Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION C.S. (O.S.) NO.

: _________ /2012

IN THE MATTER OF: SSMP INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS M/S JAYA MAHALAXMIPRODUCTS (P) LIMITED DEFENDANT .. PLAINTIFF

INDEX

SL. NO. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 6.

PARTICULARS

PAGE NO. -A B C

COURT FEE URGENT APPLICATION NOTICE OF MOTION MEMO OF PARTIES

COURT FEE (Rs.) 62000/Rs. 3/-

SUIT FOR RECOVERY AND DAMAGES 1-20 ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT LIST OF DOCUMENTS LIST OF WITNESSES 21-22 23

ANNEXURE P-1: CERTIFIED COPY OF 24 THE EXTRACTS OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN FAVOUR OF SHRI NAGENDRA KUMAR SINGH. ANNEXURE P-2: AGREEMENT NO. 25SSMP/MANGOPULP/03/2010 DATED 21.04.2010 ANNEXURE P-3: COPY OF THE INVOICE SHOWING THE PRICE OF A10 OTS PACKING CANS. ANNEXURE P-4: COPY OF THE

7.

8.

9.

COMMUNICATION BY THE DEFENDANT SHOWING ACTUAL RECEIPT OF THE 1,10,000 A10 OTS PACKING CANS. 10. ANNEXURE P-5: COPY OF THE LEGER ACCOUNT OF THE PLAINTIFF WITH REGARD TO THE DEFENDANT. ANNEXURE P-6: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/05/2010. ANNEXURE P-7: COPIES OF THE DAILY PRODUCTION REPORT DATED 27/05/2010 AND 28/05/2010 (COLLY). ANNEXURE P-8: COPY OF LETTER DATED 27/05/2010. ANNEXURE P-9: COPY OF LETTER DATED 29/05/2010 ALONG WITH FAIR TYPED COPY. ANNEXURE P-10: COPY OF LETTER DATED 31/05/2010 INFORMING THE DEFENDANT TO STOP THE FURTHER PULP PRODUCTION AND NOT TO USE THE A-10 OTS CANS. ANNEXURE P-11: COPY LETTER DATED 03/07/2010. OF THE

11. 10.

11.

12.

12.

13.

14.

ANNEXURE P-12: COPY OF 22/01/2011, 17/03/2011, 31/08/2011 and 23/09/2011 (Colly) ANNEXURE P-13: COPY THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 09.11. 2011 ALONG WITH THE DISPATCH RECEIPT. VAKALATNAMA D Rs. 3/-

15.

16.

FILED BY

COUNSEL (SUDHIR R SINGH) CHAMBER-670, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI-110001. MOBILE: 09873132535 NEW DELHI: DATE:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION C.S. (O.S.) NO.: _________ /2012

IN THE MATTER OF: SSMP INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS M/S JAYA MAHALAXMIPRODUCTS (P) LIMITED DEFENDANT .. PLAINTIFF

MEMO OF PARTIES

1. SSMP INDUSTRIES LIMITED, THROUGH MR. NAGENDRA KUMAR, (AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE) K-336, POCKET-K, SARITA VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110076 VERSUS ---PLAINTIFF

2. M/S JAYA MAHALAXMI PRODUCTS (P) LIMITED, OPPOSITE: TAMIN, KANTHIKUPPAM, KRISHNAGIRI, TAMIL NADU ---DEFENDANT

FILED BY COUNSEL SUDHIR R SINGH CHAMBER-185 B, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, DELHI-110001 NEW DELHI: DATE:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION C.S. (O.S.) NO.: _________ /2012

IN THE MATTER OF: SSMP INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS M/S JAYA MAHALAXMIPRODUCTS (P) LTD. DEFENDANT .. PLAINTIFF

NOTICE OF MOTION Sir, The accompanying suit is being filed on behalf of the Plaintiff and is likely to be listed on _________ or any other date, thereafter.

FILED BY COUNSEL (SUDHIR R SINGH) CHAMBER-185 B, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, DELHI-110001 NEW DELHI: DATE:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION C.S. (O.S.) NO.: _________ /2012

IN THE MATTER OF: SSMP INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS M/S JAYA MAHALAXMIPRODUCTS (P) LIMITED DEFENDANT .. PLAINTIFF

URGENT APPLICATION The Registrar, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi, Sir, Kindly treat the accompanying petition as an urgent one as per the rules and regulations of the Honble High Court. The grounds of urgency are: AS PRAYED FOR IN THE ACCOMPNAYING SUIT.

