civil recovery suit

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

C.S. (O.S.) NO.: _________ /2012

IN THE MATTER OF:

SSMP INDUSTRIES LIMITED ….. PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

M/S JAYA MAHALAXMI-

PRODUCTS (P) LIMITED ……DEFENDANT

INDEX

SL. NO.

PARTICULARS PAGE NO. COURT

FEE (Rs.)

1. COURT FEE -- 62000/-2. URGENT APPLICATION A Rs. 3/-

3. NOTICE OF MOTION B

4. MEMO OF PARTIES C

5. SUIT FOR RECOVERY AND DAMAGES ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT

1-20

6. LIST OF DOCUMENTS 21-22

7. LIST OF WITNESSES 23

6. ANNEXURE P-1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE EXTRACTS OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN FAVOUR OF SHRI NAGENDRA KUMAR SINGH.

24

7. ANNEXURE P-2: AGREEMENT NO. SSMP/MANGOPULP/03/2010 DATED 21.04.2010

25-

8. ANNEXURE P-3: COPY OF THE INVOICE SHOWING THE PRICE OF A10 OTS PACKING CANS.

9. ANNEXURE P-4: COPY OF THE

COMMUNICATION BY THE DEFENDANT SHOWING ACTUAL RECEIPT OF THE 1,10,000 A10 OTS PACKING CANS.

10. ANNEXURE P-5: COPY OF THE LEGER ACCOUNT OF THE PLAINTIFF WITH REGARD TO THE DEFENDANT.

11. ANNEXURE P-6: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/05/2010.

10. ANNEXURE P-7: COPIES OF THE DAILY PRODUCTION REPORT DATED 27/05/2010 AND 28/05/2010 (COLLY).

11. ANNEXURE P-8: COPY OF LETTER DATED 27/05/2010.

12. ANNEXURE P-9: COPY OF LETTER DATED 29/05/2010 ALONG WITH FAIR TYPED COPY.

12. ANNEXURE P-10: COPY OF LETTER DATED 31/05/2010 INFORMING THE DEFENDANT TO STOP THE FURTHER PULP PRODUCTION AND NOT TO USE THE A-10 OTS CANS.

13. ANNEXURE P-11: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03/07/2010.

14. ANNEXURE P-12: COPY OF 22/01/2011, 17/03/2011, 31/08/2011 and 23/09/2011 (Colly)

15. ANNEXURE P-13: COPY THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 09.11. 2011 ALONG WITH THE DISPATCH RECEIPT.

16. VAKALATNAMA D Rs. 3/-

FILED BY

COUNSEL(SUDHIR R SINGH)

CHAMBER-670, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,

NEW DELHI-110001.MOBILE: 09873132535

NEW DELHI:DATE:



C.S. (O.S.) NO.: _________ /2012

IN THE MATTER OF:


VERSUS

M/S JAYA MAHALAXMI-


MEMO OF PARTIES

1. SSMP INDUSTRIES LIMITED,

THROUGH MR. NAGENDRA KUMAR,

(AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE)

K-336, POCKET-K, SARITA VIHAR,

NEW DELHI-110076 ---- PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

2. M/S JAYA MAHALAXMI PRODUCTS (P) LIMITED,

OPPOSITE: TAMIN, KANTHIKUPPAM,

KRISHNAGIRI,

TAMIL NADU ---- DEFENDANT

FILED BY

COUNSELSUDHIR R SINGHCHAMBER-185 B,

PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, DELHI-110001

NEW DELHI:DATE:



C.S. (O.S.) NO.: _________ /2012

IN THE MATTER OF:


VERSUS

M/S JAYA MAHALAXMI-

PRODUCTS (P) LTD. ……DEFENDANT

NOTICE OF MOTION

Sir,

The accompanying suit is being filed on behalf of the Plaintiff and is likely to be listed on _________ or any other date, thereafter.

FILED BY

COUNSEL

(SUDHIR R SINGH)CHAMBER-185 B,


NEW DELHI:DATE:



C.S. (O.S.) NO.: _________ /2012

IN THE MATTER OF:


VERSUS

M/S JAYA MAHALAXMI-


URGENT APPLICATION

The Registrar,

High Court of Delhi,

New Delhi,

Sir,

Kindly treat the accompanying petition as an urgent one as per the rules and regulations of the Hon’ble High Court. The grounds of urgency are:

“AS PRAYED FOR IN THE ACCOMPNAYING SUIT.”

