Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(iv) that the plaintiff and its officials in collusion with M/s Bausch & Lomb Eye Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. (M/s Bausch & Lomb) have hatched a conspiracy and sold an obsolete model of Bausch and Lomb Excimer Laser -217Z machine for laser treatment of eyes to the defendant no.1, a renowned ophthalmologist practicing in Pune, Maharashtra;

(v) that the officials of the plaintiff and M/s Bausch & Lomb persuaded the defendant no.1 to take the machine financed by the plaintiff to start a new laser treatment clinic at Goa; the defendant no.1 was assured that the machine would be installed directly at the hospital premises of the defendant no. 4 and the defendant no.1 believing the representation had signed documents having blank columns of loan of Rs.1.20 crores to be repaid in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs.2,57,000/-;

(vi) that in terms of the Agreement between the parties, M/s Bausch & Lomb was to give technical maintenance support but miserably failed to provide any such assistance and the machine started creating problems within six months from the date of installation in the month of January, 2007;

(vii) that the defendant no.1 informed the plaintiff as well as M/s Bausch & Lomb of the machine being an obsolete model and the entire exercise of installing the machine and realizing the loan being to cheat the defendant no.1 and threatened to lodge an FIR of the same;

(x) that the defendant no.1 has already filed a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune and in which investigation under Section 156(3) read with Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. was ordered and FIR No.898/2011 of Police Station Bandgarden, Pune has been registered and the police is investigating the matter;

(xi) that the suit is bad for non-joinder of M/s Bausch & Lomb;

(xii) that the plaintiff has already re-possessed the Bausch & Lomb Excimer Laser - 217Z machine; and,

(xiii) that the claim of Rs.1,36,48,930/- is exaggerated.

4. The plaintiff in its reply, besides controverting the aforesaid grounds has pleaded; (i) that the Agreement between the parties was executed within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and the parties had agreed to confine themselves to the territorial jurisdiction of this court; (ii) that the plaintiff is located within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and this Court also has jurisdiction on the principle of debtor must find the creditor; (iii) that the last installment successfully paid by the defendant no.1 was on 26.12.2008 and the plaintiff after failing in all its attempts to recover its money from defendant no.1 ultimately terminated the Agreement on 11.05.2011 and therefore the present suit is within limitation; (iv) that there was no Agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants for technical maintenance support of the machine to be given by M/s Bausch & Lomb and the Agreement if any in this regard must be between the defendants and M/s Bausch & Lomb; (v) that the plaintiff never offered to buy back the machine for Rs.60 lacs only and no such letter, as annexed to the application for leave to defend, was received from the defendant no.1; (vi) that the complaint filed by the defendant no.1 is false and frivolous; (vii) that the plaintiff has not repossessed the machine; and, (viii) that the computation of the sum of Rs.1,36,48,930/- is given in the foreclosure statement supplied to the defendant.