Order 4

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: CS No. 100245/ 2021 Sanghi – MCL Exh.59 1 / 3
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 3 --
CS No. 100245/ 2021 Sanghi – MCL Exh.59 2 / 3
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.
-- 2 of 3 --
CS No. 100245/ 2021 Sanghi – MCL Exh.59 3 / 3
True 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 3 --