FILED BY

COUNSEL

(SUDHIR R SINGH)CHAMBER-185 B,


NEW DELHI:DATE:



C.S. (O.S.) NO.: _________ /2012

IN THE MATTER OF:

SSMP INDUSTRIES LIMITED,

THROUGH MR. NAGENDRA KUMAR,

(AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE)

K-336, POCKET-K, SARITA VIHAR,

NEW DELHI-110076 --- PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

M/S JAYA MAHALAXMI PRODUCTS (P) LIMITED,

OPPOSITE: TAMIN, KANTHIKUPPAM, KRISHNAGIRI,

TAMIL NADU ---- DEFENDANT

SUIT FOR RECOVERY AND DAMAGES

THE PLAINTIFF MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That M/s SSMP Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as the

plaintiff for the sake of brevity) is a company incorporated under

the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office

at K-136, Pocket-K, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110076 and

corporate office at A-128, Sector-63, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar,

U.P.-201301. The Plaintiff is a manufacturer, trader, exporter and

seller of various kind of fruit pulp.

2. That Shri Nagendra Kumar Singh, the Office-in-Charge of the

Plaintiff company is authorized representative of the said Plaintiff

who has been duly authorized and empowered to sign and verify

the instant plaint to file the suit and to depose on behalf of the

plaintiff by virtue of resolution dated 07/08/2010 passed by the

Board of Directors of the plaintiff company and as such the plaint

has been duly signed and verified and suit has been filed by Shri

Nagendra Kumar Singh for and behalf of the plaintiff company.

The certified copy of the extracts of the meeting of the Board of

Directors in favour of Shri Nagendra Kumar Singh has been

annexed as Annexure P-1.

3. That the brief facts leading to the instant suit are, that the plaintiff

company for the purpose of carrying on its business, sources the

ingredients i.e. fruits and fruit pulps from various person, firms,

companies from all over the country depending upon the quality,

season and availability of the same and enters into various

agreements with the suppliers of the same.

4. That the defendant M/s Jaya Mahalaxmi Products (P) Limited

(hereinafter called the defendant company for the sake of brevity),

having its office “opposite Tamin, Kanthikuppam, Krishnagiri,

Tamil Nadu” is managed and controlled by one Mr. B.L.

Keshwan, the Managing Director. The defendant company is

engaged in procurement and production of Mango pulp.

5. That on 21.04.2010 a purchase agreement No.

SSMP/MANGOPULP/03/2010 was executed between the plaintiff

company and Mr. B.L. Keshwan, Managing Director of M/s Jaya

Mahalaxmi Products (P) Limited (i.e the defendant company) at

the business premises of the Plaintiff at New Delhi. According to

the said purchase agreement, the defendant was responsible for

supply of “Natural Totapuri Mango Pulp” and “Natural Alphanso

Mango Pulp” as per the terms and conditions specified in the

purchase order. These terms and conditions of the purchase

agreement dated 21.04.2010 are self-explanatory and the copy of

the agreement is annexed here to as Annexure P-2.

6. That further, as per the salient terms and conditions of the above

said purchase order, the defendant company was to supply

“Natural Totapuri Mango Pulp” and “Natural Alphanso Mango

Pulp” in the special A-10 OTS containers (Cans). These metal

containers are specially manufactured as per specifications for

storing and transporting finished and semi-finished food products.

As per the agreement these A-10 OTS containers were to be

supplied by the plaintiff company to the defendant company. The

qualities of the mango pulp and the packaging

standards/specifications were also mentioned in the purchase

agreement and as per the purchase agreement the defendant

company was to strictly adhere to the same. It is pertinent to

mention that each A-10 OTS container at an average cost Rs 28/-

to the Plaintiff. Here to annexed is one of the invoice showing the

price of the A10 OTS Cans Annexure P-3.

7. That accordingly the plaintiff supplied to the defendant a total of

1,11,000 empty A-10 OTS Cans costing Rs. 30,80,000/- (Rs.

Thirty Lacs and Eighty Thousand only) @ Rs. 28 per A-10 OTS

Container for the sole purpose of filling, packaging and delivering

the mango pulp meant to be supplied to the plaintiff. Hereto annex

is the communication from the defendant showing the actual

receipt of 1,10,000 A10 OTS containers as Annexure P-4.

8. That at the time of signing of the Purchase order, the plaintiff also

transferred a sum of Rs. 2,97,960/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- totaling Rs.

