Madras High Court
M/S.Five Star Marine Exports Private ... vs ) Sea Wealth Products Inc on 23 January, 2025
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
2025:MHC:226
C.S. No.480 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Judgment Reserved on 27.09.2024
Judgment Pronounced on 23.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
C.S No.480 of 2013
M/s.Five Star Marine Exports Private Limited
Represented by its Managing Director
Mr.K. Eravikumar,
No.70 (Old No.55) Venkatesa Street, Chintadripet,
Chennai 600 002 ...Plaintiff
Vs.
1) SEA WEALTH PRODUCTS INC.
Represented by its President
Mr.Paul Morris Faustin,
100, S.Electric Ave,
Alhambra, CA 91801, USA.
2) Mr.Paul Morris Faustin,
President SEA WEALTH PRODUCTS INC.
100, S.Electric Ave, Alhambra, CA 91801, USA,
Currently residing at Nalathil House, Neendakara Post,
Karunagapally Village,
Quilon Taluk, Kollam District, Kerala-691 582.
1/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S. No.480 of 2013
3) Umang Sodagar,
Manager-Sales and Accounting,
M/S.SEA WEALTH PRODUCTS,
202, Akansha Building, Opposite Vadilal House,
46, Srimali Society, Navrangpura,
Ahmedabad-380 009 (Gujarat) …Defendants
PRAYER: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side
Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
praying for the following judgment and decree against the defendant:
(i) Directing the Defendants jointly and severally to pay the
plaintiff an amount of Rs.2,56,15,793.37 (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Six
Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Three and
Thirty Seven Paise only) with interest accrued thereon at 18% per
annum from the date of plaint till the date of decree and further
interest from the date of decree till the date of realization at such
interest as this Court may deem fit; and
(ii) Direct the Defendants to pay for the costs of the suit.
For Plaintiff : Mr.T.Mohan, Senior Advocate
for Mr.R.Anish Kumar
2/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S. No.480 of 2013
For Defendants : Mr.A.K.Sriram, Senior Advocate
for M/s Vincent and Vincent for D2
No appearance for D1 & D3
**********
JUDGMENT
The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking a judgment and
decree against the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the
plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,56,15,793.37 along with interest thereon at 18%
per annum from the date of plaint till the date of decree and for
further interest from the date of decree till the date of realization at
such rate as the Court decides. In addition, the plaintiff also prayed
for costs of the suit. In course of trial, the plaintiff relinquished the
claim against the third defendant and confined such claim to the first
and second defendants.
2. In the plaint, the plaintiff averred that it supplied 10
consignments of Frozen Headless Shell On Black Tiger shrimp under
the brand 'Bamboo' by transfer from within the United States of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
America (the USA). After giving credit to amounts paid in respect of
these 10 consignments, the plaintiff stated that a principal sum of
Rs.46,89,261.72 remains unpaid and that the defendants are also
liable to pay interest thereon at 12% p.a. amounting to Rs.5,47,410/-.
Thus, an aggregate sum of Rs.52,36,671.72 was claimed in respect of
amounts remaining due and payable towards these 10 consignments.
3. The plaintiff also stated that Purchase Order No.100470 dated
20th December 2011 and Purchase Order No.100471 dated 20th
December 2011 and 5th April 2012 were issued by the first defendant
for the import of Frozen Raw Head On Fresh Water shrimp under the
brand 'Blue Rose'. Pursuant thereto, the plaintiff stated that it
exported goods as per the above mentioned purchase orders. The
goods were returned subsequently by the defendants. Upon such
return, the goods were sold at a discount. The plaintiff also stated
that it suffered interest loss, foreign exchange loss, cold storage
charges and transportation charges in relation to the return of these
goods by the defendants. Towards this head, the plaintiff claims an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
aggregate sum of Rs.67,82,147/-.
4. Apart from the above, the plaintiff stated that the first
defendant issued Purchase Order No.100477 on 5th April 2012 for
supply of Frozen Raw Head Less Shell on Black Tiger shrimps under
the 'Sea Wealth' brand. The total supply value was US $ 199,233.60
which is equivalent to Rs.1,13,17,464.65 at the exchange rate of Rs.54
per US $ as per the rates prevailing on the date of institution of the
suit. After reckoning interest on the principal sum of Rs.1,13,17,464.65
and adding foreign exchange loss of Rs.1,16,846/- and Government
incentive loss of Rs.7,74,720/-, an aggregate claim of Rs.1,35,96,974.65
was made on this account.
