Delhi District Court
Robotech Pvt Ltd vs Fr Agnel School on 28 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-02
SHAHDARA DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023
DLSH010051082023
In the matter of
M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd.
C-483, Yojna Vihar,
Delhi - 110095
Through its Director
Sh. Nishant Jain,
S/o Late Sh. Nishith Kumar Jain
.... Plaintiff
Vs.
Fr. Agnel School
A-2, Sector - 1, Vaishali,
Distt. Ghaziabad
Through its Principal .... Defendant
Date of Institution : 18.08.2023
Date of final arguments : 26.04.2025
Date of conclusion : 28.04.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit filed against the defendant for recovery of Rs.4,68,029/- as principal and Rs.2,52,735/- as interest till 31.07.2023 along with pendent-elite and future interest @ 18% per annum.
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023 M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fr. Agnel School Page No.1 of 25 1.1 Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff is a private limited company and is registered under Companies Act and Sh. Nishant Jain is the Director of the company who is fully authorized by Board of Director to file the present suit. Copy of the Resolution of Board of Directors is also annexed with the plaint.
1.2 Plaintiff stated that defendant is a school and is providing education under CBSE syllabus and was in need and requirement of training of Robotics lab for regular classes to the students of schools as per their requirements covering topics in curriculum as per CBSE, ICSE, International Baccalaureate and State Boards to stimulate the students, motivate the teachers and enhance wider academic reputation of schools. Plaintiff further stated that as a first step in this direction, plaintiff used to set up a Lego Education based Robotics Lab based upon "Learning by Doing", encouraging students to develop problem solving decision making and scientific inquiry skills and comprehended concepts in a play way method.
1.3 As per plaintiff, defendant had engaged the plaintiff company for purpose of having service for its students and also to supply the equipments for training for which MOU was signed between the plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff has further stated that the defendant had given the purchase order dated 10.07.2019 for purchase of equipments, which they had supplied vide delivery note no. RPL/FR.Agnel/001, dated 12.07.2019 along with full details of material/equipments to the defendant as per the purchase order dated 10.07.2019. Further, plaintiff had raised the bills for the material/equipments supplied i.e. Invoice No. Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023 M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fr. Agnel School Page No.2 of 25 GST/349/2020-21, dated 17.08.2020 for Rs.3,96,635/- (i.e. principal amount) + Rs.71,394 (i.e. GST), total amounting to Rs.4,68,029/-. Thereafter, plaintiff several times requested the defendant through telephone as well as through mails to make the payment of said amount, but, the defendant neither responded, nor made the payment, thus, a legal notice dated 01.06.2022 was served upon the defendant, however, the defendant neither replied, nor complied the same.
1.4 Plaintiff has stated that since the payment was not made by defendant, hence, prima facie case is made out in their favour. Further, the cause of action is still in existence as the defendant neither made the payment of balance amount, nor was responding at all. Further, the present suit is well within the stipulated period of limitation. Plaintiff has complied the provisions of 12A of Commercial Courts Act and has annexed the Non Starter Report dated 20.07.2023. As per the plaintiff, they are entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. on Rs.4,68,029/- w.e.f. 17.08.2020 till 31.07.2023 i.e. Rs.2,52,735/- and future interest i.e. daily rate Rs.234/- per day after 31.07.2023. Plaintiff stated that the present court has the territorial jurisdiction as MOU/Contract was executed at Delhi and material/equipment were supplied from Delhi within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Further, plaintiff has paid the requisite court fees for the purpose of valuation of the suit. Along with the plaint, affidavit, statement of truth of Sh. Nishant Jain has also been filed.
