Bangalore District Court
M/S Peenya Industrial Gases Pvt.Ltd vs M/S Cipla Limited on 21 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE HOLDING C/C OF XXXVIII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 21st Day of September 2016
PRESENT
Sri. A.VIJAYAN B.A.(Law), LL.M.
LXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge holding c/c of XXXVIII
Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
Original Suit No.7195/2011
Plaintiff:
M/s Peenya Industrial Gases Pvt.Ltd.,
A company incorporated under the Companies Act,
1956 having its registered office at No.8, 8th Main,
Mathikere Extension, Bangalore-560 054 having
its branch office at No.313, 8th Cross, 4th Phase,
Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore-560058
represented by its Special power of attorney holder
Mr.K.N.Ravikumar S/o Mr.K.M.Narayana, aged 32
years R/o No.191, "Mathrusri Nilaya, 8th cross, 8th
main, Bhuvaneshwarinagar,Bangalore-560 057
[by advocate Sri A.Yogashree)
Vs.
Defendants:
1. M/s Cipla Limited, having its registered
office at No.289, Bellasis road, Mumbai
Central, Mumbai-400 008, Maharashtra
State, represented by its Managing
Directors, Directors and its Secretary.
2
O.S.No.7195/2011
2. M/s Cipla Limited, having its factory at
Virgonagar, Old Madras road, Bangalore-
560 049, represented by its Managing
Directors, Directors and its Secretary
3. M/s Cipla Limited having its factory at
No.285, 286 and 287, Bommasandra
Jigani Link road, Bommasandra Industrial
Area, Bangalore-560 099 represented by its
Managing Directors, Directors and its
Secretary
4. Mr.Yusuf Khwaja Hamied, Major, S/o not
known, Managing Director, M/S Cipla
Limited, R/o Windsor Villa, 2nd floor,
Westfield Estate, Bhulabhai Desai Road,
Mumbai-400 026, Maharashtra State
5. Mr.Mustafa Khwaja Hamied, Major, S/o
not known, Managing Director, M/S Cipla
Limited, R/o Windsor Villa, 2nd floor,
Westfield Estate, Bhulabhai Desai Road,
Mumbai-400 026, Maharashtra State
6. Mr.Hansraj Shamsunder Manchanda,
Major, S/o not known, Managing Director,
M/S Cipla Limited, R/o No.15, Sonmarg
Napean Sea Road, Mumbai-400 006,
Maharashtra State
7. Mr.Ramesh Amarchand Shroff, Major, S/o
not known, Managing Director, M/S Cipla
Limited, R/o No.67, Roopam 18, Worli Sea
Face, Mumbai-400 025, Maharashtra State
8. Mr.Vasant Chintaman Kotwal,Major, S/o
not known, Director, M/S Cipla Limited,
R/o No.51, LE Jardin, 4-C, Kashibai
3
O.S.No.7195/2011
Navrange Road,Gamdevi, Mumbai-400 007
Maharashtra State
9. Mr.Amar Mohansingh Lulla, Major, S/o not
known, Director, M/S Cipla Limited, R/o
No.131, Maker Tower 'L', G.D.Somani
Marg, Cuffe Prade, Mumbai-400 005,
Maharashtra State ( abated)
10. Mr.Pankaj Babubhai Patel,Major, S/o not
known, Director, M/S Cipla Limited, R/o
No.26, Sheela Apartment, 2 Bhulabai Desai
road, Mumbai-400 026, Maharashtra State
11. Mr.Radhakrishnan Sethuraman, Major,
S/o not known, Whole-time Director, M/S
Cipla Limited, R/o Flat No.701, Emerald
Heights, CTS-155, Union Park, Chembur,
Mumbai-400 071, Maharashtra State
12. Mr.Raghavan Rangachari Maruthiandan,
Major, S/o not known, Managing Director,
M/S Cipla Limited, R/o No.2/194,
Anugriha Arasavanangkadu Sembanugudi
P.O., Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur-613
603 Tamil Nadu State.
13. Mr.Mital Arvind Sanghvi,Major, S/o not
known, Secretary, M/S Cipla Limited, R/o
402,b1,Sai Santhosh Apt Patil Paradise
Complex, Sarojini Naidu road, Tambe
Nagar, Mulund(West) Mumbai-400 080
Maharashtra State
[Case against defendant No.9 abated.
