Bombay High Court
Valation Finance And Marketing ... vs Devourex Pty. Ltd. And 2 Ors on 23 March, 2016
Bench: R.P. Sondurbaldota
Dusane 1/20 S1590.2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO.1590 OF 2011
Valation Finance & Marketing Private
Limited,
a Company incorporated under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956
having its registered office at
Sadhana House, 4th Floor, P.B. Marg,
Behind Mahindra Towers, Worli,
Mumbai - 400 018 (India) .... Plaintiff
vs.
1 DEVOURX PTY LTD,
A Company incorporated in the
Commonwealth of Australia, having
its Registered office at 53,
Ostend Street, Lidcombe,
New South Wales, Australia 2141.
2 ENERGENICS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.
A Company incorporated in Singapore,
having its registered office at 89,
Science Park #03-06, The Rutherford,
Singapore 118261.
3 Energenics Pte Ltd.
A Company incorporated in Singapore,
having its registered office at 89,
Science Park Drive, #03-06,
The Rutherford, Lobby B,
Singapore Science Park, 1
Singapore 118261 .... Defendants
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:04:34 :::
Dusane 2/20 S1590.2011
Mr. Zal Andyarujina alongwith Mr. Kunal Dwarkadas alongwith
Mr. Shrivardhan Deshpande i/by Desai & Diwanji for the
Plaintiff.
Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.
Date : 23rd March, 2016
JUDGMENT
1 This Suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff is the
sole and exclusive owner of and is entitled to all the rights, title
and interest in two machines described in the plaint as DX005
and DX006 (shipped in container numbers DX0004 and
DX0005) under Invoice No.VFM120701 dtd.4 th December, 2007.
The plaintiff also seeks damages in the sum of
Rs.32,05,78,467/-. The writ of summons is served upon the
defendants. They have failed to appear before the court. Hence,
the suit is taken up for exparte hearing.
2 The plaintiff-Company carries on business of
rendering financial services, trading, dealing, importing and
exporting merchandise, goods, machinery and equipments
relating to industries including textile, engineering, electrical,
mining and shipping. Defendant no.1 is a company incorporated
in the Commonwealth of Australia and is engaged in the
business of supplying and licensing machines used for fine
grinding and mixing applications for use in mining, quarrying,
cement production and power generation industries etc. It
holds exclusive intellectual property rights in relation to that
Dusane 3/20 S1590.2011
technology and the machines supplied by it. Defendant no.2 is a
company incorporated in Singapore and is engaged in the
business of providing management consultancy services and is a
supplier of alternative energy solutions and technologies.
Defendant no.2 is an agent of defendant no.1 and has a strategic
partnership with defendant no.1 having exclusive marketing and
distribution rights of the machines in Asia and is responsible for
the business operations of defendant no.1 in Asia. Defendant
no.3- Company also incorporated in Singapore is a subsidiary of
defendant no.2. One Nakul Jagjivan is associated with the
plaintiff as well as defendants no.2 and 3 as a shareholder and
as a director. A statement is made on behalf of the plaintiff and
repeated in the written submissions that the plaintiff does not
seek any relief against defendants no.2 and 3 in this suit.
Therefore the relief is restricted against defendant no.1 alone.
3 The brief statement of facts alleged in the plaint is as
follows:
In December, 2007, pursuant to the negotiations
between the plaintiff and defendant no.2 acting as agent of
defendant no.1, an oral contract was entered into between the
plaintiff and defendant no.1 for the sale and purchase of the
machines described above for the total value of US$7,00,000. It
was agreed that the machines would be supplied by an outright
sale from defendant no.1 to the plaintiff and the purchase price
Dusane 4/20 S1590.2011
would include all costs of commissioning the machines at the
plaintiff's facilities in India. It was also agreed that defendant
no.1 was to train the plaintiff's employees/representatives for
operating the machines and the plaintiff was to bear the costs of
the training. The plaintiff intended to use the machines for
leasing, hiring out/licensing to third parties in consideration for
processing fees and/or lease rentals and/or license fees.
Defendant no.2 was to undertake delivery of the machines from
the Plant of defendant no.1 in Australia to the plaintiff's facilities
in India.
