Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Defendants No. 2 to 4 were stated to be the Directors of the Defendant No. 1, and were also responsible for managing the day-to-day affairs of the Defendant No.1.

Defendant No.5 was stated to be a company duly incorporated under the Provision of Companies Act, 1956, having CIN U72200GJ2010PYC062289, and having its registered office at A-104, Manibhadra Society, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad-380004, Gujarat and was also engaged in Software Publishing, consultancy and supply. Software publishing was stated to have covered the production, supply and documentation of ready-made software, operating systems software, business and other applications software, computer games software for all platforms, whereas Consultancy services included providing customized software after analyzing user's needs and problems. Customed software also included made-to-order software based on orders from specific users and writing of software as per users directions, software maintenance and web-page design.

It was stated that after several meetings, telephonic conversations and correspondences, Defendant No.1 had assured the Plaintiff of its having global experience in providing Information Technology solutions and had represented that the offered services were stable and suitable for large organizations and had also demonstrated the online product which covered features including Employee Management, Leave & Attendance CS (COMM) 352/19 M/s Dhanuka Agritech Ltd. Vs. Oracle India Ltd. And Ors. Page No. 3 of 50 etc. and had also offered customized Products/ Softwares/ Cloud- Services as per the Plaintiff's requirements.

It was stated that it was evident from the e-mail dated 18.03.2019 that the Service Requests raised by the Plaintiff were resolved in almost 168 days, whereas the same were to resolved within 30 days.

It was stated that after multiple concerns and issues raised by Plaintiff regarding the effective Products/ Softwares/ Cloud-Services implementation, the CSM was belatedly made available to Plaintiff, which led to further delay of the implementation of the online customized Products/ Softwares/ Cloud-Services for almost 5 months.

14. Thereafter Defendant's Evidence was also closed.

15. I have heard Sh. Akhil Mital, Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff and Sh. Nitin Mangla and Sh. Vineet Mehta, Ld. Counsels for defendant, at length and have gone through the record.

16. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff in his written submissions filed on record had contended that Defendants No. 1 to 4 had misrepresented during the procurement of order that they had provided the "Dedicated Enterprise Solution", which was especially designed for Plaintiff, however, they had failed to do CS (COMM) 352/19 M/s Dhanuka Agritech Ltd. Vs. Oracle India Ltd. And Ors. Page No. 36 of 50 so and had provided "Shared instance" of the Cloud Services/Software to Plaintiff, leading to software failure as lot of bugs were present in the software. Defendant No. 1's team including Mr. Puneet Sharma, Ms Aarthi Iyer and Mr. Shakun Khanna were stated to have demonstrated that they had provided the customized products, software and cloud services, extensively covering features such as Employee Management Leave & Attendance, Goal Setting & Performance Management, Career & Succession Planning, Compensation Management and Recruitment & On-Boarding and had also claimed that they would have fully met the Plaintiff's requirement and usage parameters as it was clearly evident from Ex. PW1/5 and Defendant no. 1 vide its email dated 25.07.2017 Ex. PW1/6 had assured the Plaintiff in writing that the purchased cloud services had matched the features as demonstrated during the evaluation and had also reaffirmed the same vide email dated 16.08.2017 Ex. PW1/6, however, Plaintiff was stated to have disputed the per user rate vide its email addressed to Sh Shailesh Singla.