same is his answer for documents Ex.DW1/5, Ex.DW1/10, Ex.DW1/11, Ex.DW1/14, Ex.DW1/15, Ex.DW1/16, Ex.DW1/26, Ex.DW1/27, Ex.DW1/31 and Ex.PW1/DX2.
That he cannot admit or deny the proof of deliveries of the letter Ex.DW1/36, which proof of deliveries are Ex.DW1/36A and Ex.DW1/36B.
That he is not into a business of rental of LED and sound display and hence he cannot tell whether inquiries are received from service availers in respect of the same and hence he cannot admit or deny the said suggestion.
That he cannot admit or deny whether rental income for each LED display is between Rs.75,000/ to Rs.1,25,000/ per day.
Defendant's Witnesses:
2. Sh. Alfred DW1 Sh. Alfred Selvraj is the Managing Director of Selvraj (DW1) Picture Productions who in his examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW1/A corroborated what has been earlier stated in the written statement and counter claim. He has placed his reliance on the following documents:
1. Certified copy of the Resolution Passed by Board of Directors on 17.04.2010 which is Ex.DW1/1.
2. Copy of the email dated 28.07.2008 which is Ex.DW1/2.
3. Copy of mail dated 07.08.2008 which was forwarded to the plaintiff and the true print out of the mail which is Ex.DW1/3.
4. Copy of mail dated 18.08.2008 which is Ex.DW1/4.
5. Copy of letter dated 18.09.2008 which is Ex.DW1/5.
6. Copy of the certificate dated 20.10.2008 which is Ex.DW1/6.
Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 22 of 45
7. Complaint dated 09.02.2009 to the plaintiff which is Ex.DW1/7.
8. Copy of letter dated 18.02.2009 which is Ex.DW1/8.
9. Copy of the mail/ letter dated 05.03.2009 which is Ex.DW1/9.
10. Copy of the complaints /reminder on 07.03.2009 and 10.03.2009 which are Ex.DW1/10.
11. Copy of the Email showing that plaintiff had forwarded defendant's complaint to the manufacturer and that they would be getting back by 12.03.2009, which is Ex.DW1/12.
12. Copy of email dated 18.03.2008 which is Ex.DW1/13.
13. Copy of letter dated 19.03.2009 which is Ex.DW1/14.
14. Copy of email dated 25.03.2009 which is Ex.DW1/15.
15. Copy of mail/reminders to the plaintiff on 02.04.2009 which is Ex.DW1/16.
16. Copy of email dated 05.03.2009 which is Ex.DW1/17 and a photo was also sent vide e mail dated 05.03.2009 which photo is Ex.DW1/18.
(Documents Ex.DW1/19 to Ex.DW1/25 have been de exhibited as the same are already Ex.DW1/10 to Ex.DW1/16 respectively).
17. Copy of mail sent by plaintiff on 02.04.2009 which is Ex.DW1/26.
18. Copy of mail dated 19.06.2009 which is Ex.DW1/27.
19. Letter dated 13.07.2009 which is Ex.DW1/28.
20. Copy of delivery challan dated 13.07.2009 which is Mark A .
21. Copy of email dated 04.08.2009 which is Ex.DW1/30.
22. Copy of email dated 31.08.2009 which is Ex.DW1/31.
23. Email dated 08.10.2009 which is Ex.DW1/32.
24. Letter dated 27.10.2009 which is Ex.DW1/33.
Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 23 of 45
25. Letter dated 28.10.2009 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant which is Ex.DW1/34.
26. Reply sent by the plaintiff dated 30.10.2009 through mail which is Ex.DW1/35.
27. Letter written by defendant dated 06.11.2009 which is Ex.DW1/36, the proof of delivery are Ex.DW1/36(A) and Ex.DW1/36(B).
28. Reply sent by the plaintiff dated 25.11.2009 is Ex.DW1/37.
29. Certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.DW1/38.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for Modern Radio House, the witness has deposed as under:
That he had read over the affidavit before signing the same and he is aware of the contents of the affidavit.
That the defendant company is a registered company and it is his own company and prior to 1985 it was a proprietorship firm.