4 For the purpose financing the purchase of the
machines, the plaintiff had entered into Financing Agreement
dtd. 4th August, 2007 with one J.V. Gokal and Company Private
Limited ("JVGCPL" for short). This was because the plaintiff did
not have requisite credit facilities and therefore not in a position
to open a Letter of Credit in favour of defendant no.1 to purchase
the machines. The terms of the Financing Agreement were that
JVGCPL would open the Letter of Credit with it's bank for
purchase and import of the machines into India on behalf of the
plaintiff. Any value added tax and/or octroi and/or customs
payable on the machines was to be borne by the plaintiff. It was
agreed that the plaintiff will reimburse JVGCPL the value of the
machines on presentation of the invoice together with other
shipping documents and the right, title and interest in the
machines would stand transferred to the plaintiff from JVGCPL
Dusane 5/20 S1590.2011
upon the plaintiff handing over the duly endorsed negotiable set
of documents. JVGCPL is partly owned by Nakul Jagjivan and
closely associated with the plaintiff.
5 Upon finalisation of the contract, defendant no.1
issued invoice dtd.4th December, 2007 for both the machines
with the name of JVGCPL as the Purchaser and the plaintiff as
the Importer of the machine. JVGCPL opened a Letter of Credit
dtd. 31st December, 2007 with Union Bank of India for the total
value of shipment as US$7,00,000. Defendant no.3 on behalf of
JVGCPL collected the machines from the facilities of defendant
no.1 at Melbourne on 4th January, 2008 Accordingly, the Letter
of Credit was amended on 9th January, 2008 to add therein that
defendant no.3 was appointed as Agent for inspection and
collection of goods from defendant no.1. The machines were
shipped as "Ex-works" from Melbourne, Australia on 9 th
January, 2008 with Bill of Lading Nos. 855724112 and
524705622 both dtd. 9th January, 2008 issued in favour of the
plaintiff. On 31st January, 2008, the plaintiff paid JVGCPL by
cheque Rs.2,75,97,500/- and Rs.47,415.50 as commission and
service charges of JVGCPL. On the same day, JVGCPL
transferred the amount of US$7,00,000 to defendant no.1
towards price of the machines sold under the invoice.
6 While the machines were in transit, the plaintiff by
it's email dtd.8th February, 2008 addressed to defendant no.2
Dusane 6/20 S1590.2011
had expressed concern about processing fees sought to be levied
by defendant no.1, as indicated on the website of defendant no.1.
The concern of the plaintiff was that if the plaintiff were made to
pay the processing fees by defendant no.1, it would attract
customs duty and would impact the bottom-line of defendant
no.1. Defendant no.2, by return email dtd. 11th February, 2008
confirmed that defendant no.1 had decided to sell the machines
outright to the plaintiff and defendant no.1 was insisting on an
ongoing small payment of 10% as a processing fees for selling
the machines to the plaintiff. Such processing fees could be
paid in the form of technical assistance, or royalty or both.
Defendant no.2 had suggested that this understanding should
be reduced into an agreement between the plaintiff and
defendant no.1. However no such agreement was executed
between them.
7 Subsequently the machines came to be delivered at
Javaharlal Nehru Port, Mumbai on 28 th February, 2008. At the
time of collecting the machines, the plaintiff noticed that
defendant no.1 had failed to ship certain accessories / component
parts of the machines. When this was brought to the notice of
defendant no.1, the parts were sent by air and arrived at Mumbai
on 17th April, 2008. The plaintiff was also informed by letter dtd.
2nd April, 2008 that defendant no.3 is the authorized distributor of
the spare parts of the machines supplied by defendant no.1. The
plaintiff transported the machines to it's two different plants, one
Dusane 7/20 S1590.2011
at Baroda and other at Beed. Then the correspondence ensued
between the parties for erection, installation and commission of
the machines under the provision and guidance of defendant no.1.