FILED BY COUNSEL

(SUDHIR R SINGH) CHAMBER-185 B, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, DELHI-110001 NEW DELHI: DATE:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION C.S. (O.S.) NO.: _________ /2012

IN THE MATTER OF: SSMP INDUSTRIES LIMITED, THROUGH MR. NAGENDRA KUMAR, (AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE) K-336, POCKET-K, SARITA VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110076 --VERSUS M/S JAYA MAHALAXMI PRODUCTS (P) LIMITED, OPPOSITE: TAMIN, KANTHIKUPPAM, KRISHNAGIRI, TAMIL NADU ---DEFENDANT PLAINTIFF

SUIT FOR RECOVERY AND DAMAGES

THE PLAINTIFF MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1. That M/s SSMP Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for the sake of brevity) is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at K-136, Pocket-K, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110076 and corporate office at A-128, Sector-63, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.-201301. The Plaintiff is a manufacturer, trader, exporter and seller of various kind of fruit pulp. 2. That Shri Nagendra Kumar Singh, the Office-in-Charge of the Plaintiff company is authorized representative of the said Plaintiff who has been duly authorized and empowered to sign and verify the instant plaint to file the suit and to depose on behalf of the plaintiff by virtue of resolution dated 07/08/2010 passed by the

Board of Directors of the plaintiff company and as such the plaint has been duly signed and verified and suit has been filed by Shri Nagendra Kumar Singh for and behalf of the plaintiff company. The certified copy of the extracts of the meeting of the Board of Directors in favour of Shri Nagendra Kumar Singh has been annexed as Annexure P-1. 3. That the brief facts leading to the instant suit are, that the plaintiff company for the purpose of carrying on its business, sources the ingredients i.e. fruits and fruit pulps from various person, firms, companies from all over the country depending upon the quality, season and availability of the same and enters into various agreements with the suppliers of the same. 4. That the defendant M/s Jaya Mahalaxmi Products (P) Limited (hereinafter called the defendant company for the sake of brevity), having its office opposite Tamin, Kanthikuppam, Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu is managed and controlled by one Mr. B.L. Keshwan, the Managing Director. The defendant company is engaged in procurement and production of Mango pulp. 5. That on 21.04.2010 a purchase agreement No.

SSMP/MANGOPULP/03/2010 was executed between the plaintiff company and Mr. B.L. Keshwan, Managing Director of M/s Jaya Mahalaxmi Products (P) Limited (i.e the defendant company) at the business premises of the Plaintiff at New Delhi. According to the said purchase agreement, the defendant was responsible for supply of Natural Totapuri Mango Pulp and Natural Alphanso Mango Pulp as per the terms and conditions specified in the purchase order. These terms and conditions of the purchase

agreement dated 21.04.2010 are self-explanatory and the copy of the agreement is annexed here to as Annexure P-2. 6. That further, as per the salient terms and conditions of the above said purchase order, the defendant company was to supply Natural Totapuri Mango Pulp and Natural Alphanso Mango Pulp in the special A-10 OTS containers (Cans). These metal containers are specially manufactured as per specifications for storing and transporting finished and semi-finished food products. As per the agreement these A-10 OTS containers were to be supplied by the plaintiff company to the defendant company. The qualities of the mango pulp and the packaging

standards/specifications were also mentioned in the purchase agreement and as per the purchase agreement the defendant company was to strictly adhere to the same. It is pertinent to mention that each A-10 OTS container at an average cost Rs 28/to the Plaintiff. Here to annexed is one of the invoice showing the price of the A10 OTS Cans Annexure P-3. 7. That accordingly the plaintiff supplied to the defendant a total of 1,11,000 empty A-10 OTS Cans costing Rs. 30,80,000/- (Rs. Thirty Lacs and Eighty Thousand only) @ Rs. 28 per A-10 OTS Container for the sole purpose of filling, packaging and delivering the mango pulp meant to be supplied to the plaintiff. Hereto annex is the communication from the defendant showing the actual receipt of 1,10,000 A10 OTS containers as Annexure P-4. 8. That at the time of signing of the Purchase order, the plaintiff also transferred a sum of Rs. 2,97,960/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- totaling Rs. 7,97, 960/- to the defendant as advance payment so as to enable the defendant to proceed with the Purchase order dated