2. WS has been filed on behalf of defendant wherein it is stated that present suit is not maintainable and is liable to dismissed. Defendant has stated that true and correct facts are that Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023 M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fr. Agnel School Page No.3 of 25 plaintiff company intentionally and deliberately did not file the memorandum of understanding executed between the plaintiff and defendant on 13.03.2018 for a period of two years 2018 - 2019 and 2019 - 2020 to conduct robotics education in the school. Further, the plaintiff would send its teachers and provide the equipment for 24 months for which defendant had to pay. The copy of MOU dated 13.03.2018 is also annexed with the WS. Defendant stated that cost of teaching was to be Rs.85,000/- per month and the cost of equipments was to be Rs.10,00,463/- and there was no provision anywhere for defendant school to order equipment, nor there was provision where the defendant school even verified what equipments they brought in. As per the defendant, they had paid the following amounts to the plaintiff S.No. Particulars Amount
1. Equipments provided Rs.10,00,463/-
2. Defendant paid @ Rs.85,000/- per Rs.20,40,000/- month for 24 months
3. For maintenance Rs.3,19,560/-
4. For training Senior School Teachers Rs.4,05,000/-
Total Rs.37,65,023/- 2.1 Defendant school has been maintaining the ledger
account in the name of plaintiff company and as per their ledger account, no amount is due and payable by them. Further, defendant has stated that suit has not been signed, verified, instituted and filed by duly authorized and competent person. Further, the present suit is barred by law of limitation as the contract between the plaintiff and defendant was executed on 13.03.2018 for two years, however, the suit has been instituted in August, 2023. In reply on merits, defendant specifically denied Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023 M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fr. Agnel School Page No.4 of 25 that Sh. Nishant Jain is the Director of company or he is fully authorized by Board of Directors of the company as plaintiff company had not filed on record, extract of minutes of meeting of Board of Directors. Defendant also denied that they had given purchase order dated 10.07.2019 for purchase/to supply some equipments or plaintiff had supplied the equipments vide delivery note RPL/FR.Agnel/001, dated 12.07.2019 along with full details of material/equipments. Further, defendant also denied the invoice no. GST/349/2020-21, dated 17.07.2020 for Rs.3,96,635/- as principal amount or Rs.71,394/- as GST. Defendant submitted that when no such amount is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff, the question does not arise to pay any interest on daily rate or future interest to the plaintiff. Rest of the material contents of the plaint are denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the suit with exemplary cost.
3. Replication to the WS of defendant has been filed wherein it is submitted that defendant is trying to mislead the court by putting misconceived, irrelevant, mischievous and twisted facts as whatever facts have been mentioned by defendant in its written statement are not related to facts of the case of plaintiff. Plaintiff has stated that so far as MOU dated 13.03.2018 is concerned, the case of the plaintiff is totally different from the facts as mentioned by defendant. The payment of Rs.37,65,023/- is the payment of other job and there is no dispute related to that job and amount paid by defendant. Plaintiff has stated that the work done through MOU dated 13.03.2018 and payment is not disputed, however, the defendant has not filed its reply/written statement in regard to claim filed by plaintiff in this case. All the averments made in the plaint are reiterated and the contents of the Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023 M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fr. Agnel School Page No.5 of 25 WS are denied and prayer has been made for decreeing of the suit.
4. The defendant in his affidavit of admission/denial has not admitted any of the documents of the plaintiff. On the otherhand, the plaintiff has admitted the following two documents of defendant i.e.
(i) Copy of details of equipments provided by plaintiff - equipment supplied vide P.O. filed as page No. 23 to 31 is Ex.D1;
(ii) Authority Letter of AR of defendant is Ex.D2.
Thereafter, on the basis of pleadings of parties, following issues are framed for consideration:
i). Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD
ii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree? If so, to what amount? OPP.
iii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
iv). Relief.