5. The plaintiff asserts that all the communications relating to
the aforementioned supplies and payments in respect thereof were
between the plaintiff and the second defendant. The plaint draws
reference to several of these emails. The plaintiff also asserts that the
second defendant is the principal officer of the first defendant and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
holds 90% of the paid-up share capital/stock of said first defendant.
According to the plaintiff, the second defendant filed bankruptcy
proceedings before the court in the USA and that, therefore, it
becomes clear that the first defendant was used as a facade by the
second defendant to defraud suppliers of shrimp, such as the
plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff asserts that the corporate veil of
the first defendant is liable to be lifted so as to grant the judgment
and decree against the first and second defendants jointly and
severally.
6. In spite of service of suit summons, the first defendant failed
to appear either in person or through counsel. The second and third
defendants filed written statements.
7. In the written statement of the second defendant, the second
defendant asserted that he is a foreign national, who is not resident in
India, and, therefore, not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court.
The second defendant further stated that he became the President of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the first defendant on 1st February 2013 and that Mr.Jolly Tharayil
was the President prior thereto. The second defendant also stated
that the day-to-day affairs of the first defendant were managed by the
Board of Directors with guidance from the Chief Financial Officer,
the Chief Executive Officer and other officers of the first defendant.
8. As regards the 10 consignments, i.e. goods which were
already imported into the USA and stored in a warehouse called
“US Growers Cold Storage Inc” in the State of California at Los
Angeles, USA, the second defendant stated that the first defendant
was unable to sell these goods to its customers. The second defendant
further stated that some customers returned the goods citing poor
quality; some others refused to pay the price of the goods citing poor
quality; and yet others neither returned the goods nor paid the price
of the goods. In those circumstances, the second defendant stated that
the first defendant had contacted the plaintiff and asked the plaintiff
to inspect and take back the goods. Although the plaintiff promised
to draw up an inventory and take back the goods, it failed to do so.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Hence, the second defendant stated that the first defendant is not
liable to pay any money in respect thereof to the plaintiff.
9. As regards the goods supplied by the plaintiff under
Purchase Order Nos.100470 and 100471, the second defendant stated
that these goods were found unfit for sale in the USA due to poor
quality and, therefore, the first defendant was constrained to return
the goods by refrigerated truck on the specific instructions of the
plaintiff. The second defendant further stated that the first defendant
has raised a credit note on the plaintiff towards costs of shipment /
transportation /storage, etc., which the plaintiff agreed to but failed
to pay.
10. As regards the supply made by the plaintiff under Purchase
Order No.100477, the second defendant stated that the first defendant
was unable to sell the goods to its customers and that the plaintiff
was contacted and requested to take back the goods. As in the case of
Purchaser Order Nos.100470 and 100471, the second defendant stated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that the plaintiff promised to take back the goods but failed to do so.
11. The second defendant also stated that the first defendant
filed for bankruptcy proceedings under Chapter 7 of the United
States Bankruptcy Court on 21st June 2013 and that an amount of US $
199,333 was mentioned in the schedule of unsecured creditors as the
amounts due to the plaintiff from the first defendant. In addition, the
second defendant stated that a sum of US $ 150,000 was mentioned
as the value of goods belonging to the plaintiff out of the total sum of
US $ 250,000 shown as inventory.
12. The second defendant also asserted in the written statement
that the first defendant is a limited liability company and that,
consequently, the second defendant cannot be mulcted with liability
in respect of any claim against the first defendant either as
shareholder or officer. The second defendant denied that he had
conducted the business of the first defendant in a fraudulent manner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. The third defendant stated that he was only acting as the
Manager of the first defendant and that he merely acted in
compliance with the instructions of the first defendant. He also stated
that he did not obtain any pecuniary gain from the suit transactions,
and that he cannot be held liable for the alleged debt owed by the
first defendant to the plaintiff.
14. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were
framed by this Court on 18th October 2019:
“1. Whether the defendants are liable to pay
the plaintiff an amount of Rs.2,56,15,793.37
together with interest thereon at 18% p.a. from the
date of plaint till the date of decree?
