Delhi District Court
M/S Shantam Infotech vs M/S Luminous Infoways Pvt. Ltd on 13 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHRIYA AGRAWAL
JSCC, ASCJ, GJ, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS SCJ : 50589/16
CNR No. : DLSE03-0000110-2015
M/s Shantam Infotech
Through its Partner
Piyush Bhartia
B-139, Lajpat Nagar-I,
New Delhi. ... PLAINTIFF
Versus
M/s Luminous Infoways Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director
Mr. Tanmay Mohanty
N-6/373, Jayeleb Vihar, Nayapalli
Bhubneshwar-751015. ... DEFENDANTS
SUIT FOR RECOVERY FOR A SUM OF Rs.2,50,000/-
ALONGWITH INTEREST 12% PER ANNUM
Date of Institution of the case : 08.01.2015
Date of reserving of judgment : 01.07.2023
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 13.07.2023
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been instituted by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- along-with interest. It is a matter of record that the suit was originally filed by the Plaintiff solely against Mr. Tanmay Mohanty (Director of M/s Luminous Infoways Pvt. Ltd.). It was only subsequently that M/s Luminous Infoways Pvt. Ltd was impleaded purusant to the Order dated 5.1.2021 passed by the Ld. Predecessor, whereafter SHRIYA Digitally signed by SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2023.07.18 17:18:24 +05'30' CS SCJ 50589/16 M/s Shantam Infotech V Luminous Infoways P. Ltd. Page No.1 of 17 the trial in the case continued as per the record against the Defendants.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS PER PLAINT
2. The Plaintiff concern, engaged in the business of developing need-based softwares, claims to have been desirous of developing an online game, based on playing cards. The Defendants are stated to have represented to be possessing the necessary skills, wherewithal and expertise to develop the kind of game, the Plaintiff was looking for and accordingly they were hired by the Plaintiff on certain terms and conditions, which broadly contemplated development and handing over of the desired software, within the period agreed inter-se the parties. The Defendant was represented by its Director Mr. Tanmay Mohanty who entered into discussion, deliberations and negotiations, on behalf of the Company.
3. It is averred that initially, the Defendant was expected to complete the assignment / project by 01.09.2013 as agreed between the parties in May 2013, when the initial amount against the agreed charges was paid. However, the Defendant failed to complete the work within the period agreed and consequentially the Plaintiff requested for refund of the amount so paid to the Defendant, in the 1st week of December 2013. In this regard a reference to E-mail dated 15.03.2014 is drawn in respect of the willingness of the Defendants to take up the assignment. On the basis of the discussion held inter-se the parties, some broad terms and conditions were finalized as evident from the Email dated 19.03.2014. The Defendant was expected to handover the game, CS SCJ 50589/16 M/s Shantam Infotech V Luminous Infoways P. Ltd. Page No.2 of 17 Digitally signed by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2023.07.18 17:18:47 +05'30' complete in all respects, as per the Game Designed Document, having Artificial Intelligence Player (AI), within 45 days from the date of understanding arrived at, i.e. by 04.05.2014. Accordingly, the Plaintiff agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2.50 Lakhs, in a staggered manner, for developing the software. The project was expected to be completed within 45 days from the date of understanding but since the Defendants failed to deliver, the period was further extended till 30.06.2014, with the condition that if the Defendants still failed to meet the deadline, they would refund the entire amount, so received by it. It is further averred that though the Plaintiff was expected to pay the agreed consideration at the time of handing over of the software, the Defendants, on one pretext or the other, persuaded the Plaintiff to part with the agreed charges. The Plaintiff had accordingly paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- by issuing a Cheque bearing no. 030477 from the account of Mr. Piyush Bhartia on 27.05.2013, Rs.40,000/- vide Cheque No.030476 drawn on ICICI Bank, a sum of Rs.90,000/- by issuing a Cheque bearing no.125711 and a Cheque bearing no.030476 for a sum of Rs.60,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank. The Defendants thus received a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, either in the name of the Company or in the name of its Director i.e. Mr. Tanmay Mohanty.
