Order 8

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: CS No. 100079 / 2019 Executive Trading – Maruti steel Exh.28 1 / 3
Further examination in chief of plaintiff witness Pankaj
Sureka on oath by Adv. Arvind Giriraj and Anjali Dhoot, for
plaintiff.
Adv. Sneha Mishra present for defendant No.1 and 2.
1) Affidavit now shown to me bears my signature. Its
contents are true. It is marked as Exh.28. I have filed following
documents on record. Same be allotted Exhibit mark.
Exh.30 : Certified copy of Board Resolution, Dt.01.03.2021.
Exh.31 : Tax Invoice No. SE16Y-001176, Dt. 12.05.2016.
Exh.32 : Mill Test Certificate, Dt.12.05.2016.
Exh.33 : Tax Invoice No. COM/00012/2016-17, Dt. 12.02.2016.
Exh.34 : Original Challan receipt No.228, Dt. 12.05.2016.
Exh.35 : Original Challan receipt No.229, Dt. 12.05.2016.
Exh.36 : Office copy of Notice under Order 12, Rule 8, Dt.
04.03.2021.
Exh.37 : Legal Notice Dt. 02.03.20217.
Article A: Photocopy of relevant Extract Audit Report.
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 :
Matter adjourned for cross-examination of plaintiff.
ROAC
Mumbai
Dated : 08.02.2024
(Vijay S. Hingne)
Additional District Judge,
Court Room No.31 - Commercial Court,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
-- 1 of 3 --
CS No. 100079 / 2019 Executive Trading – Maruti steel Exh.28 2 / 3
Cross examination of plaintiff witness Pankaj Sureka on oath by
Adv. S Bhojwani, for defendant.
Adv. Arvind Giriraj present for plaintiff.
2) Not true to say that, on 05.07.2019, when Suit was filed, I
had no authority to file the Suit. Not true to say that, no such
documents is filed on record.
3) Not true to say that, paragraph no.4 to no.7 and paragraph
no.12, no.14, which are deposed by me in my evidence affidavit at
Exh.28, are missing from my plaint at Exh.01. Not true to say that,
through said paragraphs, I am introducing absolutely new case.
4) Not true to say that, I normally take written orders from my
clients. True to say that, defendant no.1 never issued any work order
through email. Witness volunteers that it was verbal order issued by
defendant no.1. Not true to say that, I have supplied any goods to
defendant.
5) Now I am shown invoice at Exh.31. It is dt. 12.05.2016.
True to say that, this invoice bears the name as Topworth Pipes and
Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Witness volunteers that said invoice was billed by
Topworth to plaintiff. True to say that, It never happened before
12.05.2016 that, I procured goods from Topworth and supplied them to
defendant. Witness volunteers that he had numerous independent prior
transactions with Topworth. Not completely true that, on 12.05.2016, I
placed order with Topworth and on same day, I received the order. I
say that, some time prior, I had placed the order with Topworth.
6) True to say that, in Exh.31 it is stated that, goods started
from Khopoli, Raigad. It is stated in that invoice that, my address as
Carnac Bunder, Mumbai. Not true to say that, the goods were received
by me at Carnac Bunder. The goods went directly to defendant at is
-- 2 of 3 --
CS No. 100079 / 2019 Executive Trading – Maruti steel Exh.28 3 / 3
Pune address. True to say that, in Exh.31 there is nothing to show that
goods went to Pune at the address of defendant. Whether Exh.31 went
to Pune, I say that, it was my invoice at Exh.33 which went to
defendant. I say that, invoice at Exh.31 came to me. True to say that,
truck number stated in invoice at Exh.31 is MH 04 DD 1649. True to
say that, same truck number is reflected in invoice at Exh.33.
7) True to say that, invoices are important documents in
transportation. Not true to say that, one truck cannot transport the
goods from Khopoli to me at Mumbai and same truck cannot transport
the goods from me to defendant at Pune as per invoices as Exh.31 and
Exh.33. Not true to say that, when goods were transported from
Khopoli to defendant, my invoice at Exh.33 could not have been part
of said transportation. Not necessary that, my invoice at Exh.33 is
within knowledge of Topworth. I dont know who had arranged the
transportation of goods through truck no. MH 04 DD 1649. Witness
volunteers that, he had not made arrangement of that truck. True to say
that, I was communicated about the truck only by Topworth. Witness
volunteers that, through said invoice at Exh.31 he got the knowledge of
the truck on 12.05.2016. True to say that, the original copy of Exh.33
needs to be on the truck.
Cross examination is adjourned as first half of Court is over :
Matter adjourned for cross-examination of plaintiff.
ROAC
Mumbai
Dated : 21.11.2024
(Vijay S. Hingne)
Additional District Judge,
Court Room No.31 - Commercial Court,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
-- 3 of 3 --