In June 2008, representatives of defendant no.1 and defendant
no.2 visited the plaintiff's plant at Baroda and Beed for
commissioning the machines and demonstrating their working as
well as the use. They however could not commission the machines
and recommended certain additional parts to be purchased i.e. a
bag filter and a multi clone system. It was agreed that selected
engineers of the plaintiff would be sent to Australia to receive
training, in operation and maintenance of the machines from
defendant no.1. The engineers of the plaintiff did visit Australia
for the purpose of training. On 3rd July, 2009 an employee of
defendant no.1 furnished user identification and password to start
the machine at Baroda. When that machine was sought to be
commissioned, there were several technical problems including
tripping of electronic panel. When this was communicated to
defendant no.1, it's Director Mr. Mark Pilgrim on 4 th July, 2009
apologized for the mistake on the part of his employee of supplying
the user identification and password for Baroda machine stating
that he had no authority. He also intimated that the training
provided to the engineers of plaintiff in Australia in January 2009
did not include commissioning of machines. He claimed that the
management of defendant no.1 had no notice from the employees
of defendants no.1 and 2 of the intended demonstration of Baroda
machines. But within a short-time thereafter defendant no.1 asked
Dusane 8/20 S1590.2011
the plaintiff to shift the machine at Beed to Baroda for the purpose
of repairs as the machines lying idle had gathered dust as well as
rust.
8 After the machine was lying uncommissioned for more
than two years, the plaintiff addressed e-mail dated 26th March,
2010 to defendant no.2 to express its disappointment with the
inordinate delay and starting of the machines despite the untiring
efforts and co-operation from the plaintiff. Then defendant no.1
agreed to send four engineers to visit Baroda plant to commission
the machines. On 5th April, 2010 defendant no.1 raised an invoice
for an amount of US$80,000/- as the amount payable for
commissioning the machines. It refused to proceed with the
commission unless the amount was paid. As the plaintiff was
unable to commission the machine on it's own and as it was
contractually disallowed from doing so, it had no other alternative
but to make the payment to defendant no.1. Accordingly on 8 th
June, 2010 it paid the amount via interbank wired transfer.
Despite receiving the payment and making several promises
defendant no.1 failed to commission the machines and the same
have been lying idle since the date of purchase in the year 2008.
In addition to the sum of US$80,000/- paid for the
commissioning the machines, the plaintiff had paid octroi,
customs duty, clearing forwarding and transportation charges on
the machines and the spare parts to the extent of Rs.1,38,89,145/-.
It incurred expenses of Rs.1,35,30,883.44 ps. towards
Dusane 9/20 S1590.2011
miscellaneous costs during the period 2008 to 2011. Thus the
total loss suffered by it is of Rs.24,29,68,000/- on account of
failure on the part of defendant no.1 to commissioning the
machines.
9 In the meantime, defendant no.1 filed a suit at
Singapore against defendant no.2 alleging breaches of the licence
agreement dated 1st February, 2008 and sought delivery of the two
machines supplied to the plaintiff. In that suit it alleged that there
was joint venture agreement between the two for formation of a
joint venture company, in which defendant no.1 was to hold 30%
of the shares and defendant no.2 the balance 70% shares. Pending
the finalization of the joint venture agreement, defendant no.2 had
placed an order for four DEVOUR X Machines under the licence
agreement. Two machines were to be delivered in India, one at
Singapore and one to be stored in Australia. Strangely defendant
no.1, alleged in the suit that it did not know whereabouts of any of
the four machines, and demanded redelivery of the machines. As
alleged in that suit, the two machines brought to India were sold to
JVGCPL and not to the plaintiff.
10 The plaintiff alleges that defendant no.1 has, in
breach of the contract of sale of the two machines with it, has
brought the Singapore Suit falsely claiming that the machines
were licensed to defendant no.2. Despite specific knowledge that
the machines have been sold to the plaintiff, it sought redelivery
Dusane 10/20 S1590.2011
of the same. The plaintiff has not been impleaded to the
Singapore Suit. The plaintiff alleges that the filing of Singapore
Suit by defendant no.1 is solely with a view to avoid compliance
of its obligations under the contract with the plaintiff and with
the specific aim of delaying and defeating the rights of the
plaintiff. Therefore, it has filed the present suit for declaration of
it's rights to the two machines and for damages.
11 As already mentioned hereinabove, despite service of
writ of summons, the defendants, defendant no.1 in particular,
have failed to appear before the Court to contest the suit.
12 In the above facts of the case and the reliefs claimed
in the suit, the points that would arise for consideration of the
court are as follows.
1 Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the two
suit machines.
2 Whether defendant no.1 has committed
breach of the contract of sale of the suit
machines.
3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
damages.
4 If answer to point no.3 is in the affirmative,
what should be the quantum of damages?