5. In support of its case, plaintiff has examined Meetali Chandak D/o Shri Harshandar Chandak as PW-1 who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit on 31.05.2024 which is Ex.PW1/A and has relied upon the following documents:
• Resolution of Board of Directors as Ex.PW1/1; • Resolution/Authority Letter in her favour as Ex.PW1/2; • MoU for 2019-20 and 2020-21 as Ex.PW1/3; • Invoice No.GST/349/2020-21 as Ex.PW1/4; • Ledger Account dated 01.04.2020 to 12.08.2023 as Ex.PW1/5;
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023 M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fr. Agnel School Page No.6 of 25 • Delivery note no.RPL/FR.AGNEL/001 as Ex.PW1/6; • Legal notice dated 01.06.2022 as Ex.PW1/7; • Postal receipt dated 06.06.2022 as Ex.PW1/8; • Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW1/9;
• Affidavit under Order XI Rule 6(3) of the Commercial Courts Act as Ex.PW1/10;
• Non-starter Report dated 20.07.2023 as Ex.PW1/11; • Email of plaintiff regarding payment as Mark 1A. She was cross examined at length by counsel for defendant.
5.1 Another witness Sh. Nishant Jain tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A and has relied upon the documents which are already relied upon by PW-1. He was also cross examined at length by the counsel for defendant.
Thereafter, PE was closed on the statement of Sh. Nishant Jain.
6. In rebuttal, Sh. Johnson George Payammal examined as DW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit on 29.11.2024 Ex.PW1/A and has relied upon the following documents:
• Authority Letter as Ex.DW1/1 (also Ex.D2 during admission/denial);
• Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.DW1/5;
He also relied upon the following documents:
• Ex.DW1/2 i.e. MOU dated 13.03.2018 which was also already exhibited as Ex.DW1/D1 (during cross examination of PW-1);
• Ex.DW1/3 i.e. copy of details of equipment provided Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023 M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fr. Agnel School Page No.7 of 25 which was also already exhibited as Ex.DW1/D2 (during cross examination of PW-1) and also Ex.D1 (during admission denial);
• Ex.DW1/4 i.e. Ledger as mentioned in affidavit of evidence which was also already exhibited as Ex.DW1/D3 (during cross examination of PW1).
He was duly cross examined by counsel for plaintiff. Thereafter, DE was closed on the statement of defendant.
7. The court has heard ld. counsel for the plaintiff as well as ld. counsel for defendant and have also gone through the records of the case. The findings on the issues are as under :
ISSUE No.(i). Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD
8. The onus of proving this issue was upon the defendant. In the preliminary objections, the defendant has stated that the present suit under reply is not maintainable and is barred by law of limitation. The present suit has been instituted on 18.08.2023. As per the plaintiff, the goods were supplied on 12.07.2019. The suit, thus, could have been filed till 12.07.2022. It is pertinent to mention that the Apex Court has in the order dated 10.01.2022 in suo moto Writ Petition(c) 2020 In Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation, while discussing the difficulties faced by litigants due to outbreak of Corona Virus, directed that period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or specific laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings. The period consumed during the pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act is also to be excluded Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023 M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fr. Agnel School Page No.8 of 25 while computing limitation. As per the Non Starter Report, the Pre Institution Mediation application was filed on 06.06.2023 and the Non Starter Report was issued on 20.07.2023 and thus, the period 1 month 15 days is also liable to be excluded while computing limitation. Thus, after excluding the period from Pre Institution Mediation and also after excluding the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, the present suit filed on 18.08.2023 is, within limitation and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation.
Issue no. (i) is thus, decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE No.(ii).Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree? If so, to what amount? OPP.
9. The onus of proving this issue was upon the plaintiff. The suit is commercial in nature and squarely falls within the purview of Section 2 (1) (C) of Commercial Courts Act and plaintiff has also duly complied with mandatory provision of Pre-Institution Mediation and Conciliation as provided in Section 12 A of Commercial Courts Act, as per the Non Starter Report dated 20.07.2023.
10. As far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the plaintiff has stated in para 20 of the plaint that as the MOU/contract was executed in Delhi and the material/equipment were supplied from Delhi, therefore, this court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit. This court also has the pecuniary jurisdiction over the matter since the suit amount claimed by the plaintiff is more than the specified value of Rs.3 lacs of the Commercial Courts.
