Interim Order 9

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: Commercial Suit 66/2020
Exh.100 1 / 3
Date : 15-12-2025
Further Cross-examination of defendant witness Mangesh Kulkarni
on oath by Advocate Sumi Soman, for Plaintiff.
Defendant Adv. Mangesh Nalawade present.
4. Question : Are you going to file on record document mentioned
in para No.59 of your evidence affidavit?
Answer: Yes.
It is not correct that I am not authorised to file evidence on behalf of
defendant. Witness is shown para no.15 of his evidence affidavit
Exh.100. I do not remember how letter referred in para no.15 of my
evidence affidavit was sent to plaintiff. Witness is shown para no.16
of his evidence affidavit Exh.100. I do not remember how letter
referred in para no.16 of my evidence affidavit was sent to plaintiff. It
not correct that letters mentioned in para no.15 and 16 of my
evidence affidavit were never sent to plaintiff.
5. Witness is shown para no.26 of his evidence affidavit Exh.100.
I do not remember how letter referred in para no.26 of my evidence
affidavit was sent to plaintiff. It is not correct that said letter dated
08.07.2014 was never sent to plaintiff. Witness says these are not
letters of defendant.
Question: If these are not letters of defendant then on what basis you
mentioned in para No.15 and 16 of your evidence affidavit about
sending these letters to plaintiff?
Answer: These are the letters of our Project Management Consultancy
sent to plaintiff.
6. Unless I go through the record I am not in a position to tell
when defendant floated tender. I have provided input for tender. In
-- 1 of 3 --
Commercial Suit 66/2020
Exh.100 2 / 3
order to answer a question that what inputs I have provided, I will
have to go through the record. I don’t know why the contact with
Afcons was closed.
Question : What steps defendant took from March 2011 till tender
was floated to complete the balance work which was left incomplete
by Afcons?
Advocate for defendant raised objection to this question on a ground
that it is irrelevant question because contract of plaintiff with
defendant is of 26.04.2013.
Per contra advocate for plaintiff submit that it is relevant question
because almost five years was given to Afcons to complete the work.
It is defendant's case that the contact with Afcons was closed in
March, 2011. The balance work (left incomplete by Afcons) was
awarded to the plaintiff in the year 2013. Since the defendant levied
liquidated damages on the ground that there was delay in completing
the work.
I have heard both Ld. Advocates. The work was left incomplete by the
Afcons is an admitted fact in the suit. It is also an admitted fact that
after that incomplete work, contract was executed between plaintiff
and defendant to complete the remaining work. So it is necessary to
know steps taken by defendant till the tender was floated. Therefore,
question is relevant and answer is recorded as follows.
Answer: It is very difficult to remember things which happened 10-15
years ago. Its a matter of record. I will have to go through it.
7. I say that the word record which I referred in the above answer
means record of my Office.
Question : Prior to execution of the contract or thereafter, did the
defendant ever informed the plaintiff about the existence of alternate
-- 2 of 3 --
Commercial Suit 66/2020
Exh.100 3 / 3
land dispute with the land owners and/or shopkeepers?
Answer: There is no land dispute. We have informed Bidders via
tender.
8. Witness is shown Para 2 of Exh.33, letter dated 14.07.2013.
Question: When the plaintiff informed the defendant that IOCL has
refused to grant permission due to dispute regarding alternate land
arrangement, did the defendant ever object to it?
Answer : It was replied by PMC vide letter dated 24.07.2013.
Cross examination is deferred on next date.
ROAC BEFORE ME
Mumbai
Dated : 15-12-2025.
(Shri Prasad P. Kulkarni)
District Judge,
Court Room No.31 - Commercial Court,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
-- 3 of 3 --