2. Whether the 2nd defendant being the
President and Majority shareholder of the 1st
defendant can hide behind the corporate veil of the
1st defendant to avoid payments to the plaintiff for
the supplies effected to the 1st defendant company
and contracted by the 2nd defendant after
deliberately taking steps to declare the the 1st
defendant company a bankrupt company in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
US in anticipation of the present suit and legal
proceedings?
3. Whether the 2nd defendant representing to
the 1st defendant is entitled to act contrary to the
undertaking given to the plaintiff to make
payments for the suppliers effected to the 1st
defendant?
4. Whether the 2nd defendant has any legal
excuse to deny payment to the plaintiff for the
supplies contracted by the 2nd defendant and 3rd
defendant on behalf of the 1st defendant?
5. Whether the present suit initiated against
the defendants is barred merely because a
fraudulent bankruptcy proceeding was initiated to
declare the 1st defendant bankrupt by the 2nd
defendant anticipating the filing of the present
suit?
6. To what other relief the plaintiff is
entitled?”
15. The plaintiff examined Mr.K.Eravikumar, its Managing
Director, as PW1. Mr.K.Eravikumar filed an affidavit by way of
evidence and 131 documents were exhibited through him as Exs.P1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to P131. The second defendant filed an affidavit by way of evidence
and was examined as DW1. Through DW1, 21 documents were
exhibited as Exs.D1 to D21. Both PW1 and DW1 were cross-
examined by learned counsel for the rival party concerned.
Counsel and their contentions:
16. Oral arguments on behalf of the plaintiff were advanced by
Mr.T.Mohan, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr.R.Anish Kumar,
learned counsel. Oral arguments on behalf of the second defendant
were advanced by Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned senior counsel, assisted by
Mr.V.K.Arul Raj, learned counsel. Written arguments and revised
written arguments were filed on behalf of the plaintiff and written
arguments were filed on behalf of the second defendant.
17. Mr.Mohan opened his submissions by stating that the suit
was filed for recovery of money towards supply of goods under 13
purchase orders. With regard to the objection on the ground of
jurisdiction, he contended that the second defendant did not protest
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
while lodging the vakalat. He further submitted that the plaintiff
applied for leave to sue the defendants before this Court and such
leave was granted by allowing A.No.2769 of 2013. He also adverted
to the fact that the second defendant filed an application (A.No.5935
of 2013) to revoke leave and that such application was rejected by
order dated 27th February 2014. In these circumstances, he contended
that it is no longer open to any of the defendants to challenge the
jurisdiction of this Court.
18. The next contention of Mr.Mohan was that the first
defendant sought discharge of liability by filing a petition under
Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Court. He pointed out that
the first defendant failed to obtain an order of discharge. In this
connection, he referred to and relied upon Ex.D17, particularly at
pages 941 to 943 of the convenience typed set. As regards the
personal bankruptcy petition of the second defendant, he pointed out
that the bankruptcy filing was limited to customer debts and did not
extend to business debts. He further submitted that all the email
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
communications on behalf of the first defendant were sent by the
second defendant, who holds more than 90% of the paid-up share
capital/stock of the first defendant and completely controls the first
defendant.
19. By referring to the criminal complaint filed by the plaintiff
against the second defendant, Mr.Mohan pointed out that
anticipatory bail was granted to the second defendant subject to
several conditions, including the surrender of his passport. In breach
of such condition, he submitted that the second defendant fled to the
USA and proceeded to file a bankruptcy petition on behalf of the first
defendant so as to evade liability towards creditors including the
plaintiff. He also submitted that an order of attachment was issued in
respect of one of the immovable assets of the second defendant in
India and that the said attachment order was made absolute after the
application was contested by the second defendant. In this factual
context, he submitted that the corporate veil is liable to be raised to
hold the second defendant liable for the debts of the first defendant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20. With regard to the merits of the matter, Mr.Mohan
submitted that no quality issues were raised by the first and second
defendants upon receipt of the consignments. He then pointed out
that a sum of US $ 199,333 was mentioned in the schedule to the
bankruptcy petition as being due and payable to the plaintiff. He
relied upon the admission of DW1 in response to question No.98 in
course of cross-examination. By also relying upon the answers to
question Nos.1 to 3 by DW1 during cross-examination, he pointed
out that DW1 admitted that he has been the sole shareholder of the
first defendant from May 2013. By relying upon the judgments in
Lakhpat Rai v. Atma Singh, AIR 1962 Punj 228, In Re Sumermul Surana,
AIR 1932 Cal 124, and Veeranna v. Official Assignee, AIR 1940 Mad 47,
he contended that even the adjudication by a foreign court of a
person as an insolvent does not vest an immovable property in India
with the Assignee. By further referring to the answer of DW1 to
question No.257 in course of cross-examination, he submitted that
DW1 admitted that he did not disclose the personal properties in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Kerala in the bankruptcy proceedings in the USA on the ground that
the bankruptcy court does not have jurisdiction over properties
outside the USA. Therefore, he submitted that the plaintiff is entitled
to a decree both against the first and second defendants and to
enforce such decree against the second defendant by bringing the
attached property for sale.
