Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Brief facts of the present case as per plaint are ­

(a) That the defendant had placed an order with the plaintiff for the repair of Kneader Chamber, which was accepted by the plaintiff and the plaintiff had visited the office of defendant on number of occasions to demand payment for the repair work but defendant had given false assurances for the payment of amount to the plaintiff.

(b) That the machine of defendant was sent by the plaintiff after CS SCJ No. 612312/16 Surjit Singh vs SCJ Plastics 1/7 repair work on 09.5.2014 and the repair work was satisfactory as per telephonic message of the defendant.

10. The case of the defendant is that the plaintiff's claim is false as no repair work was given by the defendant to the plaintiff and that SCJ Colourants is a different entity than SCJ Plastics ( defendant) and as such there is no cause of action against the defendant.

11. At this point, it is pertinent to note that in his cross­ CS SCJ No. 612312/16 Surjit Singh vs SCJ Plastics 4/7 examination, the plaintiff I.e PW­1 has stated that Ex. PW 1/1 I.e documents vide which order was placed with the plaintiff, pertains to the order given by M/s SCJ Colourants.

12. Further during the cross­examination, a cheque I.e Ex. PW 1/D1 was shown to PW­1 which has been drawn in the name of SCJ Plastics by the firm of the plaintiff. The plaintiff I.e PW­1 stated in response that he had worked for SCJ Plastics in 2014, for the same work, the cheque was issued by SCJ Plastics.

13. Again, during the cross­examination a question pertaining to bill I.e Ex. PW 1/2 was put to the witness to which PW­1 had responded that the bill is partly correct and entry I.e with respect to two new router is wrong.

14. The witness PW­1 has further stated that Ex. PW 1/ 2 was not raised against SCJ Plastics as neither the work order Ex. PW 1/1 was placed by SCJ plastics Ltd. nor the machine in question was repaired for SCJ Plastics Ltd., and that payment with respect to Ex. PW 1/ 2 was to be made by SCJ Colourants only.

15. Again, PW­1 admitted that legal notice was issued to M/s SCJ Colourants. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiff had the knowledge that SCJ Colourants and SCJ Plastics are different entities. Further, the PW­1 has also failed to produce on record any document pertaining to his relationship with the proprietorship concern M/s Dashmesh Engineering Works by whom Ex.PW 1/ 2 has been issued.