Defendants 1 to 8, 10 to 13 are by advocate
Sri R.C.K.]
4
O.S.No.7195/2011
Date of Institution of the : 01/10/2011
suit
Nature of suit : Recovery of money
Date of commencement of
: 22.02.2014
evidence
Date on which the judgment
: 21.09.2016
is pronounced
Years Months Days
Duration taken for disposal :
04 11 20
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,34,890/- from the defendants and to direct the defendants to pay future rental amount at the rate of Rs.5/- per cylinder per day from the date of suit till the date of actual payment and for costs.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as follows:-
The plaintiff is a Company registered under the Companies Act carrying on business of supplying industrial gases in their own returnable Cylinders on credit basis. Defendant No.1 is a company and represented by its Managing Directors, Directors and its 5 O.S.No.7195/2011 Secretary i.e., defendant Nos.4 to 13. As per the agreed terms the plaintiff supplied industrial gases to the defendants in their own cylinders and the defendants were required to return the cylinders in good condition immediately after consuming gas i.e., within 10 days from the date of supply. But the defendants fail to return the empty industrial gas cylinders in time. They are liable to pay cylinder rental charges at the rate of Rs.5/- per day per cylinder from 11th day onwards till return. The defendants are liable to pay cylinder replacement cost at the market rate which is Rs.10,500/- and applicable taxes at the rate of 5% if any for each cylinder. The defendants have failed to return 66 Nos. of empty cylinders as such they are liable to pay Rs.7,60,725/- along with cylinder rental charges of Rs.2,20,800/- computable from the last date of empty industrial gas cylinder returned date i.e., 12.12.2009 to 15.9.2011. Hence the defendants are due a sum of Rs.9,34,890/- to the plaintiff. But the defendants failed to pay the amount claimed in spite of repeated requests and demands. 6
O.S.No.7195/2011 Hence having no alternative, the plaintiff has filed this suit.
3. After filing of this suit, suit summons was issued to the defendants. The defendants 1 to 3 filed written statement denying all the plaint averments and further submitted that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed. They further submitted that there is no cause of action against them to file this suit and there is no liability on their part to pay the plaintiff any amount as claimed in the plaint. The plaintiff is seeking to create some liability to settle some of its old/probable/irregular accounts pertaining to the year 2001-04, which is impressible in law. All the defendants are not necessary parties to this suit. They have further submitted that they have been purchasing various types of gas from the plaintiff since 1999 and since 2009 they have stopped doing business with the plaintiff. The business was done between plaintiff and defendants by way of Rate Contract(RC) for purchase of 7 O.S.No.7195/2011 various types of gas, which would be sold in gas cylinders with approved rates and taxes with other terms and conditions specified in R.C. As per the R.C. their purchase department would place order by raising a purchase order on the plaintiff for the required quantity of the raw material and the original purchase order would be sent to the plaintiff. However for other gases which are considered as consumable items, the defendants' stores personnel would order the required quantity from the plaintiff either by telephone or email. Based on the purchase order, the plaintiff would send the gas cylinders to the defendants through the Invoice and Delivery Challan of the plaintiff. The Delivery challan would bear the purchase order reference number. The supplied gas cylinders would be verified by the security personnel of the defendants for quantity check and other basic checks and thereafter the material is allowed to be taken to stores of the defendants after attestation of the defendants' gate seal on the delivery challan of the plaintiff. The gate seal is the proof of delivery of goods to 8 O.S.No.7195/2011 the defendants. After security check at the gate, the goods are received by the Stores Receipt Section Personnel, where the goods will be verified for quality check and other quality related checks. When the raw material is received in Stores Receipt Section, the entry is accounted for by the defendants in the Inventory Software IMS, then forwarded to QC for analysis and certification acceptance, after which it is again accounted for as 'passed' stock in IMS system. After this stage, the material is sent for