7,97, 960/- to the defendant as advance payment so as to enable

the defendant to proceed with the Purchase order dated

21/04/2010. Here to annexed is copy of the ledger account of the

plaintiff as Annexure P-5.

9. That on 15/05/2010 the defendant company was intimated by the

senior official of the plaintiff to start purchasing the mango fruits

from market between the period from 20/05/2010 to 28/05/2010 so

as to start the production of the mango pulp. It is pertinent to

mention herein that the procurement of mangoes and the

production of the mango pulp from them were to strictly adhere to

the specifications given by the plaintiff in the purchase order dated

21/04/2010. The letter dated 15/05/2010 is annexed hereto as

Annexure P-6.

10. That in order to ensure that the production of the mango pulp is

strictly in adherence to the specifications given in the purchase

order, the quality control officials appointed by the plaintiff in the

factory premises of the defendant company checked the quality of

mango pulp produced at the defendant’s factory. However to the

shock and surprise of the plaintiff’s officials, the mango pulp

produced till that time was found to be of inferior quality and not

as per the specifications provided by the plaintiff in the purchase

order dated 21/04/2010. The same was confirmed in the Daily

Production Report dated 27/05/2010 and 28/05/2010 which was

duly acknowledged in person by Mr. B.L. Keshwan i.e the

Managing Director of the defendant company. Here to annexed are

the copies (along with the fair typed copies) of the Daily

Production Report dated 27/05/2010 and 28/05/2010 as Annexure

P-7(Colly).

11. That vide a letter dated 27/05/2010 itself, the plaintiff company

informed the defendant company that a total of 22,366 packed

cans of mango pulp have been rejected by the plaintiff because of

the reasons that the quality of the mango pulp produced was not

up to the specifications mentioned in the purchase order dated

21/04/2010. Vide this letter the defendant company was also

informed that the pulp produced by the defendant company are not

acceptable to the company because the pulp production was not at

all adhering to the specifications mentioned in the Purchase

agreement dated 21/04/2010. The defendant was further instructed

to stop the pulp production and not to use the A-10 ATS Cans for

further production. The copy of the letter dated 27/05/2010 is

annexed hereto as Annexure P-8.

12. That on 29/05/2010 the defendant through Mr. B.L. Keshwan

wrote to the plaintiff company that the rejected materials can be

lifted from his premises without any payment and further the

defendant acknowledged its full responsibility for the below par

pulp production. The defendant in the same letter was willing to

accept the payments if and when the plaintiff shall receive the

same from the plaintiff’s own buyers overseas and that too if the

buyers of the plaintiff company accept the pulp production earlier

rejected by the plaintiff. However the defendant back tracked from

this proposal later on as he refused to adhere to his promise and

did not allow the Plaintiff to get the materials for confirmation the

Plaintiff’s buyer. Here to annexed is copy of the letter dated

29/05/2010 as Annexure P-9.

13. That however despite strict instructions from the plaintiff to the

defendant company to stop further production of “Alphanso

Mango Pulps” and “Totapuri Mango Pulps” and not to use any of

the remaining A-10 OTS Cans (Cans), the plaintiff came to know

that the defendant, in complete defiance of the company’s

instructions kept using the empty cans for its own unlawful

benefits and to the severe detriment to the plaintiff’s business

interests. That after seeing the working condition and the manner

of fruit pulp production of the defendant, the plaintiff was

convinced that the defendant are not in a position to fulfill the

obligations as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the

purchase agreement. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff is an

exporter of the processed food items and has to maintain very

strict quality control and standards of food items so that the same

my pass the quality control tastes of the importing nations.

Accordingly vide letter dated 31/05/2010 the defendant company

was again instructed to terminate and immediately stop the mango

pulp production and not to use the balance A-10 OTS Cans in any

manner what so ever. The copy of the letter dated 31/05/2010

informing the defendant to stop the further pulp production and

not to use the A-10 OTS Cans is annexed here to as Annexure P-

10.

14. That the defendant was well aware about the contents of the

Purchase order dated 21/04/2010. However for the ready perusal

of this Hon’ble Court the contents of para 16 of the purchase

agreement is being reproduced here in:

“The buyer is entering into a contract with the supplier

for supply of the above said quantity mentioned in the above Sl.