4. The Plaintiff thereafter kept on reminding and consistently following up with the Defendants seeking completion of the job undertaken. Despite repeatedly extending the time for providing demo of the game, the Defendants are stated to have miserably failed to do the needful. The Defendants neglected in adhering to the time schedule, for developing the software of the game, CS SCJ 50589/16 M/s Shantam Infotech V Luminous Infoways P. Ltd. Page No.3 of 17 Digitally signed by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2023.07.18 17:19:04 +05'30' despite acknowledging and appreciating that 'time was of essence to the contract'. It is further stated that instead of delivering the software on time, the demo of the game was postponed, due to gross negligence of Defendants, that too a day before when the game was expected to be launched officially by Plaintiff. It is claimed that the survival of the Plaintiff Company depended upon the successful launch of the game as it had invested hard earned money in the project and had also waited for the same. Despite due awareness of the stakes involved, it is stated that the Defendants manifested a complete non-serious and a casual approach towards the project, occasioning irreparable damage to the Plaintiff, both in terms of loss of reputation and money. The Plaintiff, having no other efficacious remedy, thus filed the present suit for recovery.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS OF DEFENDANTS
5. Per Contra, the Defendants in their reply have asserted that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit, as no cause of action for instituting the present suit has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is averred that the Defendants are based in Odisha, actually and voluntarily carrying on their business from there. The Defendants have denied the Plaintiff having entered into any understanding/ contract with Mr. Tanmay Mohanty for development of the alleged software as claimed. The Defendants have denied any amount being due towards the Plaintiff as the alleged payment had been made only after receiving proper service/ consultancy etc. from the Defendants. It is further stated that the Plaintiff is CS SCJ 50589/16 M/s Shantam Infotech V Luminous Infoways P. Ltd. Page No.4 of 17 Digitally signed by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2023.07.18 17:19:21 +05'30' not entitled to any refund as the necessary payment stood paid only after being provided the services as per agreement.
6. It is further stated that no agreement in writing had been executed between the parties stipulating the terms and conditions of the dealing. The project development was discussed and agreed upon with cost on fixed number of man hours only. It is further stated that whatever the Plaintiff desired was duly made by a team of software developers, however the Plaintiff continually kept changing the specifications and business logic, making the whole development process go through heavy rework again and again, with thrice the amount of time consumed and enormous amount of development hours consumed.
7. It is further stated that subsequently, it was also discovered by the Defendants by their expert team that Rummy game is illegal, as per what was learnt from various sources available in the media. This was intimated to Plaintiff and the source code of the software was handed over to it, informing that the assignment/ project that the Plaintiff had assigned to the Defendants had been declared illegal by the law enforcing authorities of the country and therefore the Defendants could not develop the software any further.
8. It is stated that after Defendants refused to go forward with the assignment, the Plaintiff started misbehaving with their staff members and instead of closing the game project, changes were proposed from time to time, making it difficult for the Defendants to deliver. The Plaintiff also denied the Defendants of CS SCJ 50589/16 M/s Shantam Infotech V Luminous Infoways P. Ltd. Page No.5 of 17 Digitally signed by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2023.07.18 17:19:39 +05'30' their legal entitlements which were promised during the assignment.
ISSUES FRAMED
9. The following issues were framed in the suit vide Order dated 19.05.2016:
"1. Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present case? OPD
2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary party? OPD
3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.2,50 lakhs as prayed for in the prayer clause of the plaint? OPP
4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the interest as prayed for? OPP
5. Relief."
These issues were however re-cast vide Order dated 09.01.2023, by the undersigned as follows:
"(i) Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present case? OPD
(ii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.
