Order 5

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: CS No. 1000722 / 2021 Premium – Gactel Exh.4 1 / 7
Cross-examination of plaintiff witness Anup Mate on oath by
Advocate Shri S M Khaire, for defendant.
Plaintiff counsel Shri Kabeer Pansare present.
1) I am qualified Company Secretary. I have also
completed LLB. I joined the plaintiff firm in the October, 2019.
Prior to that I am working with TATA International DLT Pvt. Ltd.
I stated in the affidavit that, the defendant had accepted the goods
without any grievance. Whether I am having documentary proof
to that effect, I say that the defendant never communicated about
any grievance.
2) I say that Mr. Mayur Kanchan is employee of defendant.
I say so because it is stated at Exh.16. It is not true to say that
Mayur Kanchan is not the employee of the defendant. Witness
volunteers that at the relevant time Mayur Kanchan might be
working with defendant. I will have to check whether I am having
documents regarding assurances of repayment given by the
defendant. It is not true to say that I have not filed any documents
to show the delivery of the goods under the suit invoices to the
defendant. It is not true to say that the defendant has not
acknowledged the receipt of the goods. I say that the documents at
Exh. 26 and Exh. 27 shows that the goods are received by the
defendants. It is true to say that the delivery challan at Exh. 26 is
regarding goods worth Rs.19,69,875/-. It is true to say that I filed
the statement at Exh. 25. It is true to say that in that statement
-- 1 of 7 --
CS No. 1000722 / 2021 Premium – Gactel Exh.4 2 / 7
there is entry Dt. 20.05.2015 for Rs.20,00,000/-. It is not true to
say that this entry is regarding payment made against Exh.26.
Witness volunteers that they have not received the full payment
against Exh.26. It is true to say that in paragraph No. 7 of the
affidavit I have stated that the defendant have made payment of
Rs.20,00,000/- on May, 20th 2015. It is not true to say that I am
deposing false. It is true to say that the delivery challan at Exh. 26
is not part of the suit invoices. Witness volunteers that the
payment of paragraph No. 7 is pertains to Exh.22.
(It appears that there is too much discussion between the
lawyers and witness is also giving lengthy explanation. It was
making difficult to record the evidence. The Learned defence
counsel objected that it is not possible to to him for cross
examination of the witness.)
Cross-examination adjourned .
ROAC
MUMBAI
Dt. 19.07.2023
(Vijay S Hingne)
District Judge, Court Room No. 31
City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai
-- 2 of 7 --
CS No. 1000722 / 2021 Premium – Gactel Exh.4 3 / 7
Cross-examination of plaintiff witness Anup Mate on oath by
Advocate Shri S. M. Khaire along with Advocate Shri. Ramesh
Sahu, for defendant.
Plaintiff counsel Shri Kabeer Pansare present.
3) Not true to say that, I am not filed any documents
regarding delivery of Suit Goods. I say that, Exh.26 and Exh.27
are the documents to that effect. This Exh.27 pertains to subject
Goods. Not true to say that, Exh.27 does not pertains to the
subject Goods. Not true to say that, Exh.26 is fabricated
documents. Not true to say that, said documents has been
prepared for the purpose of the Suit. Not true to say that, except
Exh.27, I do not have any document to show delivery of Goods.
Not true to say that, as I do not have any other documents, I have
not filed it on the record. True to say that, I do not have any
personal knowledge about employment of Mayur Kanchan with
the defendant.
4) I have stated that, defendant has assured me about re-
payment. I do not have any document to that effect. Not true to
say, Exh.27 do not reflect invoice Goods. The delivery Challan at
Exh.27 is regarding Goods from invoices at Exh.19, Exh.20 and
Exh.21.
5) Now, I am shown invoice at Exh.22. It pertains to
delivery challan at Exh.26. Not true to say, Exh.22 and Exh.26 do
not bears acknowledgment from defendant. Not true to say, these
-- 3 of 7 --
CS No. 1000722 / 2021 Premium – Gactel Exh.4 4 / 7
are false and fabricated documents prepared by the defendant
merely for the purpose of the Suit.
6) True to say, in Particulars of Claim at Exh.32, I have not
stated about part payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakh only).
Defendant had placed only one Purchase Order. Now I have
shown the Exh.23, it is Debit Note issued by the plaintiff. There is
only one Purchase Order mentioned in Exh.23. Number of said
Purchase Order is 21123 / 07. I say that, said Purchase Order
Number 21123 / 07 is not mentioned in Debit Note at Exh.23. Not
true to say that, invoices and Lorry Receipt referred to in Exh.23
does not pertains to the Purchase Order stated in Exh.23.