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023 M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fr. Agnel School Page No.9 of 25
11. The primary plea taken by the defendant in the WS is that plaintiff company intentionally and deliberately did not file the memorandum of understanding executed between the plaintiff and defendant on 13.03.2018 for a period of two years 2018 - 2019 and 2019 - 2020 to conduct robotics education in the school. PW-1 in his examination in chief has exhibited the MOU for 2019-20 and 2020-21 as Ex.PW1/3 and has also admitted the MOU dated 13.03.2018 in her cross-examination which is Ex.DW1/D1. PW-1 specifically denied the suggestion that no MOU Ex.PW1/3 was ever executed between the plaintiff and the defendant and further that the alleged MOU Ex.PW1/3 is forged and manufactured document.
12. The main defence of the defendant is that no such purchase order dated 10.07.2019 was given by them, nor the plaintiff has supplied any goods/equipments vide delivery note dated 12.07.2019. The plaintiff in para 6 of their plaint has stated that defendant had given the purchase order 10.07.2019 and the goods were supplied on 12.07.2019. The said purchase order has not been placed on record by the plaintiff, nor exhibited during the evidence. Only one MOU allegedly for the year 2019 - 2020 and 2020-2021 was exhibited as Ex.PW1/3. Perusal of Ex.PW1/3 reveals that the same is a photocopy or at best a computer printout. The first page also does not looks like as it pertains to a contract between the parties. It seems that only on a pamphlet of plaintiff, the name of the defendant's school Fr. Agnel School has been mentioned/printed at the top. The second page is a letter, "To The Principal", from NeoRobos. It also does not mentions as to which Institution's Principal, the same was addressed to. How Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023 M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fr. Agnel School Page No.10 of 25 this letter was sent to the defendant is not clear. No date on this letter is mentioned. The third page is regarding some details of the programme. The fourth page is regarding charges which is again mentioning the name of Nishant Jain on behalf of M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. and mentioned about Rs.45,000/- per month as charges which is inclusive of GST. The page number 5 to 13 of Ex.PW1/3 is the list of equipments. From none of these documents it can be inferred that the same was in relation to MOU or contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. Merely by mentioning "Fr. Agnel School" on the first page at the top, which can be easily copy pasted or photoshopped, it cannot be said that these documents pertained to defendant. A purchase order by the defendant would have originated from the defendant. But, no such purchase order which has originated from the defendant has been placed on record.
13. Also, though as per the plaintiff, the equipments as per page no. 5 to 13 of Ex.PW1/3 were supplied to the defendant as per MOU Ex.PW1/3, but, in MOU Ex.PW1/3, there is nothing stated about the supply of such equipments by the plaintiff. The responsibilities of NeoRobos as per Ex.PW1/3 are as under:
"NeoRobosTM Responsibilities Curriculum:
Level-wise delivery basis the concepts of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering & Math's) along with the requisite challenge mats & worksheets Software All related educational software's and licenses, Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023 M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fr. Agnel School Page No.11 of 25 as applicable Faculty 2 Dedicated Trainers/Teachers for 2 days in a week for taking classes.
Method of Delivery:
According to Time Table"
14. As per this, faculty and software was to be provided by NeoRobos and as per page 4, Rs.45,000/- per month was to be charged by NeoRobos. Nothing has been stated in the entire plaint as to whether defendant has paid this amount of Rs.45,000/- to the plaintiff during the period 2019 to March, 2020. The plaintiff was to charge Rs.45,000/- per month as per Ex.PW1/3 and the defendant had to pay this amount, but, nothing about the said fact has been mentioned in the entire plaint. Also, as already observed, from first 4 pages of MOU Ex.PW1/3 that there is nothing to suggest that the plaintiff was also to supply any equipments to the defendant.