2.50 lakhs as prayed for in the proper clause of the plaint? OPP
(iii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the interest as prayed for? OPP
(iv) Relief." Digitally signed by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2023.07.18 17:19:57 +05'30' CS SCJ 50589/16 M/s Shantam Infotech V Luminous Infoways P. Ltd. Page No.6 of 17 PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
10. The Plaintiff deposed through its Authorized Representative as PW1 on the strength of his affidavit Ex PW1/B, tendering in evidence, inter-alia, copy of the partnership deed (Ex.PW1/A), copy of Board Resolution (Ex.PW1/1), copy of email dated 15.03.2014 (Ex.PW1/2), copy of email dated 19.03.2014 (Ex.PW1/3), copies of email [Ex.PW1/4 (colly)], copy of legal notice (Ex.PW1/5) and copy of bank statement for the financial year 2013-14 (Ex.PW1/6). In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for Defendants, the witness stated that the Plaintiff has been functioning since 2013-2014, with it having commenced its operations with the intention of doing business of online gaming, further describing the Plaintiff as a service provider of gaming experience. He stated that the said concern however was no longer operational.
11. The witness in response to a specific question further deposed that the Plaintiff did not have the technical expertise to develop projects of the kind as outsourced to the Defendants and therefore it had hired an expert for the project. The Plaintiff did not publish any advertisement in advance and is stated to have learnt about the Defendants through a known person. The witness further stated that a meeting had taken place with Mr. Tanmay Mohanty in Delhi for the project, but he could not remember as to when the same took place in the year 2013. He acknowledged that there was no formal written offer issued to the Defendants concerning the proposed project and it was instead a matter of understanding that had been arrived at through exchange of emails. When asked as to whether any email was filed regarding CS SCJ 50589/16 M/s Shantam Infotech V Luminous Infoways P. Ltd. Page No.7 of 17 Digitally signed by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2023.07.18 17:20:12 +05'30' the said offer, the witness drew attention to the Email dated 19.03.2014 sent at 7:03 pm (part of Ex.PW1/3).
12. The witness stated that there was no formal agreement executed between the parties regarding completion of work by 1.9.2013 explaining that it was an understanding through emails. He acknowledged that there was no formal agreement on record which was executed by both the parties touching upon the terms of the business and concerning the final date of its expected completion. When the witness was asked if there was any email on record which could show that the work was agreed to be completed by 01.09.2013, he despite going through the record, could not refer to any email in response.
13. The witness was thereafter asked about the reason due to which the project could not be completed or set running. He responded stating that there were multiple reasons and technical issues, which though communicated to the Defendant, remained unattended. He acknowledged that the Plaintiff had received an email from the Defendant stating that they were not able to develop a gaming software which would be a complete replica of a previously ongoing gaming software. He further stated that the Plaintiff however had specified that they did not want any replicas.
14. The witness further deposed that the E-mail dated 19.03.2014 (sent at 8:23 pm, part of Ex.PW1/3) was duly replied to through email, for clarifying that the Plaintiff was not looking for any replica or copy of any ongoing gaming website. Upon CS SCJ 50589/16 M/s Shantam Infotech V Luminous Infoways P. Ltd. Page No.8 of 17 Digitally signed by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2023.07.18 17:20:27 +05'30' going through the record, he could acknowledged that the said email however was not there. During his further cross examination, deferred for the next date, the witness explained that he had given the reply email to the E-mail dated 19.3.2014 to his Counsel. Similar response was given when asked about the emails exchanged in respect of the understanding arrived at inter- se the parties concerning the completion of work by 01.09.2013. The witness was thereafter asked to explain regarding issuance of self-cheques, in response to which he stated that Mr. Tanmay Mohanty wanted immediate cash at the relevant time, for which he had withdrawn money from his bank. He further stated that all correspondence was done in writing through emails and meetings were held physically in Delhi. He stated that there were three four people in the office of the Defendants with whom he was in touch viz. Mr. Jena, Ms. Jaya, Mr. Tanmay and one more lady. He stated that he could not remember if on 22.09.2014, there was an email sent from the Defendants to the Plaintiff, giving the details of the work already completed and the amount invested in the said project.