21/04/2010. Here to annexed is copy of the ledger account of the plaintiff as Annexure P-5. 9. That on 15/05/2010 the defendant company was intimated by the senior official of the plaintiff to start purchasing the mango fruits from market between the period from 20/05/2010 to 28/05/2010 so as to start the production of the mango pulp. It is pertinent to mention herein that the procurement of mangoes and the production of the mango pulp from them were to strictly adhere to the specifications given by the plaintiff in the purchase order dated 21/04/2010. The letter dated 15/05/2010 is annexed hereto as Annexure P-6. 10. That in order to ensure that the production of the mango pulp is strictly in adherence to the specifications given in the purchase order, the quality control officials appointed by the plaintiff in the factory premises of the defendant company checked the quality of mango pulp produced at the defendants factory. However to the shock and surprise of the plaintiffs officials, the mango pulp produced till that time was found to be of inferior quality and not as per the specifications provided by the plaintiff in the purchase order dated 21/04/2010. The same was confirmed in the Daily Production Report dated 27/05/2010 and 28/05/2010 which was duly acknowledged in person by Mr. B.L. Keshwan i.e the Managing Director of the defendant company. Here to annexed are the copies (along with the fair typed copies) of the Daily Production Report dated 27/05/2010 and 28/05/2010 as Annexure P-7(Colly). 11. That vide a letter dated 27/05/2010 itself, the plaintiff company informed the defendant company that a total of 22,366 packed cans of mango pulp have been rejected by the plaintiff because of

the reasons that the quality of the mango pulp produced was not up to the specifications mentioned in the purchase order dated 21/04/2010. Vide this letter the defendant company was also informed that the pulp produced by the defendant company are not acceptable to the company because the pulp production was not at all adhering to the specifications mentioned in the Purchase agreement dated 21/04/2010. The defendant was further instructed to stop the pulp production and not to use the A-10 ATS Cans for further production. The copy of the letter dated 27/05/2010 is annexed hereto as Annexure P-8. 12. That on 29/05/2010 the defendant through Mr. B.L. Keshwan wrote to the plaintiff company that the rejected materials can be lifted from his premises without any payment and further the defendant acknowledged its full responsibility for the below par pulp production. The defendant in the same letter was willing to accept the payments if and when the plaintiff shall receive the same from the plaintiffs own buyers overseas and that too if the buyers of the plaintiff company accept the pulp production earlier rejected by the plaintiff. However the defendant back tracked from this proposal later on as he refused to adhere to his promise and did not allow the Plaintiff to get the materials for confirmation the Plaintiffs buyer. Here to annexed is copy of the letter dated 29/05/2010 as Annexure P-9. 13. That however despite strict instructions from the plaintiff to the defendant company to stop further production of Alphanso Mango Pulps and Totapuri Mango Pulps and not to use any of the remaining A-10 OTS Cans (Cans), the plaintiff came to know that the defendant, in complete defiance of the companys instructions kept using the empty cans for its own unlawful

benefits and to the severe detriment to the plaintiffs business interests. That after seeing the working condition and the manner of fruit pulp production of the defendant, the plaintiff was convinced that the defendant are not in a position to fulfill the obligations as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the purchase agreement. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff is an exporter of the processed food items and has to maintain very strict quality control and standards of food items so that the same my pass the quality control tastes of the importing nations. Accordingly vide letter dated 31/05/2010 the defendant company was again instructed to terminate and immediately stop the mango pulp production and not to use the balance A-10 OTS Cans in any manner what so ever. The copy of the letter dated 31/05/2010 informing the defendant to stop the further pulp production and not to use the A-10 OTS Cans is annexed here to as Annexure P10. 14. That the defendant was well aware about the contents of the Purchase order dated 21/04/2010. However for the ready perusal of this Honble Court the contents of para 16 of the purchase agreement is being reproduced here in: The buyer is entering into a contract with the supplier for supply of the above said quantity mentioned in the above Sl. No. 8 conforming to specifications enclosed in Annexure A. In case of rejection of material by the buyer or overseas/local company of the buyer, the supplier will be solely responsible for the same and in the circumstances if the supplier wants he can inspect his materials at his own cost and he can also resolve the matter at his best level with the buyer or the overseas/local company of the buyer for the same buyer has no objection. If the

