Order 9

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: CS No. 100079 / 2019 Executive Trading – Maruti steel Exh.28 1 / 6
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 6 --
CS No. 100079 / 2019 Executive Trading – Maruti steel Exh.28 2 / 6
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 6 --
CS No. 100079 / 2019 Executive Trading – Maruti steel Exh.28 3 / 6
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 6 --
CS No. 100079 / 2019 Executive Trading – Maruti steel Exh.28 4 / 6
Cross-examination on oath of plaintiff witness Pankaj Sureka
by Adv. Sanjay Bhojwani.
Adv. Arvind Giriraj present for plaintiff.
Defendant Deepak Bathija present.
Defendant representative Gaganjyot Singh present.
8) Not true to say that, original Invoice at Exh. 33 was not
with the truck. Not true to say that, said Invoice at Exh. 33 was
forwarded by my office to defendant, after about one month.
9) Defendant has filed list of documents at Exh.41. From
said list, the witness is confronted document at Sr. No. 2, which is
email Dt. 01.07.2016, 11:53 Hrs. In this email, one of the
recipient address is etcpl1@hotmail.com. This mail ID belongs to
me. I am not aware about the other email IDs from this mail.
As mail is confronted to witness, it is taken on record as Exh. 54.
Said mail mentions that, it is read by the recipient on 02.07.2016
at 12:14 Hrs. I say that, I am not aware of it.
10) True to say that, after supply of the goods, I had talks
with Ashwin Lodha of Topworth Pipes and Tubes Pvt. Ltd., on
numerous occasions. Witness volunteers that, he is having
numerous transactions with Ashwin Lodha.
Question by lawyer : Was there any communication between you
and Ashwin Lodha of Topworth Pipes and Tubes Pvt. Ltd. in
respect of the defendant's claim that, the Invoice raised for the
supply of the goods in question ought to be raised by Topworth
Pipes and Tubes Pvt. Ltd. and not by the plaintiff?
Answer : That is not true.
11) I cannot tell whether I will be able to check my email
-- 4 of 6 --
CS No. 100079 / 2019 Executive Trading – Maruti steel Exh.28 5 / 6
inbox and answer about it on next date.
12) Regarding whether I am having documentary evidence
about my requests to defendant to make payment, I say that, those
were verbal requests. These requests were made by me in manner
that, I used to call Ashwin Lodha and Ashwin Lodha used to call
Deepak Bhatija. Not true to say that, I used to call Ashwin Lodha
because it was Ashwin Lodha, who was to receive money from
Deepak Bhatija.
13) Now I am shown Weight Slips at Exh. 34 and Exh. 35.
True to say that, they are in the name of Executive Trading i.e. the
name of plaintiff. Now I am shown Legal Notice at Exh. 37. Not
true to say that, this Notice was never dispatched by plaintiff and
it was never received by defendant. True to say that, on first page
of said Notice, there is handwritten endorsement as received / 3 /
3 / 2017. True to say that, there is no seal and signature below this
endorsement.
14) Not true to say that, there is business practice between
me and Ashwin Lodha (Topworth) of passing Journal Entries.
True to say that, both Executive Trading and Topworth Pipes and
Tubes Pvt. Ltd. deals in business of Pipes.
15) Not true to say that, multiple FIRs are lodged against me
by CBI. There is only one FIR against me. It is filed by CBI.
Witness volunteers that, he has been made witness by ED in
another case. True to say that, to some extent, said FIR against me
pertains to raising fraudulent invoices and raising money from
bank against it. True to say that, against Complaint of Union Bank
-- 5 of 6 --
CS No. 100079 / 2019 Executive Trading – Maruti steel Exh.28 6 / 6
of India, CBI has registered Complaint against me. I am not aware
whether another FIR is lodged against me on the basis of
Complaint of Bank of Baroda.
16) Not true to say that, I have filed false Suit and I am
deposing false.
Cross-examination is over.
Re-examination - Declined.
ROAC
Mumbai
Dated : 09.01.2025
(Vijay S. Hingne)
Additional District Judge,
Court Room No.31 - Commercial Court,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
-- 6 of 6 --