15. Mark A1 is an email which is also sent on behalf of plaintiff. Whether the defendant has even replied to this email or not, has not been stated in the plaint, nor any such document has been filed. Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW1/9 is in respect of invoices, ledger account and the MOU for the year 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. The affidavit under Order XI Rule 6 (3) CPC as applicable to Commercial Courts is also in respect of MOU for the year 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 i.e. Ex.PW1/3, the invoice GST/349/2020-21 i.e. Ex.PW1/4 and the ledger account w.e.f. 01.04.2020 to 12.08.2023 i.e. Ex.PW1/5. No certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and affidavit under Order XI Rule 6 CPC has been filed in respect of Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023 M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fr. Agnel School Page No.12 of 25 email Mark 1A. The said email Mark 1A has not been duly proved on record as per law. As per cross of PW1, all the communications between the school and the project head was done through email. When all the communications were done through email, the plaintiff should have placed copy of the said emails on record. The court fails to understand as to why copy of the said communication was not placed on record and withheld by the plaintiff. An adverse inference is thus, liable to be drawn against the plaintiff for not placing the relevant and complete emails on record. The relevant cross of PW-1 is reproduced hereinbelow:
"......I am working with the plaintiff company since 2015. I was not present when the deal was finalized between the plaintiff and the defendant.
Q. I put to you that as you were not participated in the deal so you have no knowledge about the deal between the parties. What do you have to say ?
A. Deal was done between the school and the project head, then all the communications was done through email......
......It is correct that prior to 2019 whatever deal was done, that was separate to this present claim. The previous period of deal for the year 2018-19 and 2019-20. It is correct that I have not mentioned either in plaint or in my evidence affidavit about the previous period of deal for the year 2018-19 and 2019- Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023 M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fr. Agnel School Page No.13 of 25
20. (Vol. as it does not pertain to my present claim)......
......Q. I put it to you that when any person/firm places any order for supply of goods/equipments, then whether the plaintiff first prepares invoice or delivery challan?
Please tell.
A. In the present case, after finalization of the order, we delivered the goods through delivery challan, as some of the items were not finalized, so it was mutually decided to raise the invoice at the end of the financial year which is 2019-20......
...... It is correct that no signature or acknowledgment or stamp of defendant is there on the alleged delivery challan Ex.PW1/6 dated 12.07.2019. It is correct that the document Ex.PW1/4 is dated 17.08.2020......
...... It is wrong to suggest that you have not supplied the alleged goods/equipments to the defendant nor there was any occasion for the defendant to place order for purchase of the goods/equipments as mentioned in the delivery challan.
Q. I put it to you that have you filed any order regarding placing of goods/equipments, as mentioned in the delivery challan ?
A. On the basis of MoU, Ex.PW1/3 and finalization of deed, we have issued delivery Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023 M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fr. Agnel School Page No.14 of 25 challan.
It is correct that no signature and seal of the defendant is mentioned on the MoU Ex.PW1/3.
......It is wrong to suggest that no MoU Ex.PW1/3 was ever executed between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is further wrong to suggest that the alleged MoU Ex.PW1/3 is forged and manufactured document. It is further wrong to suggest that the plaintiff has not supplied the alleged goods as mentioned in the delivery challan to the defendant...... ......It is correct that the MoU dated 13.03.2018 was executed between the plaintiff and defendant. (now Ex.DW1/D1). It is correct that the Annexure-I was executed between the plaintiff and defendant. (now Ex.DW1/D2). It is correct that the defendant paid the total amount of Rs.37,65,023/- to the plaintiff and the documents Annexure D3 are correct. (now Ex.DW1/D3). (Vol. the same are not related to the claim in the present case). We have paid GST as per the invoice Ex.PW1/4......
......It is wrong to suggest that the plaintiff has not filed intentionally and deliberately the copy of entire statement of account/ledger for the period from 2018-19 and 2019-20. (Vol.
there was no dispute during this period).