No. 8 conforming to specifications enclosed in Annexure ‘A’. In

case of rejection of material by the buyer or overseas/local

company of the buyer, the supplier will be solely responsible for

the same and in the circumstances if the supplier wants he can

inspect his materials at his own cost and he can also resolve the

matter at his best level with the buyer or the overseas/local

company of the buyer for the same buyer has no objection. If the

product is found to be not confirming to the specifications as per

Annexure ‘A’ and the supplier is unable to resolve the quality

issue, the supplier will have to compensate the buyer with the

same quantity of rejected material conforming to approved

specifications or would have to compensate for the value of the

rejected material.” …….. “Further agreed that in case of any

damage, injury, loss sustained by the buyer due to bad quality of

material supply by the processor/supplier, the supplier is solely

responsible/liable for the same and only the supplier will be liable

to compensate the loss to the Buyer even if the production or

packaging is done in the presence of any person appointed by the

buyer. As the person appointed by the buyer is only to ensure the

production and packaging and not the process what has been

adopted by the supplier at the time of production and packaging

during the supply therefore the method and process of supply and

packing is totally depends upon the supplier. The said liability will

be solely on the supplier till the payment and quality confirmation

received by the buyer from his overseas/local companies.”

In the above, the buyer signifies

the plaintiff and the supplier is the defendant. The above extract

clearly demonstrated that defendant is solely liable for any loss

caused to the plaintiff for the above mentioned deficiencies in the

pulp production.

15. That in order to ensure the supply of mango pulp the plaintiff vide

letter dated 3rd July, 2010 informed the defendant that the plaintiff

can give the defendant one last chance to purchase the mango pulp

of the defendant, however despite the same the defendant ignored

the offer of the plaintiff and kept on avoiding any further contact

from the plaintiff. The letter dated 03/07/2010 is annexed hereto as

Annexure P-11.

16. That as stated earlier in this plaint, because of the poor quality of

mango pulp processed and packed by the defendant which was

rejected by the plaintiff; as well as the plaintiff’s buyers, the

defendant was directed to immediately stop the production and

return the packing cans (A-10 OTS Cans) supplied by the plaintiff

to the defendant. However the defendant knowingly, intentionally

and deliberately did not return the A-10 OTS Cans and illegally

kept the same using for its own benefit.

17. That vide the communication dated 03/07/2010 as well, the

defendant was also directed by the company to return the advance

sum of Rs. 7,97,960/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Ninenty Seven

Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty only) paid to the defendant,

however in utter disrespect for the terms of purchase order, the

defendant intentionally and deliberately did not return the same

and illegally kept the sum of Rs. 7,97,960/- (Rupees Seven Lacs

Ninenty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty only) for its

own wrongful gain causing wrongful loss to the plaintiff.

18. That in fact numerous personal visits by the plaintiff’s officials at

the factory premises of the defendant, as well as personal meetings

with the officials of the defendants paid no dividends and the

defendant kept on delaying the return of the sum of Rs. 7,97,960/-

(Rupees Seven Lacs Ninenty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and

Sixty only) to the plaintiff. The defendant further did not return

1,10,000 A-10 OTS packing cans to the plaintiff on one pretext or

the other.

19. That the defendant’s conduct clearly demonstrates a defiant and

dishonest attitude. It is abundantly clear that from the start the

defendant and its officials never intended to return the sum of Rs.

7,97,960/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Ninenty Seven Thousand Nine

Hundred and Sixty only) as well as 1,10,000 empty packing A-10

OTS Cans after cancellation of the purchase order which the

plaintiff is totally entitled to under the terms of the agreement

dated 21/04/2010. The conduct of the defendant not only amounts

to cheating but also of criminal breach of trust.

20. That the plaintiff showing prudent business temperament

requested the defendant to settle the accounts and return the

1,10,000 empty A-10 OTS Cans vide its letter dated 22/01/2011,

17/03/2011, 31/08/2011 and lastly by letter dated 23/09/2011.

Here to annexed are the copies of the letters dated 22/01/2011,

17/03/2011, 31/08/2011 and 23/09/2011 as Annexure A-12

(Collectively).

21. That however again and again the defendant did not comply with

its promises only adding to the belief that the complainant

company was being intentionally taken for a ride.

22. That it further came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that all the

empty A-10 OTS Cans had already been used and utilized by the

defendant for its own personal gain and to the severe losses to the

plaintiff.

23. That the intentional avoidance of the plaintiff in not returning the

empty 1,10,000 A-10 OTS Cans and the sum of Rs. 7,97,960/-

(Rupees Seven Lacs Ninenty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and

Sixty only) even after several requests and reminders resulted in

severe financial losses to the company.