13 The plaintiff examined four witnesses being (i) Mr.
Nakul Jagjivan, (ii) Mr. Shridhar Venkatesh, (iii) Prashant
Wakare and (iv) Bharat Gajjar (the Expert on damages) to
Dusane 11/20 S1590.2011
establish it's case. It has also produced extensive documentary
evidence. PW-1, in his affidavit of examination-in-chief stated
the details of purchases of the two machines, the method of
financing the machines, the delivery of machines and shipment
of documents. The financing arrangement between the plaintiff
and JVGCPL was deposed to by Mr. Shridhar Vyankatesh. PW-3
Mr. Wakare had visited Australia and received training at
defendant no. 1's facility on how to operate and maintain the
machines, that were identical to the machines sold to the
plaintiff.
14 The plaintiff produced Invoice dtd.4th December, 2007
in respect of both the machines. Pursuant to the financing
agreement between the plaintiff and it, JVGCPL opened an
irrevocable Letter of Credit dtd. 31st December, 2007 with Union
Bank of India towards purchase of the machines, with total
value of shipment recorded as US$ 7 Lacs. The machines were
collected by defendant no.3 from defendant no.1's facility from
Melbourne, Australia and delivered to the plaintiff. The packing
list dtd. 4th December, 2007 and goods collection notice dtd. 4 th
January, 2008 issued by defendant no.1 makes specific
reference to the machines and the invoice. The original Bills of
Lading bearing stamp of Union Bank of India, Mumbai
Samachar Branch have been produced as the evidence of title to
the two machines. For the proof of payment of the purchase
price of the machines, the plaintiff produced photocopy of the
Dusane 12/20 S1590.2011
cheques issued, certified copy of the plaintiff-bank account and
the certified copy of the bank account maintained by defendant
no.1 with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Sidney.
15 As mentioned above, the machines were collected by
defendant no.3, which is the subsidiary of defendant no.2,
acting as it's agent, from the facility of defendant no.1 in
Melbourne, Australia. Defendant no.1 issued a packing list dtd.
4th December, 2007 and goods collection invoice dtd.4 th January,
2008, both making specific reference to the machines and the
invoice. The plaintiff has produced original packing list. The
original packing list and the goods collection invoice bear the
endorsement of Union Bank of India, Mumbai Samachar Marg,
which has been proved by PW-1. Then the machines were
shipped "ex-works" in two separate containers bearing No. DX-
0004, and DX-0005. Accordingly two separate Bills of Lading,
both dtd. 9th January, 2008 were issued in favour of the plaintiff
as deposed by PW-2. The plaintiff has produced the original
Bills of Lading. Mr. Andyarujina, the learned counsel for the
plaintiff submits that it is well settled that the Bill of Lading is a
document of title. The endorsement and the delivery of the Bill
of Lading operates as symbolic delivery of cargo. The property in
the goods passes by such endorsement and delivery of the Bills
of Lading, just as property in goods would pass by actual
delivery of the goods. In this connection, he relies upon decision
of the Apex Court in British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. vs.
Dusane 13/20 S1590.2011
Shanmughavilas Cashew Industries and Ors., reported in 1990
(3) Supreme Court Cases, page 481. By that decision, the Apex
Court has held that "The Bill of Lading is the symbol of the
goods, and the right to possess those passes to the transferee of
the Bill of Lading. In other words, its transfer is symbolic of the
transfer of the goods themselves and until the goods have been
delivered, the delivery of the duly endorsed Bill of Lading
operates as between the transferor or transferee, and all who
claim through them, as a physical delivery of the goods would
do". In view of the above, the Bill of Lading coupled with the
evidence of payment of purchase price of the machines clearly
establishes that the plaintiff is the owner of the two machines.
Therefore, the first point for determination is answered in the
affirmative.
