Order 6

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: Commercial Suit 08/2019 Zale Shipping vs M/s. Samarth Exh.15 1 / 3
Date : 02.04.2026
Cross Examination of plaintiff witness Abhishek Kumar Vivek
Sharma on oath by Adv. Prakash Pawar for defendant No.1 and 2.
In the presence of Adv. S. K. Paranjape for plaintiff.
1. My Company name is Zale Shipping and Logistics Services Pvt
Ltd and office is located at Ghatkopar. I am B.Com graduate. I am
director of plaintiff. We are providing our services PAN India and all
over the world. Defendants engaged us for shipping services. I say
that cargo was to be shipped for Tincan Island, Nigeria. Defendants
issued authority letter to plaintiff on email in respect of transaction in
question. I am not recollecting the exact date when consignment was
shipped from Calcutta.
Question: Can you assign any reason why plaintiff cancel and called
back cargo prior to reaching it at Nigeria?
Answer: Because defendant No.1 asked us to stop the container.
2. We received instructions from defendants on email.
It is not true to say that invoices doesn't reflect specification of
demurrage charges
Cross examination is deferred due to recess.
ROAC BEFORE ME
Mumbai
Dated : 02.04.2026.
(Prasad P. Kulkarni)
District Judge,
Court Room No.31 - Commercial
Court, City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
-- 1 of 3 --
Commercial Suit 08/2019 Zale Shipping vs M/s. Samarth Exh.15 2 / 3
Date : 02.04.2026 at 02.45 pm.
Cross Examination of plaintiff’s witness Abhishek Kumar Vivek
Sharma on oath by Adv. Prakash Pawar for defendant No.1 and 2.
In the presence of Adv. S. K. Paranjape for plaintiff.
3. I do not recollect how much import charges we have informed
on defendant by email. I am not aware whether defendants moved
any application before ECGC. It is not true that whatever amount
mentioned in the invoice is incorrect. It is not true that purposely
plaintiff delayed unloading of consignment only with intent to grab
extra money. It is not true that plaintiff filed claim with ECGS as
financial condition of defendant No.1 was not good. It is not correct
that only because plaintiff mentioned incorrect demurrage charges,
as Rs.6,90,829/- claim of defendant No.1 in ECGC was dismissed. It
is not correct that due to mistake of plaintiff cargo /container was at
one place more than three months.
4. It is not correct that plaintiff is not professional and skillful in
the business and that is the reason demurrage charges are incurred. I
am not aware that defendants stopped payment of cheques only
because there is no specification about demurrage charges in the
invoice. It is not correct that on the basis of false claim present suit
is nothing but an attempt on the part of plaintiff to claim exorbitant
and undue amount. It is not true that all the invoices filed by plaintiff
are incorrect and false. It is not true that a false suit filed. It is not
true that defendant is not liable to pay any amount to plaintiff.
Cross examination of PW-1 is completed.
-- 2 of 3 --
Commercial Suit 08/2019 Zale Shipping vs M/s. Samarth Exh.15 3 / 3
Re-examination – Nil.
ROAC BEFORE ME
Mumbai
Dated : 02.04.2026.
(Prasad P. Kulkarni)
District Judge,
Court Room No.31 - Commercial
Court, City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
-- 3 of 3 --