21. As regards lifting the corporate veil, after referring to several
communications from the second defendant with regard to the liability to
make payment, he referred to and relied upon several judgments. Paragraph
20 of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Murli Manohar Leasing and
Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Intraport India Ltd, 2009 SCC OnLine Delhi 2026,
was relied upon with regard to the principles relating to lifting of the
corporate veil. Singer India Limited v. Chander Mohan Chadha, (2004) 7
SCC 1, particularly paragraph 15 thereof, was relied upon for the
proposition that the corporate veil may be disregarded if the corporate
personality is being used as a cloak for fraud or for improper conduct or if
the company was formed to evade obligations imposed by law. The
judgment of the Delhi High Court in Saurabh Exports vs Blaze Finlease
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
And Credits Pvt. Ltd., (2006) 129 DLT 429, was also relied upon for the
principle that a money decree could be passed against the directors of the
company if it is found that the company was a front for the business of the
directors. As regards violation of the conditions imposed while granting
anticipatory bail, he relied on an order of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in Dr.William Dean v. State of Punjab and Another, Crl-M. No.54203
of 2021 (OandM), dated 07.02.2024, wherein the Court imposed costs of
Rs.10 lakhs.
22. Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned senior counsel, made submissions in
response. By way of preliminary objections, he submitted that the
plaintiff was aware of the bankruptcy proceedings in the USA. In this
connection, he referred to paragraph 93 of the plaint, the answers of
PW1 to question Nos.105 to 108 and 121 to 124, and Exs.D17 to D20.
According to him, knowledge of bankruptcy proceedings is sufficient
and receipt of notice in such proceedings is not necessary for such
proceedings to be valid and binding on the plaintiff. He also referred
to the personal insolvency proceedings of the second defendant by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
drawing attention to Ex.D20.
23. The next preliminary objection raised by him was on the
ground that Mr.Eravi Kumar was disqualified as director on the date
of passing the resolution to file the present suit. In order to
substantiate this contention, he referred to the answers of PW1 to
question Nos.1 to 8 and 82 to 92 in course of cross-examination. As
regards the scope of Order XXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(the CPC), he submitted that the same only authorises verification of
pleadings, but not the institution of a suit. In support of this
proposition, he relied upon the judgment in Indian Commerce and
Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Swatharma Swarajya Sangha, 1998-1-L.W.195.
24. On the merits of the dispute, the first contention of
Mr.Sriram was that the plaintiff failed to submit a statement of
account indicating the total value of goods supplied, the value of
damaged goods, the amount realized by sale to third party buyers
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and the like so as to sustain a money claim in respect of supply of
goods. On this issue, he referred to the answers of PW1 to question
Nos.133 and 134 and Ex.P92, which was relied upon by PW1. He
pointed out that Ex.P92 does not contain the requisite details to
sustain a money claim, especially when several consignments were
returned to the plaintiff or rejected by the customers of the first
defendant. He also submitted that the Export Credit Guarantee
Corporation (ECGC) paid a sum of Rs.79,50,000/- in respect of goods
supplied under Purchase Order No.100477 to the plaintiff's bank,
IDBI Bank. Consequently, without prejudice to other contentions, he
contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to this claim to that extent.