That there are three Directors in the defendant company who all were present in the Board Meeting dated 17.04.2010 whereby he was authorized to represent the defendant company. That the Board Resolution Ex.DW1/1 bears his signatures at point A and since he is the Managing Director, he has signed it in that capacity.
That he has not filed any document showing after sale service terms since the plaintiff did not give the same to him.
That since the purchase order was given much later, hence, it is not mentioned in the purchase order that the balance amount shall be paid on generation of revenue though it was orally agreed upon.
[The purchase order Ex.PW1/5 was shown to the witness which contains terms and condition of the agreement wherein it has been shown that material has to be delivered within fifteen working days from the date of purchase order.] That the plaintiff did not intimate the defendant initially for providing purchase order.
Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 24 of 45 That prior to the purchase order Ex.PW1/5, there was no written agreement pertaining to the purchase of equipment.
That he has written the letter regarding the delivery of equipment in the month of June 2008, which letter dated 18.09.2008 is Ex.DW1/5 which contains the fact regarding the requirement of delivery of machine in the month of June 2008.
That he had not written any letter regarding delivery in June 2008 at the time of making the advance payment.
That he had not informed the plaintiff in writing about the programs in July 2008.
That the purchase order Ex.PW1/5 did not contain any condition that the purchase order is in addition and supplemental to any other terms and conditions.
That the purchase order Ex.PW1/5 is the only signed agreement between the parties.
That on the day of installation of the system, it was working perfectly.
That he has not placed any document regarding offers for display of system but there were some offers from clients.
That he has not filed any document regarding booking in the year 2008.
That he has not placed on record any document showing the intention of the parties to mutually settle the dispute in terms of para 33 of his affidavit of examination in chief.
That the letter dated 06.11.2009 was sent through courier dated 06.11.2009 vide receipt Ex.DW1/36 A and B. That these two receipts Ex.DW1/36A and B were not filed alongwith the written statement. That he has not placed anything on record showing the calculation of loss of Rs.47,60,417/.
That he has not filed any list of regular customers nor has he filed any document on record showing that his client shifted to his competitor.
Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 25 of 45 That by email dated 18.08.2008 which is Ex.DW1/4, the plaintiff asked for immediate issuance of purchase order and post dated cheques.
That in the purchase order Ex.PW1/5 the amount of Rs.3,00,000/ did not find mention which was offered vide mail Ex.DW1/4.
3. Sh. Davinder DW2 Sh. Davinder Wadhwa has in his examination Wadhwa (DW2) by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW2/A supported the case of the defendant Picture Productions and has placed his reliance on the copy of email dated 07.08.2008 which is Ex.DW1/3.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for Modern Radio House, the witness has deposed as under:
That they are in the business of stage lighting, rental and sales i.e. the same business which is being done by M/s Picture Production House, the defendant.
That they used to purchase goods from the plaintiff company i.e. M/s Modern Radio House and his brother used to deal with the plaintiff regularly.
That for the last ten years they have no business dealing with Modern Radio House. That they have business dealings with the defendant for the last more than 15 years and they are still dealing with the defendant. That when Mr. Alfred Selvraj visited them in the year 2008, he had spoken to Mr. Haresh Thakur.
That he has been regularly speaking to Mr. Haresh Thakur concerning business.
That he does not remember the exact date when Mr. Haresh Thakur visited his office however he came to the office on the same day when he called him for the defendant.
That he has no role in the deal except that he had got the meeting done between Mr. Haresh Thakur and Mr. Alfred Selvraj.
Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 26 of 45 That the terms of agreement for purchase of LED display system was negotiated in his presence.
That everything was settled orally and there was nothing in writing.
That the deal was struck in a single day.
OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS:
(12) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Counsels for both the parties and the written memorandum of arguments filed by them. I have also gone through the testimony of the various witnesses and the material on record. My findings on the various issues are as under:
Issue No.5: Whether Sh. B.K. Sharma is duly authorized to pursue the matter on behalf of the plaintiff vide Board Resolution dated 02.07.2012? (OPP) (13) Onus of proving this issue was upon the plaintiff Modern Radio House. Perusal of the record shows that it was one Sh. B.K. Sharma the Authorized Representative of the plaintiff who had been pursuing the case on behalf of the plaintiff company and had also filed an Authority Letter on 15.03.2012 but on account of the objection raised by the defendant a specific issue in this regard was framed. However, thereafter Sh. B.K. Sharma stopped appearing and it was Sh. Haresh Thakur the Director of Modern Radio House who had himself appeared and deposed in the case. This being the background, the issue has not been pressed and is disposed off as not pressed.
Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 27 of 45 Issue No.8: Whether the counter claim filed by the defendant is without any cause of action, if so, its effect? (OPP) (14) Onus of proving this issue was upon the plaintiff Modern Radio House. The case of the plaintiff Modern Radio House is that the Counter Claim filed by the defendant Picture Productions is without any cause of action. In this regard, I may observe that despite having raised this objection, no evidence has been lead by plaintiff Modern Radio House. The defendant Picture Productions, on the other hand, has placed on record the various communications between them and the plaintiff. In its Counter Claim, the defendant Picture Productions has specifically provided the details of the losses suffered by it on account of delay caused by the plaintiff in delivery of the equipment i.e. LED Display System and thereafter non utilization of the said system on account of some inherent defects. Hence, it cannot be said that the Counter Claim is without any cause of action.
(15) Issue is accordingly decided in favour of defendant Picture Productions and against the plaintiff Modern Radio House.
Issue No. 9: Whether the equipment supplied by the plaintiff was
under manufacturer warranty? (OPP)
(16) Onus of proving this issue was upon the plaintiff Modern
Radio House. Though it has been claimed by the plaintiff that the
equipment supplied by them to the defendant was under the manufacturer's warranty but the perusal of the record shows that no such document has been placed on record in this regard. In his cross Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 28 of 45 examination, Haresh Thakur (PW1) has specifically admitted that he has not placed on record any document to show that the system had been covered under the manufacturer's warranted. Rather, he has also admitted the email dated 11.03.2009 wherein it was informed that the plaintiff had forwarded the complaint to the manufacturer. This fact of forwarding the complaint of the defendant to the manufacturer is also evident from the e mail dated 04.08.2009 which is Ex.PW1/12; email dated 08.10.2009 which is Ex.PW1/13; letter dated 28.10.2009 which is Ex.PW1/15 and e mail dated 30.10.2009 which is Ex.PW1/16.
(17) Further, a perusal of the email dated 31.08.2009 which is Ex.DW1/31 confirms that the warranty was that of the plaintiff and not of the manufacturer, which fact also finds a mention in the letter dated 28.10.2009 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant which is Ex.DW1/34. Also, the email sent by the plaintiff to the defendant on 30.10.2009 which is Ex.PW1/16 confirms that there was no warranty which I quote as under:
"...... As you are aware electronic units do not carry much of warranty as the method of use is not certified....."
(18) It is this which confirms that the equipment was not under the manufacturer's warranty and there was no relationship between the plaintiff and the manufacturer.
(19) Issue is accordingly decided in favour of Picture Productions and against the plaintiff Modern Radio House.
Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 29 of 45 Issue No.4: Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts, if so, its effect? (OPD) (20) Onus of proving this issue was upon the defendant Picture Productions. It is the case of the defendant Picture Productions that the plaintiff Modern Radio House has concealed material facts in its pleadings to the effect that the negotiations had been held in the office of Davinder Wadhwa (DW2) and has confined his pleadings to receipt of Rs.5 lacs though a sum of Rs.25 lacs was received by it as an advance. Further, it is submitted that the plaintiff has claimed that it had placed the order and the machine was lying the warehouse but in his cross examination Haresh Thakur (PW1) he does not recollect having placed any order even after encashment of all five cheques. (21) In this regard, I may observe that in so far as the concealment and suppression is concerned, no doubt, the plaintiff has tried to withdraw certain details in the pleadings with regard to the place where the negotiations had taken place and the amount received in advance, yet the entire set of documents confirm the same and even in his cross examination, Haresh Thakur (PW1) has admitted having received a sum of Rs.25 lacs as advance and further admits that the negotiations had taken place in the office of Sh. Davinder Wadhwa (DW2). In so far as the aspect of the equipment lying in the warehouse is concerned, he has been vague on the same but has thereafter admitted that he had not placed the order even after enchashment of the five cheques. The attempt on behalf of the plaintiff to plead the half truth is writ large but having admitted the same in his crossexamination, I hold that the concealment was not of the Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 30 of 45 nature that the suit should be thrown out on the basis of the same.