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
15. The Defendants examined their AR as DW1 who deposed on the strength of his affidavit Ex.DW1/1, tendering in evidence, inter-alia, copy of Board Resolution (Mark DW1/3) and payment details (Mark DW1/4). During his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff, the witness stated that he was aware of the understanding that had taken place between the Plaintiff and the Defendants with respect to development of gaming program. He acknowledged being aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had given Rs.2,50,000/- to the Defendants for development of the CS SCJ 50589/16 M/s Shantam Infotech V Luminous Infoways P. Ltd. Page No.9 of 17 SHRIYA Digitally signed by SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2023.07.18 17:20:42 +05'30' gaming program, but pleaded ignorance as regards the time frame within which the gaming program work was to be completed and delivered up to the Plaintiff. He also did not know if the Defendants undertook to demonstrate the gaming program in July 2014. He admitted that the Email ID [email protected], was being used by the Defendant. He further deposed that Ms. Jaya is a Director in their Company. He could not confirm if the Email dated 16.06.2014 had been sent at 01:49 PM by Ms. Jaya to the Plaintiff. He also could not confirm if the Defendant had at any point of time written to the Plaintiff stating that since it was asking for a replica of the game by the name Rummy Game, it was not possible for the Defendants to develop it.
APPRAISAL & OBSERVATIONS
16. Final arguments were heard threadbare. The record has been carefully perused.
17. The present suit has been instituted by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for recovery by way of refund of Rs. 2,50,000/-, owing to the non-completion of the project for development of the gaming software, for which the parties had admittedly engaged on certain commercial terms with each other. The thrust of the claim in the present suit is essentially the non-delivery of the gaming software after its due completion by the Defendants as per the agreed terms, within the time period agreed upon by the parties. The Plaintiff has asserted that initially the deadline for development and handing over of the software was agreed to be 01.09.2013, as per the understanding arrived at between the parties in May 2013. Thereafter, as acknowledged in the E-mail CS SCJ 50589/16 M/s Shantam Infotech V Luminous Infoways P. Ltd. Page No.10 of 17 Digitally signed by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2023.07.18 17:20:55 +05'30' dated 15.03.2014 (Ex. PW1/2), the project was revived and the terms and conditions for the project were finalized as evident from E-mail dated 19.03.2014. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the game was to be handed over by 04.05.2014, which period was subsequently extended till 30.06.2014. The Plaintiff has claimed to have also made payments for the project during the course of its development, by way of cheques, for a total sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, despite it having been principally agreed that the payment would be made after the completion of the project. It is the claim of the Plaintiff that since the project was never completed as per the agreed terms, the Plaintiff is entitled to refund of the advanced consideration.
18. Per contra, the Defendants have asserted that the suit has been filed in a Court which does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim, further expressly denying any terms and conditions of the engagement of Defendants by the Plaintiff ever having been reduced into writing formally by the parties. The Defendants have also denied the claim of the Plaintiff of time being of essence to the contract, asserting that the project was duly completed and the payment was received for proper services delivered. It is also agitated by the Defendants that during the course of the development, the Plaintiff kept changing the specifications, virtually posing a challenge for the Defendants to deliver within the initial time-frame.
19. As regards issue no. (i), the claim of the Defendants is that the suit could not have been filed within the South East District at New Delhi considering the Defendants are based in Odisha CS SCJ 50589/16 M/s Shantam Infotech V Luminous Infoways P. Ltd. Page No.11 of 17 Digitally signed by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2023.07.18 17:21:10 +05'30' and are carrying on their business there. The Plaintiff on the contrary has claimed that not only has the cause of action arisen within this District at Delhi, considering the game was to be developed and delivered at Delhi, even a meeting in this regard had taken place in Delhi with Defendant Mr. Tanmay Mohanty. The onus to prove this issue rested upon the Defendants, who have not led any evidence, either in the affirmative or by way of cross-examination of the Plaintiff Witness, to establish that either the delivery of the software was not agreed upon as intended for Delhi or that no part of cause of action had arisen at Delhi. Also, although the Defendants have additionally taken a plea that the game proposed to be developed was declared subsequently illegal as per the laws of the land, there is no evidence led to confirm or affirm the said plea.