25. His next contention was that no evidence was adduced by
the plaintiff with regard to the interest claim, foreign exchange loss
claim, price discount claim and cold storage charges in respect of the
originally goods supplied pursuant to Purchase Order Nos.100470
and 100471, and later returned to the plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
26. As regards the supply made under Purchase Order
No.100477, he submitted that the invoice value was disclosed in the
bankruptcy petition. Consequently, he contended that the plaintiff
should have lodged a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings with
regard to this claim. Having failed to do so, he submitted that the
said claim cannot be sustained in this suit.
27. On the question of lifting the corporate veil, learned senior
counsel submitted that the only relevant averments are those in
paragraphs 83 and 93 of the plaint. Likewise, with reference to the
proof affidavit of PW1, he submitted that only paragraphs 97(k), (l)
and (m) are relevant. By referring to the averments in paragraphs 83
and 93 of the plaint, learned senior counsel submitted that these
averments are totally insufficient for the purposes of foisting liability
on the second defendant by lifting the corporate veil. In this regard,
he pointed out that the first defendant was incorporated in 2001,
whereas the transactions forming the subject of the suit took place
much later. He also pointed out that the bankruptcy petition (Ex.D17)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
discloses several creditors and not only the plaintiff. As a corollary,
he contended that it cannot be said that the bankruptcy petition was
filed solely with a view to defeat the claim of the plaintiff. With
regard to the circumstances under which the corporate veil may be
lifted, he referred to and relied upon the following judgments and
concluded his submissions by contending that the facts and
circumstances herein do not justify imposing liability on the second
defendant by piercing the corporate veil:
(i) Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper
Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., (1994) 4 SCC 622
(Skipper Construction), particularly paragraphs
26 to 28 thereof.
(ii) Rakesh Mahajan v. State of U.P. and 4
others, AIR OnLine 2019 ALL 2059, especially
paragraphs 70 to 74 thereof.
(iii) Sanuj Bathla & another v. Manu
Maheswari & another in CRP No.166 of 2018,
order dated 12.04.2021, particularly paragraphs
14 to 17 thereof.
(iv) Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Limited, (2014) 9 SCC 407(Balwant Rai Saluja),
particularly paragraphs 70 to 74 and 82 thereof.
28. By way of rejoinder, Mr.Mohan refuted the contention on
the scope of Order XXIX of the CPC by referring to and relying upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India v.
Naresh Kumar and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 660. He further contended
that the disqualification was set aside with effect from the original
date of alleged disqualification and, therefore, the institution of the
suit was in order. He reiterated that the suit claim was partly
admitted. With regard to the payment of Rs.79,50,000/- by ECGC, he
contended that the plaintiff is required to pay ECGC this amount
upon receipt thereof from the first and second defendants, and that
the claim cannot be rejected on that count. As regards evidence in
support of the claims, he submitted that all claims are supported by
documentary evidence, except for the claims towards interest and
foreign exchange losses. As regards these, he contended that the
claims may be decided on the basis of undisputed information in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
public domain regarding prevailing interest and conversion rates.
Discussion, analysis and conclusion
29. Out of the six issues framed by this Court, the 6th issue
pertains to the implications of the bankruptcy proceeding on the
prosecution of the suit. Since this is a preliminary issue, it is dealt
with first. A document relating to the bankruptcy proceedings of the
first defendant was exhibited through DW1 as Ex.D17. The document
discloses that the said petition was filed by the first defendant, Sea
Wealth Products Inc., through the second defendant, Mr.Paul Morris
Faustin. The petition was lodged under Chapter 7 of the United
States Bankruptcy Code on 21st June 2013.
30. At page 927 of the convenience typed set, the details of
current partners, officers, directors and shareholders of the first
defendant are set out. In relevant part, it reads as under:
“b. If the debtor is a corporation, list all officers and
directors of the corporation, and each stock holder who
directly or indirectly owns, controls, or holds 5 percent or
more of the voting or equity securities of the corporation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
NAME AND ADDRESS TITLE NATURE AND
PERCENTAGE
OF STOCK
OWNERSHIP
Paul Morris President/Secretary 100%
8238 Sheffield Road
San Gabriel, CA 91775”
In response to question Nos.1 to 3 in course of cross-examination,
DW1 stated as under:
“Q1: Who were the major shareholders of the 1st
defendant company at the time of initiation of
bankruptcy proceedings?
A: Just me.
Q2: Would I be right in saying that your wife and
son were also shareholders in the company for a
substantial a period of time prior to the
bankruptcy?