(22) Issue is accordingly disposed off.
Issue No.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.11,10,999/
from the defendant? (OPP)
Issue No.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what
rate and for which period? (OPP)
Issue No.3: Whether the amount of Rs.3,00,000/ is to be set off
against the claim made by the plaintiff in the present suit? (OPD) Issue No.6: Whether the defendant is entitled to recovery Rs.10,00,000/ from the plaintiff, as claimed in the counter claim? (OPD) Issue No.7: Whether the defendant is entitled to interest on the same, if so, at what rate and for which period? (OPD) (23) All the above issues are clubbed together for the sake of convenience involving common discussion and being interlinked. Onus of proving the issues no.1 and 2 was upon the plaintiff Modern Radio House and that of the issues No. 3,6 and 7 upon the defendant Picture Productions.
(24) In order to prove its case, the plaintiff Modern Radio House has examined its Director namely Haresh Thakur as PW1 as its sole witness whereas the defendant Picture Productions has examined its Managing Director Alfred Selvaraj as DW1 and Sh. Devender Wadhwa as DW2. Before coming to the merits of the case, the relevant dates and Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 31 of 45 events are culled out as under:
Sr. No. Date/ Period Event
1. April - May The defendant M/s Picture Production (India) Pvt. Ltd.
2008 was looking for LED display system and at the office of
Mr. Devender Wadhwa the deal was negotiated and finalised by Mr. Haresh Thakur of M/s Modern Radio House.
Price of the LED Display System was finalized at Rs. 65,00,000/. Defendant paid an advance of Rs.
25,00,000/ by way of Five cheques of Rs.5,00,000/ each commencing from 08.05.2008 up to 18.06.2008.
2. June 2008 LED Display System was to be supplied but not supplied
3. 21.07.2008 For the first time demand for purchase order was made
4. 28.07.2008 Defendant informed the plaintiff about cancellation of two live programmes and time for supply was given till 05.08.2008.
5. 07.08.2008 Since LED was not supplied, defendant sent the email to Sh. Davinder Wadhwa with copy to Plaintiff cancelling the order and requested for refund of money.
6. 18.08.2008 Since Sh. Davinder Wadhwa intervened, therefore, Plaintiff sent a detailed reply admitting the delay and agreed to compensate on the loss of interest on advance payment and loan to be taken from 3rd person.
7. 18.09.2008 Purchase Order subject to additional conditions.
8. 25.09.2008 On acceptance of conditions by plaintiff, the Purchase Order was issued.
9. 14.10.2008 The plaintiff delivered the LED Display System
10. 20.10.2008 The plaintiff installed the LED Display System and certificate to that effect was issued
11. 09.02.2009 The defendant made a complaint about malfunctioning of the LED Display System.
12. 10.02.2009 Plaintiff took the delivery of the LED Display System for service etc.
13. 12.02.2009 System was brought to Delhi by the plaintiff for service and repairs at the cost and expenses of the plaintiff.
14. 24.02.2009 Plaintiff sent back the system after service/ repairs.
Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 32 of 45
15. 18.02.2009 Reminder was sent by the defendant to know the status of the system.
16. 05.03.2009 Complaint was lodged by the defendant with the plaintiff since the system was not fully repaired and photos were sent through email
17. 07.03.2009 Complaint / reminder sent by the defendant regarding heat sync problem
18. 10.03.2009 Another complaint/ reminder sent by the defendant
19. 11.03.2009 Plaintiff sent the email about the status of the complaint with manufacturer
20. 12.03.2009 Plaintiff informed the defendant that the problem had been referred to the manufacturer
21. 18.03.2009 Plaintiff informed the defendant that they had asked the manufacturer to sent special fluid
22. 19.03.2009 Defendant protested and asked the plaintiff to speedup the action
23. 25.03.2009 Email sent by the plaintiff to the defendant informing about the communication with manufacturer and informed about the dispatch of some parcel.
