Interim Order 6

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: CS No. 100245/ 2021 Sanghi – MCL Exh.59 1 / 5
Further Examination in chief of plaintiff witness Sanjay Dinkar
Bhat on oath by Adv. Uttam Parmar for plaintiff.
Defendant side called, but absent.
1) Affidavit now shown to me bears my signature. Its contents
are true. It is marked as Exh.59. I have filed following documents on
record. Same be allotted Exhibit mark.
Exh.59 : Evidence affidavit of PW3 Sanjay Dinkar Bhat.
Further examination in chief recorded.
Exh.60 : Letter of appointment dt. 24.04.1995.
Exh.61 : Engineer schedule dt.26.09.2016.
Exh.62 : Minutes of meeting dt. 30.09.2016.
Court observation : It is made clear to both parties that, documents
are marked as Exhibit (in accordance with contents from evidence
affidavit) for identification purpose.
Both sides are at liberty to prove and disprove the contents of the
documents, in accordance with various provisions, pertaining to
Commercial Courts Act, Code of Civil Procedure, Indian Evidence
Act and Information Technology Act.
Further examination in chief is over :
Defendant side called, but absent.
Adjourned for cross-examination.
ROAC
Mumbai
Dated : 14.03.2024
(Vijay S. Hingne)
Additional District Judge,
Court Room No.31 - Commercial Court,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
-- 1 of 5 --
CS No. 100245/ 2021 Sanghi – MCL Exh.59 2 / 5
Cross Examination of plaintiff witness no.3 Sanjay Dinkar Bhat
on oath by Adv. Vatsal Gosaliya for defendant
Adv. Uttam Parmar and Adv. Raj Rampal present for plaintiff.
Adv. Priyansh Jain present for defendant.
2) I am working with Sanghi Organization. As per my
knowledge, defendant had placed Order with plaintiff in the year
2013. In that year also I was working with Sanghi Organization as a
Production Manager. I got knowledge about plant in the year 2015.
Manufacturing of plant started in the year 2015 and it was completed
in 2016.
3) I had visited site of defendant. True to say that, said visit
was after commission of plant. I had visited to the Plant to inspect
the after cooler. Other than after cooler, there was no issue with the
plant. On 26/09/2016, I was informed about the issue about the after
cooler. I reached at the site on 29/09/2016. True to say that after
cooler is part of the plant. Not true to say that the after cooler was
completely dysfunctional. Witness volunteers that, it was not possible
to repair the after cooler on the site. Now I am shown Ex 62 which
are the minutes dated 30.09.2016. Not true to say that I am deposing
contrary to the contents to Ex 62. True to say that it is stated in Ex
62 as - Mr. Sanjay Bhatt inspected both the "After cooler" tanks
and Coils and found they are damaged beyond repair. Witness
volunteers that still the plant was functional. The proof that the plant
was still functional can be seen in last 3rd and last 2nd point of this
minute.
4) True to say that the gas analyzers were part of the Plant.
True to say that after cooler is one of the main part of the Plant. True
-- 2 of 5 --
CS No. 100245/ 2021 Sanghi – MCL Exh.59 3 / 5
to say that, I had taken the after cooler with me from the site for
repairs. I might have installed something at the place of after cooler.
Hence, the plant was functioning. Not true to say that I am deposing
falsely. True to say that functioning of after cooler can be done only
by after cooler. I had not stated in the minutes as to which part was
placed at the place of after cooler. True to say that after removing the
damaged after cooler, another after cooler was placed. Witness
volunteers that defendant himself placed another after cooler. It is not
stated in the minutes and entire record. The damaged after cooler
was removed from the plant from the help of hydra-crane.
On oral request of defendant, cross examination is adjourned
ROAC
Mumbai
Dated : 20.12.2024
(Vijay S. Hingne)
Additional District Judge,
Court Room No.31 - Commercial Court,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
-- 3 of 5 --
CS No. 100245/ 2021 Sanghi – MCL Exh.59 4 / 5
Date : 07-03-2025.
Further Cross Examination of plaintiff witness no.3 Sanjay
Dinkar Bhat resumed on S.A. by Adv. Vatsal Gosalia @ Adv.
Priyansh Jain for defendant
Adv. Uttam Parmar present for plaintiff.
5) I was present when the after coller was removed, so I'm unable to
state the time required for its removal.
During my visit to the Defendant's plant, I observed that the after cooler
had already been removed. I'm unaware if the plaintiff ever provided a
manual to the Defendant.
It is correct to say that the oxygen manufacturing plant was specifically
designed according to the Defendant company's requirements.
Consequently, the components/parts were also designed with
specification tailored to the Defendant's plant.
The original after cooler could have been replaced with an identical
specification after cooler.
I did not install or replace the damaged after cooler with a new one
during my visit to the Defendant's plant.
Question: What, in your opinion, is the role of the gas analyser installed
in the defendant's oxygen manufacturing plant/unit?
Answer: To check the purity of the nitrogen gas.
It is not true to say that the gas analyser also measures the purity of
oxygen.
-- 4 of 5 --
CS No. 100245/ 2021 Sanghi – MCL Exh.59 5 / 5
I am aware of whether, to date, the plaintiff has issued a commissioning
certificate in favour of the defendant.
I disagree with the assertion that, as production head with relevant
knowledge, I am falsely deposing, ignorance about who issues the
commissioning certificate after the plaintiff completes unit/plant
installation.
Cross-examination : over
Re-examination : Nil.
ROAC
Mumbai
Dated : 07.03.2025
(Shri S. B. Bhansali)
District Judge,
Court Room No.31 - Commercial
Court,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
-- 5 of 5 --