production based on issue slip. When Miscellaneous purchase materials are received in the Stores Receipt Section, the Stores prepare Misc.Grn and Grn Number allotted to each consignment and the same will be approved by stores head. Issue will be further made based on issue slip to the concerned department. After using the raw material the empty gas cylinders would be returned to the plaintiff as and when fresh material is supplied by them. While returning the empty gas cylinders, the Stores Personnel issue Delivery challans by mentioning number of cylinders. This is the 9 O.S.No.7195/2011 practice followed by them with the plaintiff and mutually accepted by the parties since ten years. The plaintiff never objected to the said practice. The Delivery challans of the plaintiff clearly reflect the number of filled gas cylinders received by the defendants and the Delivery challans of the defendants reflect the number of empty gas cylinders returned to the plaintiff by the defendants. The defendants maintained their detailed accounts on entry and exit of filled/empty gas cylinders in their premises. Hence no separate ledger account was maintained by the defendants for empty gas cylinders. The plaintiff did not have the practice of obtaining confirmation of balance cylinders at the year end from the defendants like others in the same business in the market. However the plaintiff maintained a manual ledger account on the empty cylinders returned by the defendants and found to be tallying with the records of the defendants. The plaintiff has deliberately not produced the same in order to mislead the Court. For ten years, the parties did business on the basis of the 10 O.S.No.7195/2011 procedure explained above and payments were made promptly by the defendants to the plaintiff from time to time without fail. Since 2009 the defendants stopped business with the plaintiffs. Suddenly after more than a year, on 20.10.2010 the plaintiff sent an e-mail to the defendants stating that as per the Books of accounts, 69 numbers of empty gas cylinders are yet to be returned by the defendants to them. In this context, reconciliation of accounts was done by the parties, in which it was found that from 2004-05 to 2009-10, the books of accounts of the defendants and the plaintiff tallied and there was no discrepancy in the total number of gas cylinders received and returned by the defendants. All empty cylinders were returned by the defendants and the defendants are not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. The claim of the plaintiff that 69 numbers of empty gas cylinders are not returned by the defendants is baseless as physical verification was done by their offices in the premises of the defendants on 18.9.2010 and also again on 28.10.2010 at which time even account reconciliation 11 O.S.No.7195/2011 was done between the parties. At that time the plaintiff did not find any empty cylinders. The plaintiff was aggrieved as the defendants stopped business from 2009 with them and raised illegal demands against the defendants. The plaintiff is not able to specifically sate whether any cylinder is due to be given by the defendants to them or not and they are basing their claim only on 'probabilities'. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
4. Thereafter the Court framed the following issues and posted the case for trial:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are required to pay a sum of Rs.7,27,650/- in respect of 66 empty industrial gas cylinders as alleged in the plaint?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,07,240/- towards rental charges at the rate of Rs.5/- per day per cylinder calculated from 12.12.2009 to 309.2011 as alleged in the plaint?12
O.S.No.7195/2011
3. To what reliefs the plaintiff is entitled?
4. What Order or Decree?
5. During the course of trial, one Sri K.N.Ravikumar, the special power of attorney holder of the plaintiff company is examined herself as PW1 got marked 63 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.63. On the other hand the defendants examined one Mahesh S., the member of Management staff as DW1 and got marked 7 documents as Ex.D1 to D7.
6. Heard arguments on both sides and the case is set down for judgment.
7. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In the affirmative.
Issue No.3 : In the affirmative.
Issue No.4 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS 13 O.S.No.7195/2011
8. Issue No.1 :- The plaintiff in order to prove its case examined its Special power of attorney holder Sri K.N.Ravikumar as PW1. In his affidavit evidence, PW1 has reiterated the averments made in the plaint.
9. Apart from oral evidence, the plaintiff also produced 63 documents as Ex.P1 to P63. Ex.P1 is the Special power of attorney. Ex.P2 is the quotation letter dt 21-12-2009. Ex.P3 is the nitrogen cylinders statement for the year 1-4-2007 to 31-3-2010. Ex.P4 is the hydrogen cylinders statement for the year 1-4-2007 to 31-3-2010. Ex.P5 is the dissolved Acetylene cylinders statement for the year from 1-4-2007 to 31-3-2010. Ex.P6 is the oxygen cylinder statement for the year from 1-4-2007 to 31-3-2010. Ex.P7 is the Helium cylinder statement for the year from 1-4-2007 to 31-3-2010. Ex.P8 is the Zero Air cylinder statement for the year from 1-4-2007 to 31-3-2010. Ex.P9 to P34 are the invoice copies. Ex.P35 is the E-mail letter dt 20-10- 2010. Ex.P36 is the proforma invoice dt 20-10-2010. 14
O.S.No.7195/2011 Ex.P37 is the E-mail letter dt 25-10-2010. Ex.P38 is the E-mail letter dt 21-10-2010. Ex.P39 is the E-mail letter dt 26-10-2010. Ex.P40 is the E-mail letter dt 7-11-2010. Ex.P41 is the E-mail letter dt 29-10-2010. Ex.P42 is the E-mail letter dt 27-10-2010. Ex.P43 is the E-mail letter dt 7-11-2010. Ex.P44 is the E-mail letter dt 8-11-2010. Ex.P45 is the E-mail letter dt 12-2-2011. Ex.P46 is the E-mail letter dt 15-2-2011. Ex.P47 is the E-mail letter dt 22-3-2011. Ex.P48 is the E-mail letter dt 21-3-2011. Ex.P49 is the legal notice. Ex.P50 to P60 are the postal acknowledgements. Ex.P61 & P62 are the returned unserved RPAD covers. Ex.P63 is the reply notice.
10. PW1 in his cross examination deposed that there was business transaction with his company and defendant company from 1999 to 2009. They were supplying Industrial gas to the defendant company in the cylinders and used to take back the empty cylinders. He admitted that the defendant company makes the payment only for the gas and not for the cylinders. He 15 O.S.No.7195/2011 further deposed that they used to take the security deposit towards the cylinder but in this case they have not taken the security deposit. He further deposed that after receiving the orders from the three modes they use the supply the gas to defendant. Generally their vehicles i.e., lorry or tempo supply the cylinders to defendant company. Witness volunteers that in the emergency time the vehicle of the defendant company collects the gas cylinders from them. In emergency, defendant company used to send lorry or tempo to collect the gas cylinders. The photocopies of one invoice and delivery challan are marked as Ex.D1 and D2. He admits that while entering the premises of the defendant and handing over the filled cylinder the store keeper of the defendant company puts the seal, by giving the details of purchase orders in the invoice. He further admitted that after the delivery of the filled cylinder in the same lorry they used to take back the empty cylinders from the premises of defendant company and for return of the empty cylinder as a proof the defendant company the defendant uses the delivery 16 O.S.No.7195/2011 challan. Witness volunteers that in case they issued the ECR (Empty Cylinder Receipt) then only the defendant company issues the delivery challan to get out the defendant company premises with empty cylinders. The format of the delivery challan of the defendant company is marked as Ex.D3. He further admits that they have not produced single ECR. The ECR from 1999 to 2009 are with them. They have maintained the ledger of the cylinders to be collected from the defendant company. They have maintained the ledger about the supply of the filled cylinder and return of empty cylinders. He again stated that they have maintained cylinder statement and not ledger. He further deposed that in this case they have not produced the ledger, since there is no payment dispute. They have produced the cylinder statement from 2007 to 2009. They have not produced the cylinder statement to 1999 to 2007. They are maintaining the cylinder statement year wise. They have produced the cylinder statement of three years. For every items i.e., type of gas they used to maintain separate cylinder 17 O.S.No.7195/2011 statement. As per Ex.P3, about 44 empty Nitrogen cylinders are lying with the defendant company for the year 2007-2008. As per Ex.P3, about 44 empty Nitrogen cylinders are lying with the defendant company for the year 2008-2009. As per Ex.P3, about 15 empty