24. That this approach of the defendant clearly indicates that initially

it was the deliberate tactics of the defendant to delay the

settlement with the plaintiff, to prevent the plaintiff from taking

any legal action either civil or criminal and to take the plaintiff for

a ride.

25. That because of the non-delivery of the agreed product by the

defendant to the plaintiff as per the specification mentioned in the

purchase agreement the plaintiff was unable to fulfill its own

commitment to its buyer and consequently suffered loss of

business and goodwill in the market and the plaintiff reserves its

rights to recover its losses on this account also from the defendant

as and when the same become quantifiable by the plaintiff in the

future.

26. That also because of the intentional act of the defendant in not

returning the A10 OTS packing cans to the plaintiff despite being

repeatedly demanded by the plaintiff further caused severe

business losses to the plaintiff for which no other person but the

defendant squarely is responsible. The plaintiff is under the

process of quantifying the losses suffered on this account and the

plaintiff reserves its rights to recover its losses on this account aslo

from the defendant.

27. That at last the plaintiff through its counsel served a legal notice

dated 11.11. 2011 on defendant through Mr. B.L. Keshwan (the

Managing Director of the defendant) demanding the defendant to

return the empty 1,11,000 empty A-10 OTS Cans ( or a sum of Rs.

36,30,000/- i.e. the cost of the cans inclusive of the local taxes

paid) and the advance payment of Rs. 7,97,960/- without further

delay. However no communication was received from the

defendant or Mr. B.L. Keshwan this time as well clearly showing

the malafide and defiant attitude of the defendant. Hence the

present Suit. Copy the legal notice dated 09.11. 2011 along with

the dispatch receipt is annexed here to as Annexure P-13.

28. That the plaintiff was forced to lodge a complaint with the S.H.O.

Police Station, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi on 14.01.2012 requesting

for the registration of F.I.R. against Mr. B.L. Keshwan, the

Managing Director of the defendant.

29. That the plaintiff has also initiated complaint proceedings against

the defendant in the court of law and the same is pending further

adjudication before the Ld. M.M., Saket District Courts.

30. That in addition to face the criminal proceeding initiated by the

Plaintiff with the proper authorities, the Defendant as on date is

liable to pay a sum of Rs. 52,49,248/- (Rs. Fifty Two Lacs Forty

Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Eight only) consisting of

Rs. 30,80,000/- as price of 1,10,000 A-10 OTS Cans and the sum

of Rs. 7,97,960/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Ninenty Seven Thousand

Nine Hundred and Sixty only) along with the sum of Rs.

13,71,288/- as prevailing rate of interest of fifteen percent per

annum on the recovered amount compounded annually.

31. That the cause of action for filing the present suit in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendant first arose in on 21/04/2010

when the plaintiff entered in to contract for supply of mango pulp

with the defendant. Thereafter it arose on different dates when the

defendant paid no heed to the instructions of the plaintiff to stop

the misuse of the empty A-10 OTS Cans. It further arose on

31/05/2010 when the plaintiff specifically asked the defendant to

stop the pulp production. It arose on different dates 03/07/2010,

22/01/2011, 17/03/2011, 31/08/2011and on 23/09/2011mentioned

earlier on which the plaintiff asked vide written communication to

the defendant to return the 1,10,000 empty A-10 OTS Cans along

with the sum of Rs. 7,97,960/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Ninenty Seven

Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty only) paid as advance to the

defendant by the plaintiff. It again arose on 11.11.2011 when the

plaintiff served a legal notice to the defendant demanding the

empty A-10 OTS Cans or a sum of Rs. 36,63,000/- as price of the

A-10 OTS Cans and the sum of Rs. 7,97,960/- (Rupees Seven

Lacs Ninenty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty only)

along with the prevailing rate of interest of fifteen percent per

annum compounded annually on these amounts and the cause of

action continues. In view of this it is crystal clear that the cause of

action subsists in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

32. That for the purpose of the court fee and jurisdiction the instant

suit is valued at Rs. 52,49,248/- (Rs. Fifty Two Lacs Forty Nine

Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Eight only) on which the ad-

valorem court fee is Rs. 62,000 /- and the total court fee is being

paid along with the instant suit.

33. That the registered office of the plaintiff Company is at New

Delhi, Agreement has been executed by and between the parties at

New Delhi in which the parties have consented to the jurisdiction

of this Hon’ble Court and all the cause(s) of action has also been

accrued at New Delhi, therefore this Hon’ble Court has

jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit.