20. The Plaintiff to substantiate its claim for recovery against the Defendants has tendered in evidence, inter-alia, certain emails exchanged between the parties, which the witness for the Plaintiff examined as PW-1 had referred to during his cross- examination to be conveying the scope of the terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties for the subject project. It is however evident from the cross-examination of PW- 1, that not all emails have been filed, considering the witness, when asked to explain if any document or email were on record as could show the exact contractual terms governing the parties, particularly touching upon the completion date/ deadline, had stated that though he had all the record, due to some confusion the same was not filed.
SHRIYA Digitally signed by SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2023.07.18 17:21:23 +05'30' CS SCJ 50589/16 M/s Shantam Infotech V Luminous Infoways P. Ltd. Page No.12 of 17
21. On the basis of the documents filed in the present suit in support of the claim, it is noticed that there was an E-mail dated 15.03.2014 sent by Defendant to the Plaintiff concerning 're- opening of E-rummy Project' (Ex. PW1/2), the perusal of which suggests that there was a previous project/ understanding between the parties for development of one, which agreement was revised shortly prior to the aforesaid email, making a reference thereto. The compliance sheet with the agreed features under a collaboration was shared by email so sent. There is a subsequent email dated 19.03.2014 sent at 08:23 PM by Defendants to the Plaintiff pointing out that the contractual terms were open ended, posing difficulty, since the specifications were not defined. It is highlighted in the said email that there ought to have been an agreed specification document for bringing clarity on the exact domain of work expected to be discharged. There is another email tendered in evidence dated 19.03.2014 sent by Plaintiff to the Defendant at 19:03, which is suggestive of the parties having agreed on resuming the contractual arrangement on certain terms and conditions mentioned in the said email. Thereafter, the Plaintiff has relied upon emails dated 19.08.2014 (sent at 02:27 PM) and 12.09.2014 (sent at 06:09 PM) (both mails Ex. PW1/4), seeking the refund of the advance consideration on account of non-delivery of the gaming project within agreed period of time.
22. The claim of the Plaintiff throughout the proceedings in the present suit has been that the time was essence to the contract, which condition was flouted by the Defendants with no eventual delivery of the completed project. The Defendants on the other CS SCJ 50589/16 M/s Shantam Infotech V Luminous Infoways P. Ltd. Page No.13 of 17 Digitally signed by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2023.07.18 17:21:41 +05'30' hand have refuted the said claim asserting that despite opportunities the clear terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties were never disclosed in the present suit, with no proof as to the deadline for completion having been initially fixed as 19.03.2014 or thereafter having been extended till May 2014, filed, asserting in contest due completion of the project.
23. It is clear from the perusal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties that the terms and conditions as would have been agreed by them either in the initial round of their inter-se commercial dealings qua the proposed project or in the subsequent phase of resumption of the relations (to which there is a reference in E-mail dated 15.03.2014), have not been disclosed in the instant suit for recovery by the Plaintiff, to underscore the violations/ variations as alleged, either with respect to the time- line or specifications. The Plaintiff has only vaguely referred to the E-mail dated 19.03.2014 sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant (Ex. PW1/3) highlighting the resumption of the contractual arrangement on certain terms and conditions mentioned in the email. There is however a follow up email sent by the Defendants to the Plaintiff on the same date, pointing out the objections, inter-alia, with respect to the inability of the Defendants to deliver the software project, with the end product having, as expected, the same functionality as one with the reference website, mentioned in trail-mail. It is also noticed from the perusal of this email that the Defendants had objected to the specifications being not clearly defined by the Plaintiff, qua its eventual expectation in respect of the proposed project.