24. 02.04.2009 Defendant informed the plaintiff that no such parcel was received and that they were unable to use the system.
25. 19.06.2009 The defendant again lodged the complaint as they were unable to use the LED System due to black spots
26. 13.07.2009 LED System was handed over to Sh. Jaykumar, the local representative of the plaintiff and it was in turn sent to Delhi on 14.07.2009.
27. 04.08.2009 Defendant sent a reminder informing the plaintiff about loss of one booking and also about the ensued booking for 14.08.2009
28. 31.08.2009 Plaintiff informed the Defendant about the visit of Mr. Joshi to repair the Auto LED System on spot and to train the people of the Defendant as well as engineers of Plaintiff so as to enable the Plaintiff to repair the same later on.
29. 06.10.2009 After repairing the System, the plaintiff delivered the system to defendant and an email dated 08.10.2009 was sent by C. Jayakumar.
30. 27.10.2009 Defendant sent a detail letter pointing out the problem faced and losses suffer by it, to which Plaintiff also sent a Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 33 of 45 detail reply
31. 28.10.2009 Plaintiff sent a demand notice
32. 30.10.2009 Reply received from the plaintiff to the letter dated 27.10.2009.
33. 06.11.2009 Defendant wrote a letter to the plaintiff
34. 12.11.2009 Legal Notice sent by the plaintiff
35. 25.11.2009 Reply to the notice (25) While on the one hand the plaintiff has sought recovery of Rs.11,10,999/ along with interest from the defendant, on the other hand the defendant has made a counter claim of Rs.10 lacs along with interest and a set off of Rs.3 lacs against the claims made by the plaintiff. (26) The plaintiff has placed its reliance on the Purchase Order dated 25.09.2008 which is Ex.PW1/5 containing the terms and conditions agreed and finalized between the parties for delivery of the equipment, which provides the terms of payment and the time for delivery of the equipment and the provision for compensation in case of delay in delivery of the equipment. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has further placed his reliance on Clause 5 of the Purchase Order which provides that the material has to be delivered within 15 working days from the date of Purchase order. It is argued that the Purchase Order was issued by the defendant on 25.09.2008 and the plaintiff had delivered the equipment at Defendant's premise on 15.10.2008 which is well within 15 working days, which was installed on 20.10.2008 and the defendant after installation of the equipment issued a Completion Certificate dated 20.10.2008 which is Ex.PW1/6, wherein it was declared that the equipment was assembled and tested to their satisfaction and its Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 34 of 45 technicians had duly appraised on the matters concerning the equipment and it's operational and software aspects. It is further argued that at the time of delivery of the equipment at defendant's site, the plaintiff handed over all the documents with the equipment to the defendant including the Warranty Card issued by manufacturer. Ld. Counsel has further argued that after supply and installation of the equipment at defendant's site, the role of the plaintiff came to end and it became entitled to receive the balance payment from the defendant since it was never discussed or agreed between the parties that the plaintiff would provide after sales services as alleged by the defendant and in case if the same was ever agreed by the plaintiff during negotiations, the same would be mentioned in the Purchase Order issued by the defendant on 25.09.2008, which was issued much after the negotiations between the parties in the meeting held in the month of May 2008. According to the Ld. Counsel, the plaintiff has fulfilled all its obligations under the Purchase Order and hence it is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.11,10,999/ along with interest thereon from the defendant.
(27) In so far as the set off against the claims made by the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/ is concerned, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the offer for discount of Rs.3,00,000/ was made by the plaintiff vide email dated 18.08.2008, which was never accepted / confirmed by the defendant, which offer made by plaintiff was not for an infinite period, as the defendant has never accepted / confirmed it to the plaintiff, cannot ask for the same after the dispute has been arisen and after the plaintiff filing the suit for recovery of the outstanding amount. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has also argued that it is a settled law that the Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 35 of 45 acceptance to the offer by the person to whom the offer is made is an essential ingredient to make the proposal enforceable by law, whereas in the present case there is no acceptance by the defendant to the offer made by the plaintiff, in the absence of which, it is not enforceable and thus the plea of setoff of Rs.3,00,000/ raised by the defendant is not sustainable and liable to be rejected.
(28) Further, in so far as the counter claim of the defendant seeking recovery of Rs.10 lacs alleging due to delay in delivery of the equipment and delay in rectification of some inherent defect in the equipment by the plaintiff and could not productively used the equipment and suffered losses is concerned, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that it is a well settled law that the damages have to be proved by the party claiming it by producing evidence and in the present case admittedly the defendant has failed to produce any document on record in support of its claim for damages. It is further argued that the defendant in its Counter Claim has alleged that due to delay in delivery of the Equipment, the Defendant lost two live outdoor programmes, however the defendant has failed to produce any document in this regard that any outdoor programs were conducted during said period or that the defendant had received any offer for any such program. Ld. Counsel has placed his reliance on the crossexamination of Alfred Selvaraj (DW1) wherein he has admitted that he had never informed the plaintiff in writing about any programs in July 2008. It is pointed out that the defendant has further alleged in its Counter Claim that the plaintiff had failed to provide after sales services /delayed in rectification of some inherent defect in the equipment, due to which the defendant could not productively use the Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 36 of 45 equipment and suffered losses amounting to Rs.47,60,417/ whereas Alfred Selvaraj (DW1) has in his cross examination admitted that the Purchase Order Ex.PW1/5 did not contain any condition that the same is in addition or supplemental to any other terms and conditions. Therefore, the Purchase Order is the only Agreement between the parties, to which both the parties are bound and the plaintiff has never agreed / promised the defendant to provide after sale services as alleged by the Defendant. Ld. Counsel has also pointed out that Alfred Selvaraj (DW1) in his cross examination has admitted that he has not filed any document regarding bookings in the year 2008 and also not placed on record any document on record showing the calculation of loss of Rs.47,60,417/ and also not filed any list of its regular customers, nor filed any document to show that its client/s shifted to its competitors. It is pointed out that DW1 has also admitted that in the Purchase order Ex.PW1/5 did not find mentioned the amount of Rs.3,00,000/ which was offered by the plaintiff vide email Ex.DW1/4, which ought to be mentioned, if the offer was accepted by the Defendant. It is argued that the plaintiff vide its email dated 18.08.2008 has also offered for arrangement of Equipment with the same specification till the time the ordered Equipment is imported, in case defendant have any bookings for a show, admittedly defendant never informed about any bookings to the Plaintiff and hence the defendant having not suffered any loss, it is not entitled for any damages as claimed. (29) On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the defendant has placed its reliance on the provisions of Section 59 and 61 (1) of Sale of Goods Act and also on the authority in the case of The Board of Trustee of Port Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 37 of 45 of Calcutta Vs. Bengal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. reported in air 1979 cal 149 and Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Chandramaul reported in AIR 1966 SC
735. It is argued that there is not factual dispute in so far as the payment of Rs. 25 lacs by way of 5 cheques to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs each is concerned. The defendant has also placed its reliance on the various communications and emails dispatched to the plaintiff and also to Sh. Davinder Wadhwa (DW2) who had facilitated the meetings between the plaintiff and the defendant and in whose presence the negotiations had taken place and the order had been placed when the advance payment was made. It is submitted that while on the one hand the Director of the plaintiff company namely Haresh Thakur (PW1) had been most vague and non committal when confronted with the various communications sent by the defendant to him on his email IDs which ID details he has admitted, whereas on the other hand Sh. Davinder Wadhwa (DW2) who had facilitated the transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant and in whose presence the negotiations had taken place, has supported the case of Alfred Selvaraj (DW1).
(30) I have considered the rival contentions and at the very Outset I may observe that the transaction in the present case is covered by the provisions of Sale of Goods Act and reliance in this regard is placed upon the provisions of Section 16 (1) of Sale of Goods Act, which provide that:
Section 16 : Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any other law for the time being in force, there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale , except as Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 38 of 45 follows : (1) Where the buyer, expressly or by implication makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgement, and the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller's business to supply (whether he is the manufacturer or producer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose;
Provided that in case of a contract of Sale of a specified article under its patent or trade name, there is no implied condition as to its fitness for any particular purpose.