product is found to be not confirming to the specifications as per Annexure A and the supplier is unable to resolve the quality issue, the supplier will have to compensate the buyer with the same quantity of rejected material conforming to approved specifications or would have to compensate for the value of the rejected material. .. Further agreed that in case of any damage, injury, loss sustained by the buyer due to bad quality of material supply by the processor/supplier, the supplier is solely responsible/liable for the same and only the supplier will be liable to compensate the loss to the Buyer even if the production or packaging is done in the presence of any person appointed by the buyer. As the person appointed by the buyer is only to ensure the production and packaging and not the process what has been adopted by the supplier at the time of production and packaging during the supply therefore the method and process of supply and packing is totally depends upon the supplier. The said liability will be solely on the supplier till the payment and quality confirmation received by the buyer from his overseas/local companies. In the above, the buyer signifies the plaintiff and the supplier is the defendant. The above extract clearly demonstrated that defendant is solely liable for any loss caused to the plaintiff for the above mentioned deficiencies in the pulp production. 15. That in order to ensure the supply of mango pulp the plaintiff vide letter dated 3rd July, 2010 informed the defendant that the plaintiff can give the defendant one last chance to purchase the mango pulp of the defendant, however despite the same the defendant ignored the offer of the plaintiff and kept on avoiding any further contact

from the plaintiff. The letter dated 03/07/2010 is annexed hereto as Annexure P-11. 16. That as stated earlier in this plaint, because of the poor quality of mango pulp processed and packed by the defendant which was rejected by the plaintiff; as well as the plaintiffs buyers, the defendant was directed to immediately stop the production and return the packing cans (A-10 OTS Cans) supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant. However the defendant knowingly, intentionally and deliberately did not return the A-10 OTS Cans and illegally kept the same using for its own benefit. 17. That vide the communication dated 03/07/2010 as well, the defendant was also directed by the company to return the advance sum of Rs. 7,97,960/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Ninenty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty only) paid to the defendant, however in utter disrespect for the terms of purchase order, the defendant intentionally and deliberately did not return the same and illegally kept the sum of Rs. 7,97,960/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Ninenty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty only) for its own wrongful gain causing wrongful loss to the plaintiff. 18. That in fact numerous personal visits by the plaintiffs officials at the factory premises of the defendant, as well as personal meetings with the officials of the defendants paid no dividends and the defendant kept on delaying the return of the sum of Rs. 7,97,960/(Rupees Seven Lacs Ninenty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty only) to the plaintiff. The defendant further did not return 1,10,000 A-10 OTS packing cans to the plaintiff on one pretext or the other. 19. That the defendants conduct clearly demonstrates a defiant and dishonest attitude. It is abundantly clear that from the start the

defendant and its officials never intended to return the sum of Rs. 7,97,960/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Ninenty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty only) as well as 1,10,000 empty packing A-10 OTS Cans after cancellation of the purchase order which the plaintiff is totally entitled to under the terms of the agreement dated 21/04/2010. The conduct of the defendant not only amounts to cheating but also of criminal breach of trust. 20. That the plaintiff showing prudent business temperament requested the defendant to settle the accounts and return the 1,10,000 empty A-10 OTS Cans vide its letter dated 22/01/2011, 17/03/2011, 31/08/2011 and lastly by letter dated 23/09/2011. Here to annexed are the copies of the letters dated 22/01/2011, 17/03/2011, 31/08/2011 and 23/09/2011 as Annexure A-12 (Collectively). 21. That however again and again the defendant did not comply with its promises only adding to the belief that the complainant company was being intentionally taken for a ride. 22. That it further came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that all the empty A-10 OTS Cans had already been used and utilized by the defendant for its own personal gain and to the severe losses to the plaintiff. 23. That the intentional avoidance of the plaintiff in not returning the empty 1,10,000 A-10 OTS Cans and the sum of Rs. 7,97,960/(Rupees Seven Lacs Ninenty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty only) even after several requests and reminders resulted in severe financial losses to the company. 24. That this approach of the defendant clearly indicates that initially it was the deliberate tactics of the defendant to delay the settlement with the plaintiff, to prevent the plaintiff from taking