16 After the machines were purchased and delivered,
defendant no.1, under the agreement for sale of the machines,
was to commission the machines and demonstrate their working
and use. For that purpose, in or around June, 2008, three
representatives of defendants no.1 and 2 namely Mr. Wayne
Pearce, Mr.Mark Pilgrim and Mr. Ronen had visited plaintiff's
facility at Baroda and Beed. They, however, failed to commission
the machines. Thereafter extensive correspondence ensued
between the parties. Several suggestions had come from
defendant no.1, which were followed by the plaintiff as deposed
in the evidence of the witnesses. In the month of December,
Dusane 14/20 S1590.2011
2009, defendant no.1 promised to send another team of
engineers to commission the machines, but the promise was not
kept and the machines remained un-commissioned. On 5th April,
2010, defendant no.1 raised an Invoice bearing No.VFM040 510
on the plaintiff for an amount of US$80,000/- claiming to be the
amount payable by the plaintiff in consideration of defendant
no.1 commissioning the machines. It is the plaintiff's case and
evidence that despite the fact that the agreement executed
between the parties covered commissioning of the machines, the
bill was raised. The plaintiff had to concede to the demand as
by then it's situation had become difficult. The plaintiff had
invested substantial amount in the machines. For more than
two years after the purchase, the machines were lying idle for
want of commissioning. Further the plaintiff was contractually
disallowed from commissioning the machines. It was therefore
compelled to pay a sum of US$ 80,000/- via inter bank wire
transfer on 8th June, 2010. That amount was received by
defendant no.1 on 9th June, 2010. These facts have been
established not only by the uncontroverted deposition of PW 1
and 2 but also by the extensive correspondence produced on
record. The breach stands established by one more
circumstance. Defendant no.1 has filed proceedings in the High
Court of the Republic of Singapore, which were subsequently
consolidated with four other suits filed by defendants no.3 and 4
against certain third parties including defendant no.1 with
respect to the disputes inter se. In it's consolidated defence to
Dusane 15/20 S1590.2011
the proceedings against it and the counter-claim, defendant no.1
has claimed that the machines that had been in fact sold to the
plaintiff were licensed to defendant no.2 and demanded that the
machines be returned to it. This contention taken up in the
proceedings at Singapore is behind the back of the plaintiff,
since the plaintiff is not impleaded to those proceedings. The
above facts established by the plaintiff shows that the
defendants have committed breach of the agreement for sale of
the machines to the plaintiff and the plaintiff would be entitled
for damages for breach of the agreement. The points for
determination at serial no. 2 and 3 are therefore answered
affirmatively.
17 This brings us to the question of measure and proof
of the damages payable to the plaintiff on account of breach of
the agreement for sale. Mr. Andhyarujina submits that the
machines sold to the plaintiff failed to satisfy the warranty and
the purpose, for which they were acquired. The machines that
were never commissioned by the defendants became
commercially useless to the plaintiff. In the circumstances, the
plaintiff would be entitled to two courses to measure damages.
It may claim on the basis of the profits, which it has lost
because the machines were commissioned and did not perform
that with which they were warranted to do. Such claim would
put the plaintiff in the same position, as it would have been in,
had, the contract for the purchase of the machines infact being
Dusane 16/20 S1590.2011
performed as intended. The second course is to recover capital
cost incurred. The claim of this kind would put plaintiff in the
same position as it would have been in, had it never entered into
the contract for purchase of the machines. Mr. Andhyarujina, in
the facts and circumstances of the present case, submits that
the plaintiff can adopt both the courses to measure the damages
incurred by it.
18 Mr. Andhyarujina refers to decision of the Queen's
Bench in Culllinane v. British "Rema" Manufacturing Co. Ltd.,
reported in (1954) 1 Q.B. Page 292, which had held that the
above mentioned two courses to measure damages are and must
be alternative and they cannot be cumulative, because otherwise
the claimant would be obtaining duplication of compensation.
Therefore, the claimant was expected to elect one of the two
courses. But the subsequent decision in the case of Shetland
Seafarms Ltd. v. The Braer Corporation, reported in 1999 S.L.T.
page 1189 after discussing the decision in Cullinane case, holds
that there is no reason in principle why a claimant should not
be entitled to recover damages for both, wasted expenditure and
loss of profits, provided that in the calculation of loss of profits,
there is deduction of all the expenditure that would necessarily
have been incurred in producing gross return.
19 In Shetland's case, the court distinguished Cullinane
case on facts in following terms:
Dusane 17/20 S1590.2011
"At first sight, it might seem that this
decision establishes a general rule that a
plaintiff in such a case must elect between the
two bases of claim; but in my view the decision
should not be interpreted in that way. In
Cullinane, the majority of the Court of Appeal
seem to have treated the loss of profits claim as
being based on gross profits (of Evershed MR, at
pp 302 and 304-305; Jenkins LJ, at pp 308 and
312). Moreover, since the claim for loss of profits
was restricted to a period of three years, and
allowed for depreciation in only those years, the
plaintiff was in effect seeking damages for the
whole cost of acquiring the profit making asset
but allowing for only part of that cost in the
calculation of his claim for loss of profits
(Evershed MR, at p 306). For these reasons, the
majority of the court considered that the two
heads of the claim involved duplication".
The Court then considered the decision of the High Court of
Australia in T.C. Industrial Plant Pty. Ltd. v. Robert's
Queensland Pty Ltd., and quoted the same with with approval in
following words"
"In T.C. Industrial Plant Pty Ltd. v. Robert's
Queenland Pty Ltd. the High Court of Australia
explained this latter point in the following way:
"We understand their Lordships to mean that in
such a case the plaintiff, having paid for the
machine at the beginning, should not have to
pay for it a second time (in effect) by having its
value, spread over the period of its life,
subtracted from what otherwise would be his
damages. The reason obviously is that where
the plaintiff adopts, as the amount the machine
would have been worth to him if it had been as
warranted, the amount of the profits, he would
Dusane 18/20 S1590.2011
have made by using it to the point of exhausting
its useful life, he is entitled to recover the whole
amount of those profits, without making
provision for replacement of the cost of the
machine; for those profits are what he was really
buying when he bought the machine in reliance
upon the warranty. But the same result may be
produced by claiming for recoupment of his
capital outlay and in addition for the excess of
the estimated profits over the amount of the
capital outlay; and that is all that is done by a
plaintiff who claims his capital outlay and in
addition profits estimated after deduction of
depreciation. See per Jenkins LJ at p.308. The
justification for the refusal of the majority of the
Court in Cullinane's case to follow such a course
lies, we venture to think, in the fact that since
nothing was proved about the probable amount
of the profits that would have been made in the
final seven years of the machine's life, and
therefore, nothing about any probable excess of
profits during the whole ten years of the
machine's life over amounts of depreciation
equalling the total capital cost, the plaintiff failed
to show that the damages assessed on the loss-
of-profits basis would be greater than damages
assessed by reference to capital expenditure and
interest. What was perfectly clear was that the
plaintiff could not have damages assessed on the
one basis plus damages assessed on the other
basis: ((1964)) 37 ALJR, at p. 293)."
The decision in Shetland's case is applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, wherein the expenses
incurred by the plaintiff in purchasing the machines is a wasted
expenditure and in addition there is loss of future profits.
Therefore, I am inclined to accept submissions of Mr.
Dusane 19/20 S1590.2011
Andhyarujina that the plaintiff will be entitled to recover
damages under both the courses.
20 As regards the quantum of the damages, the plaintiff
has annexed particulars of claim to the plaint, wherein he
claims a sum of Rs.3,26,24,680/- as the expenses incurred for
procuring the machines and a sum of Rs.24,29,68,601/-
towards the projected profit had the machines be commissioned
as on 31st March, 2011 i.e. till filing of the suit totalling to
Rs.32,05,78,467/-. The plaintiff has examined Mr. Bharat P.
Gajjar, as an expert on calculation of damages. In his deposition,
he has stated his educational qualification as well as the
experience of evaluatinig damages. He has stated that his
company has carried out more than 9000 assignments of
Composite Valuation and more than 600 Projects' Vetting
/Techno-Economic Viability/Feasibility study for industries and
service organisations. He has produced in evidence his report
on the capital loss as well as loss of profits suffered by the
plaintiff in the suit transaction. The loss estimated by him in his
report is of Rs.9,32,00,000/- towards the capital loss, which
includes interest @12% per annum on the amount from 1st April,
2008 to 31st March, 2014 and loss of profit as Rs.77,90,00,000/-
for the same period, totalling to Rs.87,22,00,000/-. The report
refers to the basis of calculation of loss of profit at para 6.2. The
witness has considered the gross revenue on reasonable basis
taking into account the non-commissioning of the machines.
Dusane 20/20 S1590.2011
21 The report of the witness of the witness is seen to be
a detailed report taking into consideration all the relevant
factors. As regards the loss of profit, the witness has calculated
the same on Leasing Assumption. In the facts of the case,
however, though the evidence of the export is unchallenged, I am
inclined to accept the quantum of damages claimed in the plaint
as correct and reasonable. The fourth point for determination is
answered accordingly. Hence, the order.
O R D E R
1 The suit is decreed in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c )
with further interest @18% per annum on the decretal amount
from the date of the decree till payment.
(Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)
