Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

At that point, secretary inquired about the expected completion time of first Module, Material Management System. (MMS) Shri Gokul informfed that he would complete the test on or before 4th June 2007. Secretary also enquired about the completion time for pay roll Module. Shri Gokul confirmed that this would be completed in 20 days time. This would show that both the MMS Software as well as the Pay Roll Software were not completed and made functional even as on 04.05.2007. Ex.P8 is a trail of E-mail communications between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is seen from the trail of E-mails that the project was not completed even till May 2007. Ex.P9 is the letter dated 08.06.2007 by the plaintiff to the defendant, wherein it has been pointed out that both the softwares, namely MMS Software and the Payroll Software had not been completed and the Group Auditors have expressed dissatisfaction about the non implementation of the ERP modules. The E-mail as well as the letter correspondences marked as Exs.P10 and P11, would show that the plaintiff has been demanding complete installation of the software and testing of the same. In its letter dated 25.07.2007, the plaintiff has again pointed out that regarding the MMS module, the data entry work is on and after completion of the Master data entry and the entire software could be tested and its accuracy could be verified. It is also seen that the defendant has complained about non-cooperation on the part of the employees of the plaintiff under Ex.P14 dated 31.01.2008. It is also stated that the defendant had to finish off the entire project before 31.01.2007. It is also claimed in the said letter dated 31.01.2008 that if the plaintiff wants the defendant to continue and complete the project beyond 29.02.2008, i.e., from 01.03.2008, the plaintiff will have to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month for their executives to visit the premises of the plaintiff on and from 01.03.2008. These correspondence would clearly show that the MMS Software project had not been fully completed and it had not become operational even in January 2008. Though Mr.Umashankar, learned counsel appearing for the defendant would vehemently contend that the software has been completed and it could not be operated for want of data, the said contention appears to be one made with an object to wriggle out of the obligations by the defendant. It could be seen from various correspondence that the defendant has not provided the source code and user manuals for the MMS Software. Even as late as 3rd February 2008, the defendant had sent an E-mail to the plaintiff, wherein it is stated that the user manual and source code for the ERP development would be forwarded at the earliest.
The plaintiff has given to us all the master details for demonstration of the payroll software as seen in Ex.P13
24.In fact the letter dated 26.10.2007, Ex.P13, would show that the plaintiff has pointed out the short comings in the Payroll Software that was shown by the defendant and requested the same to be remedied at the earliest. It is only after the said letter the defendant had complained of non-cooperation on the part of the executives of the plaintiff. P.W.2, Mr.T.Vimalon Jacob, who has been deputed by the head of the group in Simpson & Co.Ltd., to check the softwares, viz., MMS as well as the Payroll software, developed by the defendant has submitted two reports, which marked as Exs.P39 and P40. Insofar as the Payroll software is concerned, it is stated that none of the required data, namely the source code, set up document, system flow, table structure are not available. He also stated that the representative of the defendant could not even demonstrate the Payroll Software on 28.02.2009. Therefore, it is clear that the defendant had not completed the project and made it operational though it had received the entire amount claimed by it towards development of the Payroll software. It is thus clear that the defendant has committed the breach of the contract and therefore, it is liable to refund the entire amount received by it towards Payroll software. Hence Issue Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are answered against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.