Nitrogen cylinders are lying with the defendant company for the year 2009-2010. They are maintaining the running account and year ending balance will be carry forward to next year. He admits that as per Ex.P3, at the end of the closing of the business with the defendant, about 15 nitrogen empty cylinders were lying with the defendant company; as per Ex.P4, at the end of the closing of the business with the defendant company about 10 hydrogen empty cylinders were lying with the defendant company; as per Ex.P5, at the end of the closing of the business with the defendant company about 1 Dissolved Acetylene (D A) cylinder was lying with the defendant company. It is true that as per Ex.P5, at the end of the closing of the business with the defendant company about 5 oxygen empty cylinders were lying with the defendant company; 18
O.S.No.7195/2011 as per Ex.P7, at the end of the closing of the business with the defendant company about 1 Helium empty cylinder was lying with the defendant company and as per Ex.P8, at the end of the closing of the business with the defendant company about 1 zero air empty cylinders was lying with the defendant company. He further admits that Ex.P3 to P8 are only cylinder statement are produced to the suit claim. Ex.P3 to P8 in all 66 empty cylinders were lying with the defendant company. He further admits that Ex.P3 to P8 do not bear the seal and signature of the defendant. He denied further suggestions put by the counsel for the defendants.
11. The defendants examined DW1 S.Mahesh, who is one of the Members of Management of staff of defendant No.1 company. DW1 has reiterated the written statement averments in his affidavit filed in lieu of chief. He deposed that the authorization letter issued by the defendant No.1 is marked as Ex.D4 and copy of e-mail sent by plaintiff to defendant is marked as Ex.D5. He 19 O.S.No.7195/2011 further deposed that the agreement made with plaintiff and letter written by them to plaintiff company are marked as Ex.D6 and D7. In his cross-examination he clearly admitted that in Ex.D4 there is no signature of any of the Directors of the defendant Company. He further admits that there is no authorization from the Company Board to prosecute this case. He clearly admits that there is no name for his post in the company, but he is working as member of Management Staff. He also admitted the terms and conditions entered in the Agreement Ex.P2. In his cross-examination he admitted as follows:-
£ÁªÀÅ ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ £ÉÊmÉÆÃæd£ï ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ 15 ¹°AqÀgïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀgÉ £À£UÀ É UÉÆwÛ®è. CzÉà jÃw ºÉÊqÉÆæÃd£ï ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ £ÁªÀÅ ªÁ¢UÉ 10 ¹°AqÀgïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀgÉ £À£UÀ É UÉÆwÛ®è. CzÉà jÃw rJ UÁå¸ïUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ £ÁªÀÅ ªÁ¢UÉ MAzÀÄ ¹°AqÀgï ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. CzÉà jÃw DQìd£ïUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ 3, »Ã°AiÀÄAUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ fgÉÆà KgïUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ 36 ¹°AqÀgïUÀ¼£À ÀÄß ªÁ¢UÉ ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀgÉ £À£UÀ É UÉÆwÛ®è. 20
O.S.No.7195/2011
12. Hence in view of the above said evidence of DW1, it is clear that though he has no authorization from Company Board to give evidence or prosecute this case, he examined himself as DW1 and in his cross- examination by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, deposed that he is ignorant of the alleged facts or alleged transaction between plaintiff and defendant company. Hence his evidence is not helpful to the case of the defendants. Hence viewed from any angle, there is crystal clear evidence to show that the plaintiff has proved its case by examining PW1 and got marking the documents Ex.P1 to P63. Under these circumstances this Court holds that the plaintiff is entitled for the amount claimed in the plaint. Because though the defendants in the cross-examination of PW1 put some suggestions, PW1 has denied the same. The defendant has not disproved the case of the plaintiff by adducing cogent evidence. Hence this Court answers Issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative.