Q. What was the mode of delivery and how Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023 M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fr. Agnel School Page No.15 of 25 were the equipments delivered to the defendant ?
A. They were delivered through office car.
No e-way bill was generated as invoice was not generated and delivery was made on delivery challan......
......It is wrong to suggest that the alleged document Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/7 are forged and manufactured document. It is wrong to suggest that no such amount is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff as claimed in the present suit. It is wrong to suggest that there was no mentioning number of vehicle or name of the driver in the alleged invoice or delivery note/challan. It is correct that the plaintiff has not mentioned the amount received by the plaintiff from the defendant either in plaint or in evidence affidavit (Vol. the same was not related to the claim in the present case and therefore was not mentioned)......"
16. Though, as per PW-1, the delivery challan was issued on the basis of MOU, Ex.PW1/3 and on finalisation of deal, but, PW-2 has clearly stated that Ex.PW1/3 is not the MOU related to the present case. The relevant cross of PW-2 is reproduced hereinbelow:
".....Ex.PW1/3 is not the MOU related to the Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023 M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fr. Agnel School Page No.16 of 25 present case. (Vol. the details of material supplied mentioned at page 23 to 28 is related to this case). It is correct that at page no. 23 to 28, nowhere the name of defendant school is mentioned nor any signatures of any authorized person of defendant is there. It is wrong to suggest that as the material has not been supplied as mentioned at page no. 23 to 28 that is why nowhere the name of defendant school is mentioned nor any signatures of any authorized person of defendant is there.
In usual practice, first of all material is delivered on the basis of delivered challan and thereafter, invoices are raised. It is correct that delivery note Ex.PW1/6 does not bears the acknowledgment of the defendant school.....
.....Ques. I put it to you that have you placed on record any document to show that the alleged deal of supply of material was done by you with the defendant school? Ans. We have placed the communication done with defendant school via emails on record i.e. Mark 1A.
I do not remember whether the defendant school had replied to the said emails or not. (Vol. These emails were sent as an acknowledgement in correspondence regarding the meeting held with the school).
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023 M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fr. Agnel School Page No.17 of 25 There is no other document except as stated above and filed in the suit regarding the meeting held with the school. (Vol. It must be mentioned in the gate/entry register of the school). I do not remember the date and month of the all meetings, but, I remember one date i.e. 09.09.2019 meeting conducted by Ms. Monika Bhardwaj.
It is wrong to suggest that neither meeting was held nor deal was finalized with the defendant school that is why I have not filed any document to show that the alleged meeting was held and the deal was done by me.
Ques. I put it to you in para no. 5 of your affidavit of evidence you have stated that the defendant had given purchase order dated 10.07.2019 orally for supply of some equipments, but, the said fact was not mentioned in the plaint. What you have to say?
Ans. I have no idea whether I have mentioned the said facts in my plaint or not.
It is wrong to suggest that no purchase order 10.07.2019 was given by the defendant school to the plaintiff that is why I have not mentioned the said fact in my suit..... ..... The material was sent in multiple rounds on the same day with the value of less than Rs.50,000 per trip and hence, the e-way bill Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023 M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fr. Agnel School Page No.18 of 25 was not required.
It is wrong to suggest that I have not supplied material in question that is why I have not filed e-way bill.
Ques. I put it to you that in para 6 of your affidavit of evidence you have stated that the material was supplied by through company vehicle/car, but, the said fact was not mentioned in the plaint. What you have to say?
Ans. I have no idea.
It is wrong to suggest that the alleged delivery note Ex.PW1/6 and alleged invoice Ex.PW1/4 are forged and fabricated document....."