7) Not true to say, E-mails at Exh.28 are not my internal E-
mails. I had not sought re-payment from the defendant by way of
E-mail. Witness volunteers that, as per his knowledge Exh.31 is
the notice issued by him demanding the amount. True to say that,
Exh.28 contents E-mails Dt. 24.03.2017, 15.36 hrs. This E-mail
is issued by my employee to my another employee. True to say
that, the amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- ( Thirty Lakh only)
mentioned in this E-mail is different from the claim amount.
8) True to say, in my evidence affidavit at para No.7, I have
stated that, I have received part payment of Rs.30,125/- ( Thirty
Thousand One Twenty-Five only). Said part re-payment is
reflected in my Ledger Account at Exh.29. True to say, said part
-- 4 of 7 --
CS No. 1000722 / 2021 Premium – Gactel Exh.4 5 / 7
re-payment is not reflected in Particulars of Claim at Exh.32. I do
not personally enter the entries in Ledger Account. I have not
forwarded the Ledger Account at Exh.29.
9) I have filed Bank Statement of plaintiff from Axis Bank
at Exh.25. In said statement there is entry Dt. 20.05.2015
regarding cheque No. 114871 for Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakh
only). In same Bank statement, there is entry Dt. 07.04.2015
regarding part payment made by the defendant through cheque
No. 114816 for Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakh only).
10) Question by Adv. Khaire :- Tell us about the procedure
adopted by the plaintiff regarding Sell of Goods.
Court observation :- The question is of general nature. Hence, it
is not allowed.
11) Now, I am shown delivery challan at Exh.27. It mentions
declared value of the Goods as 19,07,889/- (Ninety Lakh Seven
Thousand Eight hundred Eighty -Nine only) this amount was yet
to be paid by the defendant. True to say that, thereafter there is
option of Paid. True to say that, said option is tick marked.
Witness volunteers that, the tick mark pertains to next entry no. 3.
True to say that, same is the position with Exh. 26. Not true to say
that, the defendant has already paid the amount from Exh. 27 and
hence there is tick mark on the option of Paid.
12) True to say that, in Para No. 12, I have stated that, we
-- 5 of 7 --
CS No. 1000722 / 2021 Premium – Gactel Exh.4 6 / 7
made repeated requests to the defendant to make the repayment. I
will have to check whether those reminders were in writing or in
what mode. Not true to say, no such reminders were issued and
hence I am unable to give details of those reminders. Not true to
say, the defendant never assured with repayment. Not true to say,
hence I am unable to provide any details about those assurances.
13) I do not make entries in the Books of Account of the
plaintiff. I have verified the accounts and thereafter I have raised
the claim amount. I will have to check whether we had delivered
the Books of Account on the defendant. Not true to say that, I am
deposing false about the Ledger Accounts, Books of Account,
Delivery Challan, Invoices.
14) True to say that, in Para No. 14 of my evidence affidavit
at Exh. 13, I have stated that, thereafter plaintiff had called upon
the defendant to clear the outstanding amount. By the word
thereafter, I say after the issuance of notice. Not true to say, I have
made vague submissions in my evidence affidavit at Para No. 14.
15) We filed Bankruptcy Proceedings before the Hon’ble
National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, against the defendant
on 16.05.2018. True to say that, thereafter we filed the present
Suit on 04.06.2018. True to say that, before the NCLT, we had
prayed for the Suit amount.
16) True to say that, at Exh. 30 I have filed Certificate under
-- 6 of 7 --
CS No. 1000722 / 2021 Premium – Gactel Exh.4 7 / 7
Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. True to say that, in said
Certificate, I had stated that, the computers were extensively used
by me. Not true to say that, I have made false declaration in the
Certificate. True to say that, I joined the service of plaintiff on
14.10.2019. True to say that, in Clause d of said Certificate at
Exh. 30, I had stated that, during the relevant time, the computers
were working properly. Not true to say that, I have made false
declaration in the Certificate. True to say that, as I joined the
plaintiff in 2019, I had no occasion to verify the functioning of
the computers of the plaintiff during period prior to my joining.
17) Not true to say that, the defendant has made entire
repayment regarding the Suit goods. Not true to say that, there is
no outstanding amount against defendant. Not true to say that, the
defendant is not under any liability of repayment. Not true to say
that, I have prepared false and fabricated documents and has filed
a false claim. Not true to say that, I do not have any authority to
depose in the present Suit on behalf of the plaintiff. Not true to
say that, I am deposing false.
Cross-examination is Over :
Re-examination : Declined
ROAC
MUMBAI
Dt. 21.11.2023
(Vijay S Hingne)
District Judge, Court Room No. 31
City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai
-- 7 of 7 --