21
O.S.No.7195/2011
13. Issue No.4: In view of finding of this Court on Issue Nos.1 to 3, this Court proceeds to pass the following:-
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is decreed with costs.
The defendants herein are directed to pay a sum of Rs.9,34,890/-(Rupees Nine Lakhs Thirty Four thousand eight hundred and ninety only) to the plaintiff within a period of three months from the date of this Order.
No order as to rental amount of cylinders. Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, this the 21st day of September 2016) (A.VIJAYAN) LXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge holding C/C of XXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,Bangalore City.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
P.W.1 : K.N.Ravikumar
22
O.S.No.7195/2011
2. List of documents exhibited for plaintiff :
Ex.P1 Special power of attorney.
Ex.P2 Quotation letter dt 21-12-2009.
Ex.P3 Nitrogen cylinders statement for the
year1-4-2007 to 31-3-2010.
Ex.P4 Hydrogen cylinders statement for the
year 1-4-2007 to 31-3-2010.
Ex.P5 Dissolved Acetylene cylinders statement
for the year from 1-4-2007 to 31-3-
2010.
Ex.P6 Oxygen cylinder statement for the year
from 1-4-2007 to 31-3-2010.
Ex.P7 Helium cylinder statement for the year
from 1-4-2007 to 31-3-2010.
Ex.P8 Zero Air cylinder statement for the year
from 1-4-2007 to 31-3-2010.
Ex.P9-P34 Invoice copies.
Ex.P35 E-mail letter dt 20-10-2010.
Ex.P36 Proforma invoice dt 20-10-2010.
Ex.P37 E-mail letter dt 25-10-2010.
Ex.P38 E-mail letter dt 21-10-2010.
Ex.P39 E-mail letter dt 26-10-2010.
Ex.P40 E-mail letter dt 7-11-2010.
23
O.S.No.7195/2011
Ex.P41 E-mail letter dt 29-10-2010.
Ex.P42 E-mail letter dt 27-10-2010.
Ex.P43 E-mail letter dt 7-11-2010.
Ex.P44 E-mail letter dt 8-11-2010.
Ex.P45 E-mail letter dt 12-2-2011.
Ex.P46 E-mail letter dt 15-2-2011.
Ex.P47 E-mail letter dt 22-3-2011.
Ex.P48 E-mail letter dt 21-3-2011.
Ex.P49 Legal notice.
Ex.P50 to
Ex.P60 Postal acknowledgements.
Ex.P61
& 62 Returned unserved RPAD covers.
Ex.P63 Reply notice.
3. List of witnesses examined for defendants:
DW1 S.Mahesh
4. List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Ex.D1 sample format of Tax Invoice
Ex.D2 sample format of Delivery Challan
Ex.D3 sample format of Delivery Challan
Ex.D4 Power of attorney
Ex.D5 E-mail dt.12.3.2011
24
O.S.No.7195/2011
Ex.D6 Rate Contract
Ex.D7 Rate Contract
(A.VIJAYAN)
LXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge holding c/c of XXXVIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,Bangalore City.
25 O.S.No.7195/2011 Order pronounced in the open Court (Vide separate Order) ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is decreed with costs.
The defendants herein are
directed to pay a sum of
Rs.9,34,890/-(Rupees Nine
Lakhs Thirty Four thousand
eight hundred and ninety only)
to the plaintiff within a period of
three months from the date of
this Order.
No order as to rental
amount of cylinders.
Draw decree accordingly.
(A.VIJAYAN)
LXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge holding c/c of XXXVIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,Bangalore City.