17. In the evidence affidavit of PW2 in para 5, it has been mentioned that the purchase order was given orally, but, in the evidence affidavit of PW1, this fact is not mentioned that the purchase order was given orally. Neither in the plaint it has been stated that the purchase order was given orally. The evidence affidavit of PW1 is attested on 29.05.2024 and PW-1 was cross examined on 16.08.2024. The evidence affidavit of PW2 is attested on 28.08.2024 i.e. after cross examination of PW-1 was concluded. The evidence affidavit of PW2 was attested on 28.08.2024 i.e. after the cross examination of PW-1 and clearly the word "orally" mentioned in the evidence affidavit of PW-2 in para 6 regarding purchase order dated 10.07.2019 is beyond pleadings and has been mentioned to cover up the lacuna in the plaint and in the affidavit evidence of PW-1.
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023 M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fr. Agnel School Page No.19 of 25
18. Though, the plaintiff has stated that MOU/contract was executed in Delhi, but, as already observed MOU Ex.PW1/3 does not inspire confidence enough to be relied upon. In fact, the PW2 himself has stated that Ex.PW1/3 is not the MOU related to present case and only list of the material supplied is related to this case. Further, though, the plaintiff has stated in the plaint that the purchase order was placed by the defendant, but, no such purchase order has been placed on record or proved during evidence or in fact in the affidavit of evidence of PW-2, it has been clearly mentioned that the purchase order was given orally.
19. In para 5 of the plaint, it has been clearly stated that the MOU for supply of equipments and for training was signed between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1. No such MOU which has been signed by the defendant or on behalf of defendant has been placed on record by the plaintiff. The MOU Ex.PW1/3 was not signed by anybody on behalf of defendant and in fact as per witness PW2, the first 4 pages of Ex.PW1/3 are not even related to the present case and only the list of equipments was related to the present case.
20. Also, ld. counsel for plaintiff has suggested to DW-1 that the defendant never used to issue any purchase order and this fact has admitted by DW-1 during his cross examination. Plaintiff is thus, taking contradictory stand. In the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that purchase order was issued and then the plaintiff improves their version in evidence affidavit of PW-2 by stating that the purchase order was given orally and further during the cross examination of DW-1, when the suggestion was given that the defendant never used to issue any purchase order. The relevant cross examination of Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023 M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fr. Agnel School Page No.20 of 25 DW-1 is reproduced hereinbelow:
"It is correct that in para no. 6 of the WS, it is mentioned that there is no provision for defendant school to give any order for equipment, nor there is any provision where the school even verified they brought in.
It is correct that for the material mentioned in Ex.DW1/D2, we have not issued any order for supply of the material to the plaintiff. (Vol. The material mentioned in Ex.DW1/D2 has been provided by the plaintiff in terms of the Ex.DW1/D1). It is correct that we never used to issue any purchase order to the plaintiff.
Ques. I put it to you that whatever material you used to receive from plaintiff where it is kept for entry?
Ans. Whenever the plaintiff come for delivery of material in the school, the guard inform at Reception and then the Reception inform the concern department or person.
The entry with respect to the material supplied by the plaintiff or any other party is not neither made by Guard or made at Reception. (Vol. The Reception called the concerned department). It is correct that the material mentioned in Ex.DW1/D2 has been entered in the concerned document...... ......The school do not make the entries regarding the material which has not been Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023 M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fr. Agnel School Page No.21 of 25 ordered by the school. The material which is supplied vide MOU is not entered in any Log Book or any Record of school. The school also do not receive the bill / invoice vide which the material is supplied in terms of MOU...... ......The signature mentioned on MOU Ex.DW1/D1 at point A1 to A4 is of my Director.
It is wrong to suggest that the material
dispatched vide delivery note no.
RPL/FR.Agnel/001, dated 12.07.2019 and
Invoice No. GST/349/2020-21, dated
17.08.2020 has been received by the school. It is correct that no payment was made with respect to Invoice No. GST/349/2020-21, dated 17.08.2020. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the instance of school......"
21. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that they could not have produced acknowledgment regarding the delivered goods as no such acknowledgment was given by the defendant on delivery of the material/equipment, nor any purchase order was issued by the defendant. However, the fact still remains that the plaintiff has to prove its own case by leading cogent evidence and should produce all the relevant documents on record. The case of the plaintiff on the basis of invoice dated 17.08.2020 Ex.PW1/4, which has been generated after more than one year of the alleged delivery of the goods cannot be decreed in the absence of any supporting document. As already observed Ex.PW1/3 does not inspire confidence enough to be relied upon. The same is not even signed Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023 M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fr. Agnel School Page No.22 of 25 by the defendant or any person on behalf of defendant. Moreover, as per PW-2, Ex.PW1/3 is not related to the present case and only the list of documents is related to the present case. The relevant email along with supporting affidavit under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and an affidavit under Order XI Rule 6 has not been placed on record by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also not filed any GST record to show the payment of the GST amount as per Invoice with the concerned GST Department. Moreover, the plaintiff has admitted the MOU executed between the parties Ex.DW1/2 which was also exhibited as Ex.DW1/D1 which is signed by Sh. Arun Singhal on behalf of Robotech Private Limited and FR JA Carvalao on behalf of defendant. The period during which this MOU was in operation is 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. Thus, this MOU was for a contract period of 2 years uptill March, 2020 and thus, one MOU was already in existence till March, 2020. The court fails to understand as to what was the need for another MOU when already an MOU between the parties, till March, 2020 was in existence. As per this MOU, Robotech Private Limited was to supply hardware for running the Lab as per detailed list of equipment enclosed.
22. The MOU dated 13.03.2018 Ex.DW1/2 produced by the defendant is signed by both the parties, but, the alleged MOU filed by the plaintiff is not signed by the defendant. Also, in Ex.PW1/3 which has been filed on record by the plaintiff, there is nothing mentioned about the supply of any equipment to the defendant and only a monthly charge of Rs.45,000/- per month is mentioned. The plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden placed upon them. The suit of the plaintiff cannot be decreed merely for the reason because the defendant's witness admitted that they never Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023 M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fr. Agnel School Page No.23 of 25 used to give receiving of any delivery of goods. Even, if there is no receiving of delivery of goods, the plaintiff should have at least file the remaining documents such as GST record, the entire email trial between the parties to prove their case. The invoice Ex.PW1/4 and the ledger Ex.PW1/5 as well as delivery challan Ex.PW1/6 are self serving documents and cannot be relied upon, in the absence of any supporting document such as purchase order, email, the MOU signed by the defendant, GST record showing payment of GST amount by the plaintiff with the concerned authorities etc. The plaintiff has to stand on its own leg and must prove its case as pleaded in the plaint. Plaintiff has stated that MOU was signed by both the parties, but, no such MOU signed by both have been placed on record. Further, as already observed regarding the purchase order, improvements has been made in the testimony of PW-2 which is beyond pleadings. Plaintiff, thus, has not proved that any contract/MOU was entered into between the parties or that they had delivered the goods / equipments to the defendant as per list which is part of Ex.PW1/3 or as per delivery challans etc. and thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to the money decree as prayed for.
Issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No.(iii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
23. In view of the above findings, as the claim of plaintiff of Rs.4,68,029/- has already been declined, thus, the issue of grant of interest does not survives. Issue is, thus, decided accordingly.
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023 M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fr. Agnel School Page No.24 of 25 Relief/Conclusion
24. In view of above discussion, I am of the view that the plaintiff has failed to prove their claim by any cogent evidence and thus could not discharge the burden of proving their claim for an amount of Rs.4,68,029/- against defendant. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the money decree as prayed. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.04.28 16:20:59 Pronounced in open court on +0530 28th day of April, 2025 (Kiran Bansal) District Judge, Commercial Court-02 Shahdara, Karkardooma Delhi/28.04.2025 Civil Suit (Comm) No. 411/2023 M/s Robotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fr. Agnel School Page No.25 of 25