A: No.
Q3:How long were you the sole shareholder of the
1st defendant company?
A: I became the sole shareholder of the 1st
defendant company from May 2013. Witness adds:
I do not know the exact date.”
31. When Ex.D17 and the answers of DW1 are considered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
jointly, it is abundantly clear that the second defendant was the sole
shareholder of the first defendant at the time of lodging of the
bankruptcy petition on 21st June 2013. In response to Question No.99
in course of cross-examination, DW1 admitted that he did not file any
evidence of service of notice on the plaintiff in the bankruptcy
proceedings. The relevant Question No.99 and the answer thereto are
set out below:
“Q99: Have you filed any proof to show that
notice was served on the plaintiff in the
bankruptcy proceedings?
A:No. Because bankruptcy court does not give me
the freedom to follow up on every mail that goes
out to the creditors. On one occasion the
supervisor showed me the addresses and list of all
the creditors which I had to certify as correct so I
assumed that they were all served with the notice.”
The bankruptcy petition appears to have been closed on 11th June
2014 as per pages 941 to 943 of the convenience typed set. At page
941, it is recorded as under:
“disposition: Discharge Not Applicable”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
32. In spite of the plaintiff contending expressly that the claims
against the first defendant were not discharged in the bankruptcy
proceedings, the second defendant has failed to effectively counter
such contention, including by placing necessary evidence on foreign
law. The following answers of DW1 in response to questions 271-273
during cross-examination are relevant in this regard:
“A271: What is meant by “NO DISCHARGE” at
page no.56 of Ex.D17?
A: This is the standard legal phrasing in the US of
company bankruptcy proceedings.
Q272. The witness is shown Ex.D17 page No.54.
What is meant by “Debtor Disposition: Discharge
Not Applicable”?
A: I do not know.
Q273: I put it to you that “NO DISCHARGE”
means the 1st defendant company is not entitled
for protection under bankruptcy code?
A: No. It is a wrong interpretation”
33. The first defendant, which is an entity entirely under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
control of the second defendant, has chosen not to contest the
proceedings although the second defendant has actively contested
the same. There is also no evidence that the first defendant was
dissolved, either pursuant to the bankruptcy proceedings or
otherwise, and has ceased to exist as an entity. DW1 also admitted
that there is no evidence of service of notice on the plaintiff in the
bankruptcy proceedings. In these facts and circumstances, it
certainly cannot be concluded that these proceedings are barred
against the first defendant either on account of the bankruptcy
proceedings or for any other reason.
34. As regards the personal bankruptcy proceedings of the
second defendant, the plaintiff contended that the bankruptcy
proceedings are confined to customer debts and would not have any
impact on business debts. The second defendant has not placed on
record any evidence of the outcome of these personal bankruptcy
proceedings. In addition, on being questioned with regard to the
failure to disclose the immovable assets of the second defendant in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the bankruptcy proceedings in the USA, the second defendant (DW1)
admitted that courts in the USA do not have jurisdiction over the
immovable assets of said defendant in India.
35. On the basis of the above discussion and analysis, I
conclude that the present suit is not barred in view of the bankruptcy
proceedings in the United States. Issue No.5 is disposed of on these
terms.
36. Issue Nos.2 to 4 pertain to the liability of the second
defendant for the dues of the first defendant. Since these issues are
interrelated, they are dealt with and disposed of jointly. As stated
earlier, Ex.D17, particularly the statement of financial affairs, Sl.No.12
thereof, discloses that the second defendant owns 100% of the stock
of the first defendant. The said document also discloses that he is the
President of the Corporation. The names of no other directors or
officers are disclosed therein. In response to Question Nos.1 to 3 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
course of cross-examination on 19th April 2022, DW1 admitted that he
was the sole shareholder of the company from May 2013, i.e. even
before the bankruptcy petition was filed.
37. The information disclosed in Ex.D17 contradicts the
statement made by the second defendant in paragraph 8 of the
written statement to the effect that the first defendant is managed by
a board of directors consisting of Mr.Jolly Tharayil, Mr.Paul Morris,
Mr.Sanjay Paul and Mr.Patrick Law. It also contradicts the statement
made in paragraph 12 of the written statement to the effect that the
day-to-day affairs and management of the business is the collective
responsibility of the board of directors.
