Order 3

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: CS No. 100245 / 2021 Sanghi Motors – MCL Exh.51 1 / 5
Further examination in chief of plaintiff witness No.2
Umashankar Singh on oath by Adv. Uttam Parmar along with
Adv. Raj Ram Pal for plaintiff.
Adv. Vatsal Gosalia and Adv. Priyansh Jain present for
defendant.
1) I had already filed my evidence affidavit at Exh.51 on
14.12.2022.
2) On 26.04.2023, following documents were taken on
record by the Court.
Exh.53 : Copies of minutes of meeting (Collectively)
Exh.54 : Engineers Schedule.
Exh.55 : Work order. (Collectively)
Exh.56 : Two Purchase Order. (Collectively)
Further examination in chief was already over on 26.04.2023.
Cross-examination of plaintiff witness No.2 Umashankar Singh
by Adv. Vastal Gosalia, for defendant.
Adv. Uttam Parmar and Adv. Raj Ramal Pal present for
plaintiff.
3) I am educated in B.Sc. I joint the plaintiff company in
1996. I had joined as a Engineer. Now I am working as Deputy
Manager- Production. At the time when transaction took place, I
was working as a Senior Engineer Production. I had visited the
defendant as per schedule given to me by the plaintiff company. It
is true to say that, I visited the defendant to supervise the
establishment / construction of the oxygen manufacturing plant. It
is true to say that, my work include supervision of assembling
-- 1 of 5 --
CS No. 100245 / 2021 Sanghi Motors – MCL Exh.51 2 / 5
plant. Witness volunteers that, his work include commissioning
of the plant. It is true to say that, at the time of commissioning of
the plant I inspect the condition of the parts. It is true to say that, I
used to inspect the parts before its installation. I used to make
observation in the minutes of the meeting. It is true to say that,
plaintiff manufacture good quality parts. It is true to say that, we
manufacture the parts as per specification given to us by the
customers.
4) Life span of Oxygen manufacturing plant is 10 to 15
years. Witness volunteers that, it depends upon operation of the
plant. We inspect the goods, when they leave our factory for the
customers. I had not seen the purchase order. Witness volunteers
that, he was informed about the capacity of the plant. It is true to
say that, I was aware of all the quality, standard and out-put to be
produced by the plant. When we inspected the plant at the time of
commissioning, the results of proper quality were being delivered,
as per the purchase order. It is not true to say that, I had seen the
purchase order.
5) Now I am shown my Evidence Affidavit. It is at Exh. 51.
Now I am shown Exh. 53. It is minutes of meeting Dt.
09.09.2016. It is true to say that, in said minutes, it is stated us as
follows.
Production capacity parameters like Oxygen : 1000 normal cub.
mtr per hour (In Oxygen mode), Oxygen / Nitrogen production of
800 / 200 normal cub. mtr per hour shall be observed during the
next week to establish the production parameters in compliance
-- 2 of 5 --
CS No. 100245 / 2021 Sanghi Motors – MCL Exh.51 3 / 5
with the Technical specification and parameters as per P.O. #PO /
MCL / 13-14 / 0017 dtd. 30-10-2013.
6) It is not true to say that, I deposed false that, quality
parameters were being met at the time of commissioning of the
plant. It is true to say that, it is further stated in the minutes as
follows
However, ppm nitrogen purity could not be establish due to mal -
functioning of both the gas analyzers / impurity of nitrogen, which
needs be establish during further operation of the plant.
If any problem related with the plant in establishing agreed
parameters and working of the plant M/s. Sanghi Organization
shall depute their concerned engineer to resolve the issues and
modifications, if any required shall be at free cost.
Cross examination is adjourned as the first half of Court is
over.
ROAC
Mumbai
Dated :25.11.2024.
(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 Motors – MCL Exh.51 4 / 5
Further cross-examination of plaintiff witness No.2
Umashankar Singh by Adv. Vastal Gosalia, for defendant.
Adv. Uttam Parmar and Adv. Raj Ramal Pal present for
plaintiff.
7) Plant was successfully commissioned on the same date
of its installation. The plant is considered as successfully
commissioned, when its start working. I say that, it is mentioned
in the minute of meetings.
8) Now I am shown Product Data Sheet. It is dated
30.07.2013.
According to the defendant, said document is part and parcel of
Exh.56, however, plaintiff has annexed it as a part of Exh.55.
9) According to me, only problem was regarding waste
Nitrogen purity. Witness volunteers that the checking instruments
was malfunctioning. I had inspected said instrument. I say that,
this instrument is separate from the plant.
10) In minutes dated 09.09.2016, I had stated that, the plant
is successfully functioning. Witness volunteers that, he had taken
out the faulty instrument of Nitrogen and brought it to Mumbai,
rectified it and then got it installed through other persons. This
part was replaced during the visit of Sanjay Bhat. According to
me there is no difference between commissioning certificate and
minutes of meetings.
11) Now I am shown, the minutes of meetings dated
09.09.2016. True to say that, in that minutes last sentence reads as
Final Commissioning certificate shall be issued after establishing
all the parameters agreed in PO.
The Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that, said minutes dated
-- 4 of 5 --
CS No. 100245 / 2021 Sanghi Motors – MCL Exh.51 5 / 5
09.09.2016, bears signature of both plaintiff and defendant.
12) According to me, the date of commissioning of the plant
i.e. the date of start of proper working of the plant was
09.09.2016. True to say that, immediately after 09.09.2016,
repairs in the plant and replacement of part was required. During
my second visit, all problems were resolved. Date of my second
visit was 24.10.2016. I came back to Mumbai on 29.10.2016.
13) Now, I am show the minutes of meetings dated
29.10.2016. Not true to say that, I have not resolved all the
problems during my second visit. Not true to say that, in the last
para of this minutes, it is stated that, the problem persist. I did not
get any complaint after 29.10.2016 from the defendant.
14) Not true to say that, I do not have any authority to
produce before the Court. True to say that, I have filed my
evidence affidavit at Exh.51. True to say that, in said evidence
affidavit I sated in para no. 1 that, I am employed with Vitesse. I
am authorized to depose as witness by plaintiff.
Defence counsel argued that, the witness has deposed that, he is
authorized to depose by Vitesse Sanghi Organization.
15) Not true to say that, i depose false in the Court.
Cross-examination : over
Re-examination : declined.
ROAC
Mumbai
Dated :25.11.2024.
(Vijay S. Hingne)
Additional District Judge,
Court Room No.31 - Commercial Court,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
-- 5 of 5 --