Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. In their Written Statement, the Defendants have also submitted that in the present case, all the Defendants except Defendant no.1 are neither the necessary parties nor proper parties to the present suit. Therefore, the Defendants have taken preliminary objection of the suit being bad for misjoinder of parties as well as for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

6. In its para-wise reply on merits, the Defendants have admitted that it availed some services of Plaintiff for providing flight tickets but denied that any amount was due to be paid to the Plaintiff by the Defendants. The Defendants have denied all the remaining submissions made by the Plaintiff and have prayed for dismissal of the present suit.

26. Defendant in its para-wise reply has admitted that Defendant no.1 had availed some services of Plaintiff for providing flight tickets. However, the fact of execution of the agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant has been denied.

27. PW-1 in his examination in chief has tendered Ex. PW-1/2 and has described the same as an agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant. The Defendant has alleged that Ex. PW-1/2 is the brochure of the Plaintiff and not an agreement. However, it is noticed that the document Ex.PW-1/2 bears the stamp of the Plaintiff as well as Defendant and it also bears the signatures of authorized signatory of Plaintiff as well as Defendant. The document exhibited as Ex. PW-1/2 runs into 3 pages and provides in detail the services provided by the Plaintiff which includes the service of providing flight tickets.

NEERA BHARIHOKE Date:

2024.11.16 17:10:22 +0530

30. In its affidavit of admission denial of documents of the Plaintiff, the Defendant has not denied the execution of the agreement but has only denied the correctness of the contents of the document. Even otherwise, the Plaintiff has referred to the document Ex. PW-1/2 as an agreement executed between Plaintiff and Defendant in respect of providing flight tickets to Defendants which has been even otherwise admitted by the Defendant in its para-wise reply in the Written Statement. Therefore, in view of non-denial of execution of Ex-PW-1/2 by the Defendant coupled with admission of Defendant that Plaintiff provided flight tickets shows that Ex. PW-1/2 is valid and enforceable in respect of the present suit.

Issue no. 3: Whether the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff Rs. 26,66,663/- towards principal outstanding as claimed?

The onus to prove issue no. 2 and 3 was placed on Plaintiff.

33. As stated above, in para-wise reply in the Written Statement, the Defendant has admitted that it had availed some services of Plaintiff for providing flight tickets. In his examination in chief, PW-1 tendered the copy of all the invoices raised with the Plaintiff upon the Defendants and sent via e-mail as Ex. PW-1/10. Objection was taken on the ground that e-mails by which the invoices were sent are not attached. During his cross examination, a question was put to PW-1 that whether Shri Atul Madhukar Pandey acknowledged debt of Plaintiff in any of his communications placed on record. PW-1 replied that he had asked for all the invoices for audit purposes and all invoices were supplied to him. In response to his reply, a question was put to PW-1 if he had placed on record the documents sent by Shri Atul Madhukar Pandey. PW-1 replied that the document had not been placed on record, but he had brought the same in the court on that date i.e. on the date of his cross-examination. Learned Counsel for Defendant did not ask him any further question about the document which was brought by PW-1 in the court on that date nor was PW-1 asked to place that document on record. Therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against Defendant in terms of section 114 of Evidence Act (section 119 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).