38. In course of cross-examination, DW1 was asked whether the
plaintiff and its claims was one of the reasons for filing the
bankruptcy petition in the USA. The relevant question No.120 and
the answer thereto are as under:
“Q.120 Have you alleged that the plaintiff
was the reason for you to file bankruptcy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
proceedings in the U.S.?
A: One of the reasons.”
The plaintiff asserted in the plaint that the second defendant assured
payment by the first defendant of amounts payable towards goods
supplied in multiple communications with the plaintiff. It is sufficient
to refer to the following communications. By email of 17th November
2012 (Ex.P91), the second defendant, communicating on behalf of the
first defendant, stated as under:
“From: Paul Morris
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 17 November 2012 00:19
To Five Star Marine
Cc:[email protected], Daniel
Chitsten
Subject: Final Account of Five Star as of 11/14/12
Dear Ravi,
Since Umang was back last night, we have
prepared the final account as per books. The
differences that you may have is highlighted in red
with comments. As such we owe you $199,382.40
from our PO 100477 and $71,637.12 from the
stock transfer. I will start our discussion with Mr.
Daniel Christen on the repayment possibilities on
PO 100477 and will discuss with you how we
should settle the stock transfer portion.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Best regards
Paul Morris
SEA WEALTH
100 S. Electric Ave
Alhambra, CA 91801
Phone:626-289-7196
Cell 626-826-2780
www.seawealthproducts.com”
39. In response, the plaintiff, by email of 17th November 2012
(Ex.P92), made a claim of US $ 86,838.98 towards local stock transfer
and a further claim of US $ 199, 238.60 towards the export
consignment under Purchase Order No.100477. By reply dated 21st
November 2012 from the first defendant through the third defendant,
liability of US $ 199382.40 + US $ 71637.12 was admitted. The relevant
email is set out below:
“From:
Umang-Sea Wealth Products Inc
[mailto:[email protected])
Sent: 21 November 2012 02:03
To: 'Five Star Marine'; [email protected]
Cc: 'Daniel Christen'
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Subject: Resending account as of 11/20/12 of Five Star Marine
Ravi:
Attaching our account in PDF version. Please note we are
showing total payable $ 271,019.52. Please double check at
your end. I have highlighted the missing information.
Please double check at your end as our account shows
$199,382.40 + $71,637.12 payable to you.
Regards,
Umang Sodagar
Sea WEALTH
Sea Wealth Products Inc
100 S Electric Ave
Unit # 1,
(Alhambra CA 91801) direct: (626) 737 1247
t:(626) 289 7196 ext 103
f.(626)289 3076
[email protected]
www.seawealthproducts.com”
40. The plaintiff has placed on record the order issued by this
Court in the anticipatory bail petition filed by the second defendant.
The said order was exhibited as Ex.P111. Paragraph 11 of the said
order sets out the bail conditions, which are as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“11. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be
released on bail, in the event of arrest, on his
executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand only) together with two sureties
each for a like sum to the satisfaction of XIV
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, and on further
condition that he shall appear before the
respondent police everyday twice at 10.30 AM and
5.30 PM for a period of two weeks and thereafter
as and when required. The petitioner is further
directed to surrender his passport before the
Magistrate concerned.
Petitioner shall surrender before the Court
referred to above, for executing the bond and
furnishing sureties within two weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, this
order shall stand cancelled.”
41. The admitted position is that the second defendant failed to
comply with the conditions by surrendering his passport and instead
left for the USA. The anticipatory bail order was issued on 10th April
2013. The bankruptcy petition was lodged soon thereafter by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
second defendant for and on behalf of the first defendant on 21 st June
2013. As narrated earlier, the second defendant admitted in course of
cross-examination that the plaintiff was one of the reasons for
lodging the bankruptcy petition.
42. The second defendant/DW1 was questioned about the
violation of the conditions imposed by this Court while granting
anticipatory bail. The relevant questions and answers are as under:
“Q121: How did you leave India after
obtaining anticipatory bail?
A: I legally left. I took a flight.
Q122. From which Airport did you leave
India?
A: I do not remember.
Q123: Did you inform the authorities at the
Airport about your anticipatory bail conditions?
A:I do not remember.
Q124: At the time you left the country you
were aware that you had to surrender your
passport to the Jurisdictional Magistrate?