34. That the Plaintiff has not filed similar suit/petition before this

Hon’ble Court or any other court of law including the Supreme

Court of India.

35. That the present suit is filed within limitation as per the Indian

Limitation Act.

36. That the plaintiff is filing the copies of the relied upon documents

in its possession along with the plaint and the list of documents.

PRAYER:

It is therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court

may be graciously pleased to:

a) pass a decree for a sum of Rs. 52,49,248/- (Rs. Fifty Two Lacs Forty

Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Eight only) in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendant.

b) award pendent-lite and future interest from the date of the filing of the

suit till final payment of decreetal amount at the rate determined by

this Hon’ble Court in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

c) award cost of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the

defendant.

d) such other relief/reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and

proper may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the

defendant.

PRAYED ACCORDINGLY

PLAINTIFF(SSMP INDUSTIRES LIMITED)

THROUGH

COUNSEL(SUDHIR R SINGH)

CHAMBER 185-B, PATIALA HOUSE COURTSNEW DELHI-110001

NEW DELHIDATED:

VERIFICATION:

I Nagendra Kumar Singh do hereby verify that the contents and averments

made in para 1 to 31 of the plaint are true and correct to the best of my

knowledge and belief. Last para is the prayer made to this Hon’ble Court.

Verified at New Delhi on this ----- day of March, 2012.

DEPONENT



C.S. (O.S.) NO.: _________ /2012

IN THE MATTER OF:


VERSUS

M/S JAYA MAHALAXMI-


AFFIDAVIT

I Nagendra Kumar Singh son of Sh. Satyadev Singh resident of House No.

368, Chauhan Mohalla, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi-110076 aged about 46

years do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am the authorized representative of the plaintiff company duly

authorized vide resolution dated 07/08/2010 passed by the Board of

Directors of the plaintiff and well conversant with the facts of the case

and as such competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the present suit for recovery of damages has been drafted by my

counsel under my instructions and behalf, the contents of which are

not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity and the same may

be read as part and parcel of this affidavit.

3. That I have gone through the contents of the instant suit and the same

are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at New Delhi on this ------ day of May, 2012 that the contents of

this affidavit are based upon the personal knowledge and the records

maintained by the plaintiff in day to day course of its business and the

same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and

nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT



C.S. (O.S.) NO.: _________ /2012

IN THE MATTER OF:


VERSUS

M/S JAYA MAHALAXMI-


LIST OF DOCUMENTS

1. Certified copy of the extracts of the meeting of the Board of Directors

authorizing the Mr. Nagrendra Kumar Singh to file and persue the

plaint.

2. Copy of the purchase agreement No. SSMP/MANGOPULP/03/2010

dated 21.04.2010.

3. Copy of the invoice showing the price of the A10 OTS Cans.

4. Copy of communication from the defendant showing the actual

receipt of 1,10,000 A10 OTS containers.

5. Copy of the ledger account of the plaintiff vis-à-vis the defendant.

6. Copy of the letter dated 15/05/2010.

7. Copies of the Daily Production Report dated 27/05/2010 and

28/05/2010.

8. Copy of the letter dated 27/05/2010 issued by the plaintiff to the

defendant.

9. Copy of the letter dated 29/05/2010.

10. Copy of the letter dated 31/05/2010 issued by the plaintiff informing

the defendant to stop the further production and stop the use of the

A10 OTS packing cans.

11. Copy of letter dated 03/07/2010.

12. Copies of the letters dated 22/01/2011, 17/03/2011, 31/08/2011 and

23/09/2011 (Colly).

13. Copy of the legal notice dated 09/01/2011 along with the postal

dispatch receipt.


THROUGH

COUNSELSUDHIR R SINGH


NEW DELHI

DATED:



C.S. (O.S.) NO.: _________ /2012

IN THE MATTER OF:


VERSUS

M/S JAYA MAHALAXMI-


LIST OF WITNESSES

1. Mr. Nagendra Kumar Singh, the authorized representative of the

company.

2. Mr. Manoj Kunwar, Managing Director of the plaintiff company.

3. Mr. S.K. Bhowal, Director of the plaintiff company.

4. Other concerned officials of the plaintiff company.

5. Any other witness by the permission of this Hon’ble Court.


THROUGH

COUNSELSUDHIR R SINGH


NEW DELHI

DATED:

civil recovery suit

Documents