any legal action either civil or criminal and to take the plaintiff for a ride. 25. That because of the non-delivery of the agreed product by the defendant to the plaintiff as per the specification mentioned in the purchase agreement the plaintiff was unable to fulfill its own commitment to its buyer and consequently suffered loss of business and goodwill in the market and the plaintiff reserves its rights to recover its losses on this account also from the defendant as and when the same become quantifiable by the plaintiff in the future. 26. That also because of the intentional act of the defendant in not returning the A10 OTS packing cans to the plaintiff despite being repeatedly demanded by the plaintiff further caused severe business losses to the plaintiff for which no other person but the defendant squarely is responsible. The plaintiff is under the process of quantifying the losses suffered on this account and the plaintiff reserves its rights to recover its losses on this account aslo from the defendant. 27. That at last the plaintiff through its counsel served a legal notice dated 11.11. 2011 on defendant through Mr. B.L. Keshwan (the Managing Director of the defendant) demanding the defendant to return the empty 1,11,000 empty A-10 OTS Cans ( or a sum of Rs. 36,30,000/- i.e. the cost of the cans inclusive of the local taxes paid) and the advance payment of Rs. 7,97,960/- without further delay. However no communication was received from the defendant or Mr. B.L. Keshwan this time as well clearly showing the malafide and defiant attitude of the defendant. Hence the present Suit. Copy the legal notice dated 09.11. 2011 along with the dispatch receipt is annexed here to as Annexure P-13.

28.

That the plaintiff was forced to lodge a complaint with the S.H.O. Police Station, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi on 14.01.2012 requesting for the registration of F.I.R. against Mr. B.L. Keshwan, the Managing Director of the defendant.

29.

That the plaintiff has also initiated complaint proceedings against the defendant in the court of law and the same is pending further adjudication before the Ld. M.M., Saket District Courts.

30.

That in addition to face the criminal proceeding initiated by the Plaintiff with the proper authorities, the Defendant as on date is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 52,49,248/- (Rs. Fifty Two Lacs Forty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Eight only) consisting of Rs. 30,80,000/- as price of 1,10,000 A-10 OTS Cans and the sum of Rs. 7,97,960/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Ninenty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty only) along with the sum of Rs. 13,71,288/- as prevailing rate of interest of fifteen percent per annum on the recovered amount compounded annually.

31.

That the cause of action for filing the present suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant first arose in on 21/04/2010 when the plaintiff entered in to contract for supply of mango pulp with the defendant. Thereafter it arose on different dates when the defendant paid no heed to the instructions of the plaintiff to stop the misuse of the empty A-10 OTS Cans. It further arose on 31/05/2010 when the plaintiff specifically asked the defendant to stop the pulp production. It arose on different dates 03/07/2010, 22/01/2011, 17/03/2011, 31/08/2011and on 23/09/2011mentioned earlier on which the plaintiff asked vide written communication to the defendant to return the 1,10,000 empty A-10 OTS Cans along with the sum of Rs. 7,97,960/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Ninenty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty only) paid as advance to the

defendant by the plaintiff. It again arose on 11.11.2011 when the plaintiff served a legal notice to the defendant demanding the empty A-10 OTS Cans or a sum of Rs. 36,63,000/- as price of the A-10 OTS Cans and the sum of Rs. 7,97,960/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Ninenty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty only) along with the prevailing rate of interest of fifteen percent per annum compounded annually on these amounts and the cause of action continues. In view of this it is crystal clear that the cause of action subsists in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 32. That for the purpose of the court fee and jurisdiction the instant suit is valued at Rs. 52,49,248/- (Rs. Fifty Two Lacs Forty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Eight only) on which the advalorem court fee is Rs. 62,000 /- and the total court fee is being paid along with the instant suit. 33. That the registered office of the plaintiff Company is at New Delhi, Agreement has been executed by and between the parties at New Delhi in which the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of this Honble Court and all the cause(s) of action has also been accrued at New Delhi, therefore this Honble Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. 34. That the Plaintiff has not filed similar suit/petition before this Honble Court or any other court of law including the Supreme Court of India. 35. That the present suit is filed within limitation as per the Indian Limitation Act. 36. That the plaintiff is filing the copies of the relied upon documents in its possession along with the plaint and the list of documents.