(2) Where goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description (whether he is the manufacturer or producer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be of merchantable quality : Provided that, if the buyer has examined the goods, there shall be no implied condition as regards defects which such examination ought to have revealed ........."
(31) Under Sub Section 1, the requirements which must be satisfied to import a condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for any particular purpose are that the buyer must make known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, in the circumstances showing, the seller realised or ought to have realised that the buyer was relying on the seller's skill or judgment and the goods shall be of a description which it is in the course of the seller's business to supply. In such a case, there is an implied condition that the goods shall Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 39 of 45 be reasonably fit for such purpose. Further, sub section 2 relates to all sales by description and under this SubSection to import a condition that the goods are of merchantable quality, the goods must be bought by description and seller must deal in goods of that description. The goods of that description implies goods of the same kind as those bought. The words "that description" refer to and mean the actual description by which the goods which are the subject matter of the contract were bought. (32) Secondly, it is an admitted case of the plaintiff that they are the importers of the LED System and were aware of the purpose for which the LED System was purchased by the defendant and the evidence on record confirms that the defendant had specifically conveyed this purpose of the system being for public display to the plaintiff, which LED Display System which was under warranty developed snags within almost 3 months of its purchase and thereafter it was never fully repaired/ mended. In this regard the crossexamination of Haresh Thakur (PW1) is important wherein he has admitted that he is importer of LED Display System. Further, it is evident that the defendant has clearly communicated the purpose for which the LED Display system would be used and hence it was clear that the defendant was relying upon the judgment of the seller and there was an implied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for the purpose. The LED System was purchased for public display was known to the Plaintiff from very beginning and the evidence which has come on the record shows that there were two booking for the month of July, 2008. The Plaintiff also offered to provide system till the system for Defendant was not imported and due to manufacturing defect in the system, the same could not be used as is Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 40 of 45 evident from various mails exchanged between the Plaintiff and Defendant.
(33) Thirdly, the LED Display system was not of merchantable quality as is evident from the communication exchanged between the parties and there was breach of warranty. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the provisions of Section 59 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and the authorities in the cases of The Board of Trustee of Port of Calcutta vs Bengal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. reported in AIR 1979 Cal 149 and in the case of Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Chandramaul reported in AIR 1966 Supreme Court 735, which entitles the defendant to diminution or extinction of prices.
(34) Lastly, I may observe that the LED Display System was not of any trade name and hence it was the duty of the Plaintiff to supply the goods in terms of the provisions of Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act. In this regard, in Grant's case reported in 1936 AC 85 at page 99100, Lord Wright observed as under:
"....... Whatever else merchantable may mean, it does mean that the article sold, if only meant for one particular use in ordinary course, is fit for that use; merchantable does not mean that the thing is saleable in the market simply because it looks all right; it is not merchantable in that event if it has defects unfitting it for its only proper use but not apparent on ordinary examination : that is clear from the proviso, which shows that the implied condition only applies to defects not reasonably discoverable to the buyer on such examination as has made or could make....."
Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 41 of 45 (35) Hence, in view of the above the LED Display system was not merchantable and hence under the given circumstances, the plaintiff being guilty of breach of warranty and there being inherent shortcoming in the LED Display System for which the plaintiff was solely responsible, I hereby hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as asked for in the plaint or to the interest claimed thereof.
(36) In so far as the aspect of set off for a sum of Rs.3 lacs is concerned, it is an admitted case that there was a delay in delivery of LED Display System and the plaintiff itself has admitted the loss on account of interest on the advance of Rs.25 lacs, it had offered Rs.3,00,000/ on account of interest on the advance payment. (Reference in this regard is made to the communication Ex.DW1/4). I may observe that this was one of the reason why the deal was not cancelled the order but went ahead with the same and Sh. Haresh Thakur (PW1) has in his crossexamination has clearly admitted that he had not withdrawn the said offer of Rs.3 lacs and the defendant has also not denied the said offer of discount in writing. (37) Therefore, I hereby hold that the defendant/ Counter Claimant M/s. Picture Productions is entitled to the Set Off for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/ (Rupees Three Lacs only) from the plaintiff M/s. Modern Radio House.
(38) Also, the case of the Counter Claimant of the defendant M/s. Picture Productions is covered by the provisions of Section 59 of Sale of Goods Act are very clear and the defendant can claim the interest or special damages and also the diminution or extinction of price in case of breach of warranty. In the present case, it has been established that there was a breach of warranty on behalf of the plaintiff and the goods were not Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 42 of 45 of merchantable quality and not fit for the purpose for which the system was bought by the Defendant hence the Defendant is entitled for the damages on account of loss of business. The Plaintiff has admitted in the pleading, communications and in cross examination that the system was not in working order and was to be repaired from time to time. Hence, the plaintiff having admitted the delay in supply of the equipment, as evident from Ex.DW1/4, the defendant has suffered losses of the consideration amount paid without enjoying the fruits of the LED Display System though it was agreed upon that the defendant would repay out of the business generated from the said LED Display System. (39) In so far as the aspect of damages are concerned, I may observe that the defendant has confined its claim to Rs. 10 lacs. Though the various events which had been cancelled in July 2008, find reflected in the various communications/ emails but the definite evidence with regard to the extent of loss has been lead by the defendant. I, therefore, hold that the interest of justice would be served if Special Damages to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/ (Rupees Two Lacs only) is awarded to the defendant.
(40) In so far as the interest component is concerned, the defendant is claiming the interest @ 25% per annum which I may observe is on the higher side and I hold that the interest of justice would be served if an interest @ 10% per annum is awarded from the filing of counter claim till the date of realization.
(41) This being the background, I hold that the plaintiff M/s. Modern Radio House is not entitled to any relief of Recovery from the defendant M/s. Picture Productions. Rather, the defendant/ Counter Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 43 of 45 Claimant M/s. Picture Productions is held entitled to the recovery of total Rs.5,00,000/ (Rupees Five Lacs) i.e. Rs.3,00,000/ as set off and Rs.2,00,000/ as Special Damages from the plaintiff M/s. Modern Radio House along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of counter claim till the date of realization.
(42) All the above issues are accordingly disposed off.
Relief:
(43) In view of my above discussion, I hold that the plaintiff M/s.
Modern Radio House is not entitled to any relief of Recovery from the defendant M/s. Picture Productions.
(44) Further, the defendant/ Counter Claimant M/s. Picture Productions is held entitled to the recovery of total Rs.5,00,000/ (Rupees Five Lacs) i.e. Rs.3,00,000/ as set off and Rs.2,00,000/ as Special Damages from the plaintiff M/s. Modern Radio House along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of counter claim till the date of realization.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(45) In view of my findings on the various issues, I hold that the plaintiff M/s. Modern Radio House is not entitled to any relief of Recovery from the defendant M/s. Picture Productions. (46) In so far as the defendant/ Counter Claimant M/s. Picture Productions is concerned, it is held entitled to the recovery of total Rs.5,00,000/ (Rupees Five Lacs) i.e. Rs.3,00,000/ as set off and Rs.2,00,000/ as Special Damages from the plaintiff M/s. Modern Radio Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 44 of 45 House along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of counter claim till the date of realization. (47) Suit of the plaintiff M/s. Modern Radio House is accordingly Dismissed and the Counter Claim of the defendant M/s. Picture Productions is accordingly Decreed. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree Sheets be prepared accordingly.
(48) Both the files i.e. CS No. 24/2010 and CS No. 02/2012 be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 02.01.2017 ADJII(CENTRAL)/ DELHI
Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 45 of 45 Modern Radio House Vs. Picture Production CS No. 24/2010 Picture Production Vs. Modern Radio House CS No. 02/2012 02.01.2017 Present: None for Modern Radio House (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Sh. Sushil Bhartiya Advocate for Picture Production Ltd. Vide my separate combined detail order dictated and announced in the open court, but not yet typed, suit of the plaintiff M/s. Modern Radio House is Dismissed and the Counter Claim of the defendant M/s. Picture Productions is Decreed. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree Sheets be prepared accordingly.
Both the files i.e. CS No. 24/2010 and CS No. 02/2012 be consigned to Record Room.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ADJII(Central)/ 02.01.2017 Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 24/10 Picture Productions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Radio House India Pvt. Ltd. , CS No. 02/12 Page No. 46 of 45