Interim Order 6

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: CS No. 100072 / 2019 Anil – M/s. Klaus Exh.16 1 / 5
Further Examination in chief of plaintiff witness Jayesh Damji
Soni on oath by Adv. Preeti Gada, for plaintiff.
Defendant side called, but absent.
1) Affidavit now shown to me bears my signature. Its
contents are true. It is already marked as Exh.16. I have filed
following document on record. Same be allotted Exhibit mark.
Exh.19 : True copy of original Power of Attorney dated
15.03.2019.
Exh.20 : True copy of Bank pass book.
Exh.21 : Bank certificate dated 22.12.2022
Exh.22 : Original Demand Promissory Note dated
24.03.2015
Exh.23 : TDS Certificate under Form 16A by defendants
updated on 18.08.2015.
Exh.24 : TDS Certificate under Form 16A by defendants
updated on 22.07.2015.
Exh.25 : TDS Certificate under Form 16A by defendants
updated on 15.07.2016.
Exh.26 : Original dishonored Cheque dated 16.01.2018.
Exh.27 : Original Bank returned memo dated 18.01.2018.
Exh.28 : Office copy of Original Demand Notice dated
30.01.2018.
Exh.29 : Postal Receipts issued by Postal authority.
Exh.30 : Postal Acknowledgment Card.
Exh.31 : Postal Acknowledgment Card.
Exh.32 : Postal Acknowledgment Card.
Exh.33 : Postal Acknowledgment Card.
Exh.34 : Postal Acknowledgment Card.
Exh.35 : Certificate u/s 64B of Indian Evidence Act.
Exh.36 : Non-starter 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
-- 1 of 5 --
CS No. 100072 / 2019 Anil – M/s. Klaus Exh.16 2 / 5
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 of P.W.1
ROAC
Mumbai
Dated : 15.01.2024
(Vijay S. Hingne)
Additional District Judge,
Court Room No.31 - Commercial Court,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
-- 2 of 5 --
CS No. 100072 / 2019 Anil – M/s. Klaus Exh.16 3 / 5
Cross Examination of plaintiff witness Jayesh Damji Soni on
oath by Adv. Prashansa Agrawal instructed by Nahush Shah
Legal for defendant.
Adv. Preeti Gada present for plaintiff.
2) I am educated upto B. Com. I am Constituted Attorney
of plaintiff Anil Dedhia. Plaintiff Anil is my cousin brother. I am
partner with plaintiff Anil in Comet Engineering Works. The
transaction is not related with Comet. Other than Comet, I do not
have any business relation with plaintiff Anil. I am not aware of
all transactions of plaintiff Anil. Jayesh Vira had introduced the
defendant with plaintiff. Jayesh Vira belongs to my village. They
all belongs to my community. The transaction is of 2015. I was
present at the time of introduction. Defendant was accompanied
with 2-3 persons. I don't know their names.
Advocate Prashansa Agrawal is seeking oral adjournment.
Plaintiff submitted for suitable order.
Hence, cross-examination is adjourned.
ROAC
Mumbai
Dated : 01.08.2024
(Vijay S. Hingne)
Additional District Judge,
Court Room No.31 - Commercial Court,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
-- 3 of 5 --
CS No. 100072 / 2019 Anil – M/s. Klaus Exh.16 4 / 5
Cross Examination of plaintiff witness Jayesh Damji Soni on
oath by Adv. Prashansa Agrawal instructed by Nahush Shah
Legal for defendant.
Adv. Preeti Gada present for plaintiff.
3) The meeting between plaintiff and defendant took place
at the office of Jayesh Vira. It must be March. Not true to say that,
no such meeting had taken place. It was in that meeting I first met
with the defendant. I say that, they were defendant because they
had introduced as defendant. I had not ascertain at that time,
whether those person were having authority to seek financial help
on behalf of the defendant Company. Not true to say that, those
persons were not authorized by the defendant Company. True to
say that, the Promissory Note was in the possession of plaintiff
Anil Dedia. Said Promissory Note handed to the plaintiff in my
presence. I cann't tell the name of Director of the defendant, who
handed over said Promissory Note to Anil Dedia. Not true to say
that, I do not have knowledge as to how the Promissory Note was
executed. As I am always accompanying plaintiff, I am aware of
the Promissory Note.
4) I cann't tell exactly name of the Director of defendant to
whom the plaintiff asked for repayment. I cann't make any
comment on whether Deepak Mulchand Gosar has already
resigned from the defendant Company on 05.10.2017.
The defendant has sought permission to confront form relating to
the resignation of Deepak.
Plaintiff has opposed confrontation on the ground that, the
-- 4 of 5 --
CS No. 100072 / 2019 Anil – M/s. Klaus Exh.16 5 / 5
defendant is surprising the witness and said document was not
filed the defendant with Written Statement and with list of
documents.
As witness is under cross-examination, permission is granted to
defendant to confront witnesses with said documents.
5) I cann't make any comments on the documents which is
not shown to me.
6) Said document is taken on record as Exh.40.
7) Not true to say that, Jayesh Vira has never introduced
defendant with plaintiff. Not true to say that, I have no personal
knowledge about the transaction.
Cross-examination is Over :
Re-examination : Declined
ROAC
Mumbai
Dated : 08.08.2024
(Vijay S. Hingne)
Additional District Judge,
Court Room No.31 - Commercial Court,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
-- 5 of 5 --