PRAYER:

It is therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that the Honble Court may be graciously pleased to: a) pass a decree for a sum of Rs. 52,49,248/- (Rs. Fifty Two Lacs Forty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Eight only) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. b) award pendent-lite and future interest from the date of the filing of the suit till final payment of decreetal amount at the rate determined by this Honble Court in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. c) award cost of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. d) such other relief/reliefs which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. PRAYED ACCORDINGLY PLAINTIFF (SSMP INDUSTIRES LIMITED) THROUGH COUNSEL (SUDHIR R SINGH) CHAMBER 185-B, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI-110001 NEW DELHI DATED: VERIFICATION: I Nagendra Kumar Singh do hereby verify that the contents and averments made in para 1 to 31 of the plaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Last para is the prayer made to this Honble Court. Verified at New Delhi on this ----- day of March, 2012. DEPONENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION C.S. (O.S.) NO.: _________ /2012 IN THE MATTER OF: SSMP INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS M/S JAYA MAHALAXMIPRODUCTS (P) LIMITED AFFIDAVIT I Nagendra Kumar Singh son of Sh. Satyadev Singh resident of House No. 368, Chauhan Mohalla, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi-110076 aged about 46 years do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1. That I am the authorized representative of the plaintiff company duly authorized vide resolution dated 07/08/2010 passed by the Board of Directors of the plaintiff and well conversant with the facts of the case and as such competent to swear this affidavit. 2. That the present suit for recovery of damages has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and behalf, the contents of which are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity and the same may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit. 3. That I have gone through the contents of the instant suit and the same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT VERIFICATION: Verified at New Delhi on this ------ day of May, 2012 that the contents of this affidavit are based upon the personal knowledge and the records maintained by the plaintiff in day to day course of its business and the DEFENDANT .. PLAINTIFF

same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. DEPONENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION C.S. (O.S.) NO.: _________ /2012

IN THE MATTER OF: SSMP INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS M/S JAYA MAHALAXMIPRODUCTS (P) LIMITED DEFENDANT .. PLAINTIFF

LIST OF DOCUMENTS 1. Certified copy of the extracts of the meeting of the Board of Directors authorizing the Mr. Nagrendra Kumar Singh to file and persue the plaint. 2. Copy of the purchase agreement No. SSMP/MANGOPULP/03/2010 dated 21.04.2010. 3. Copy of the invoice showing the price of the A10 OTS Cans. 4. Copy of communication from the defendant showing the actual receipt of 1,10,000 A10 OTS containers. 5. Copy of the ledger account of the plaintiff vis--vis the defendant. 6. Copy of the letter dated 15/05/2010. 7. Copies of the Daily Production Report dated 27/05/2010 and 28/05/2010. 8. Copy of the letter dated 27/05/2010 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. 9. Copy of the letter dated 29/05/2010. 10. Copy of the letter dated 31/05/2010 issued by the plaintiff informing the defendant to stop the further production and stop the use of the A10 OTS packing cans.

11. Copy of letter dated 03/07/2010. 12. Copies of the letters dated 22/01/2011, 17/03/2011, 31/08/2011 and 23/09/2011 (Colly). 13. Copy of the legal notice dated 09/01/2011 along with the postal dispatch receipt.

PLAINTIFF (SSMP INDUSTIRES LIMITED) THROUGH

COUNSEL SUDHIR R SINGH CHAMBER 185-B, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI-110001 NEW DELHI DATED:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION C.S. (O.S.) NO.: _________ /2012

IN THE MATTER OF: SSMP INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS M/S JAYA MAHALAXMIPRODUCTS (P) LIMITED DEFENDANT .. PLAINTIFF

LIST OF WITNESSES

1. Mr. Nagendra Kumar Singh, the authorized representative of the company. 2. Mr. Manoj Kunwar, Managing Director of the plaintiff company. 3. Mr. S.K. Bhowal, Director of the plaintiff company. 4. Other concerned officials of the plaintiff company. 5. Any other witness by the permission of this Honble Court.

PLAINTIFF (SSMP INDUSTIRES LIMITED) THROUGH

COUNSEL SUDHIR R SINGH CHAMBER 185-B, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI-110001 NEW DELHI DATED: