Interim Order 8

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: Commercial Suit 66/2020
Exh.100 1 / 2
Date : 06-10-2025
Cross-examination of defendant witness Mangesh Kulkarni on oath
by Advocate Sumi Soman, for Plaintiff.
Defendant Adv. Asmita Rajbhar i/b Mangesh Nalawade present.
1. At present I am serving as Superintending Engineer of
Defendant. I am M.E. in Civil and Environmental Engineering. I have
joined defendant on 02.01.2007. In 2013-2015 I was serving as
Executive Engineer. So far as the project which is the subject matter
of this dispute, in during 2013 to 2015 I was processing proposals
and the bills as well as I was posted at Headquarter and project was
on going on at Nagpur.
Question: what do you mean by processing proposals?
Answer: The project was going at Nagpur. To monitor this Project
Management Consultant i.e. CES was appointed by MADC and we are
also having our project office at Nagpur. Whatever proposals
associated with extension of time, liquidated damages and payment
of bills we used to process at head office.
2. I was not a part of authority/committee /team who was
authorized to take decision in respect of proposals associated with
extension of time, liquidated damages, payment of bills. I have visited
site of the project at Nagpur once. I am unable to check how many
time I have visited site of the project which is the subject matter of
this dispute.
Question: Where you part of any meeting between plaintiff,
defendant and PMC.
Answer: I am attending various meetings and project sites so it is very
difficult for me to comment on this.
-- 1 of 2 --
Commercial Suit 66/2020
Exh.100 2 / 2
3. I have address letter to plaintiff relating to this dispute. Afcons
Infrastructure was entrusted with work of constructing a fly over and
rail over bridge at Nagpur. The work which was entrusted to Afcons
Infrastructure was also forming part of the work which is subject
matter of this dispute.
Question: What were dispute and differences between Afcons and
defendant?
It appears from record that plaintiff was selected to carry out the
balance work which was initially entrusted to Afcons. In para no.5 of
affidavit Exh.100 this witness as spoken about dispute and
differences between defendant and Afcons. However, balance work
was entrusted to plaintiff. The question which advocate for plaintiff
is asking witness relates that to date of entrusted work to plaintiff.
Hence, advocate for plaintiff is directed to address this court about
relevant to this question.
Cross examination is deferred.
ROAC BEFORE ME
Mumbai
Dated : 06-10-2025.
(Shri Prasad P. Kulkarni))
District Judge,
Court Room No.31 - Commercial Court,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
-- 2 of 2 --