CS SCJ 50589/16 M/s Shantam Infotech V Luminous Infoways P. Ltd. Page No.14 of 17 SHRIYA Digitally signed by SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2023.07.18 17:21:57 +05'30'
24. In the cross-examination of PW-1, the Plaintiff witness has acknowledged that there is no email on record as could prove the agreed time-line or the deadline asserted by the Plaintiff in its case, which the Defendants failed to meet. Moreover, when asked as to why the project could not be completed, the Plaintiff witness had vaguely stated in the response in the cross- examination that it was owing to multiple reasons and technical issues conveyed to the Defendant, which remained un-addressed. There is neither any clarity in the Plaintiff Evidence nor a claim to this effect in the original pleadings as to exactly what were these technical issues, which the Defendants failed to cater to, resulting in the timely non-completion of the proposed project. It is noteworthy that although the Plaintiff witness in his cross- examination admitted that there was no email showing the completion date in the record, even the claim of the time-line having been extended up till 30.06.2014 as averred in the plaint has gone unsubstantiated. It is trite law as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arosan Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr. [(1999) 9 SCC 449] that where from the conduct of the parties it appears that they themselves have given a go-by to the original terms of the contract, touching upon the requirement of timely delivery/ execution, in such cases, the Courts have no option, but to consider that the said requirement of time being of essence to the contract has been relaxed.
25. The very fact that there is a reference to a resumption of the contractual arrangement in the email sent on 15.03.2014, there ought to have been an agreement arrived at between the parties preceding the talks that resumed in March 2014, which CS SCJ 50589/16 M/s Shantam Infotech V Luminous Infoways P. Ltd. Page No.15 of 17 Digitally signed by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2023.07.18 17:22:12 +05'30' contract either in its physical form or by way of emails has not been disclosed or led in evidence for perusal. The emails Mark DW1/P2 and Mark PW1/D2 also appear to be not reflecting the complete exchange/ correspondence between the parties.
26. It is settled law as has been held in plethora of judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of Section 101, 102 and 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as was for instance observed in Gyanchand and Brothers Vs. Rattan Lal [(2013) 2 SCC 606], that primarily it is the duty of the party who asserts the existence of a fact to prove it in the affirmative and the said party (here the Plaintiff) cannot rely upon the deficiencies in the defence taken by the Defendant. It has been further held that the said party would not be entitled to relief, unless the aforesaid primary onus is duly discharged, even in a case where there is no defence. Thus, the very cause of action pleaded in the present suit by the Plaintiff qua non-delivery within the agreed deadline, has not been established by the Plaintiff and the onus to prove entitlement has not been discharged.
ISSUE-WISE FINDINGS
27. The following are the issue-wise findings in the lis:
(i) Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present case? OPD Finding: For reasons explained herein-above, this issue is decided against the Defendants in favour of the Plaintiff.
(ii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.
2.50 lakhs as prayed for in the proper clause of the plaint? OPP CS SCJ 50589/16 M/s Shantam Infotech V Luminous Infoways P. Ltd. Page No.16 of 17 SHRIYA Digitally signed by SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2023.07.18 17:22:35 +05'30' Finding: This issue is decided for reasons discussed above against the Plaintiff in favour of the Defendants.
(iii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the interest as prayed for? OPP Finding: This issue is decided for reasons discussed above against the Plaintiff in favour of the Defendants.
RELIEF
28. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, for reasons discussed at length hereinabove, the suit of the Plaintiff stands dismissed.
29. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to Record Room as per Rules.
Digitally signed bySHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL (Pronounced in the open court) AGRAWAL Date: 2023.07.18 17:23:00 +05'30' (Shriya Agrawal) JSCC cum ASCJ cum GJ South East District/Saket Courts 13.07.2023 CS SCJ 50589/16 M/s Shantam Infotech V Luminous Infoways P. Ltd. Page No.17 of 17