A:I do not know.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Q125: Please see Ex.P111. Is this order not
passed in your petition?
A: I have not seen this order.
Q126: Is this the first time you are seeing
this order?
A:Yes. I was only told about an order and I
was legally advised not to comply.
Q127: Who told you not to comply with the
court order?
A: I refuse to say. It was a legal opinion.”
43. The pleadings and evidence on record disclose that the first
defendant is an entity in which the second defendant holds 100% of
the share capital/stock. The only officer disclosed in the bankruptcy
proceedings in the USA is the second defendant. The bankruptcy
proceeding was initiated by the second defendant for and on behalf
of the first defendant on 21st June 2013, which is a few months after
the conditional order of anticipatory bail was issued on 10th April
2013. The answers of DW1 to Question Nos.121 to 127 disclose that
the conditional order of bail was contravened by leaving the country
without surrendering the passport as directed. The material
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
communications relating to the liability of the first defendant to
discharge its debts to the plaintiff emanated from the second
defendant.
44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the facts and
circumstances in which the corporate veil of an entity may be lifted in
multiple judgments such as Skipper Construction and Balwant Rai
Saluja. It is sufficient to set out paragraphs 71 and 74 of Balwant Rai
Saluja:
“71.In recent times, the law has been
crystallized around the six principles formulated by
Munby J. in Ben Hashem v. Ali Shayif. The six
principles, as found at paras 159– 64 of the case are as
follows-
(i) Ownership and control of a company were
not enough to justify piercing the corporate veil;
(ii) the Court cannot pierce the corporate veil,
even in the absence of third party interests in the
company, merely because it is thought to be necessary
in the interests of justice;
(iii) the corporate veil can be pierced only if
there is some impropriety;
(iv) the impropriety in question must be linked
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to the use of the company structure to avoid or conceal
liability;
(v) to justify piercing the corporate veil, there
must be both control of the company by the
wrongdoer(s) and impropriety, that is use or misuse of
the company by them as a device or facade to conceal
their wrongdoing; and
(vi) the company may be a ‘façade’ even though
it was not originally incorporated with any deceptive
intent, provided that it is being used for the purpose of
deception at the time of the relevant transactions. The
Court would, however, pierce the corporate veil only so
far as it was necessary in order to provide a remedy for
the particular wrong which those controlling the
company had done.
....
74.Thus, on relying upon the aforesaid
decisions, the doctrine of piercing the veil allows the
Court to disregard the separate legal personality of a
company and impose liability upon the persons
exercising real control over the said company.
However, this principle has been and should be applied
in a restrictive manner, that is, only in scenarios
wherein it is evident that the company was a mere
camouflage or sham deliberately created by the persons
exercising control over the said company for the
purpose of avoiding liability. The intent of piercing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
veil must be such that would seek to remedy a wrong
done by the persons controlling the company. The
application would thus depend upon the peculiar facts
and circumstances of each case.”
Thus, in a nut-shell, the corporate veil may be lifted or pierced if an
individual has control over the company and misuses the corporate
veil as a device or facade to evade liability.
45. For reasons set out above, the facts and circumstances of this
case justify and warrant piercing the corporate veil to fasten liability
on the second defendant. Issue Nos.2 to 4 are disposed of in these
terms.
46. Issue No.1 pertains to the liability of the defendants to pay
the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,56,15,793.37 with interest thereon at 18%
p.a. from the date of plaint till the date of decree. As stated at the
outset, this claim consists of about three components. The three
components are set out at paragraph 4 of the plaint. Out of these
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
components, the first component pertains to the amounts
outstanding towards supply of 10 consignments on local stock
transfer basis under the brand “Bamboo” and for the value of
retained stock pertaining to Purchase Order Nos. 100470 and 100471.
47. The claim is for a sum of US $ 86838.18, which includes the
principal claim of Rs.46,89,261.72 and interest claim of Rs.5,47,410/-.
Both in Exs.P91 and P93, as regards this claim, a sum of US $ 71637.12
has been admitted as due and payable. By virtue of such admission, it
is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove the claim to this extent.
Ex.P92 is a statement of account for the sum of US $ 86838.98. The
computation provided therein is as follows. The aggregate value of
3890 cartons that were transferred by local stock transfer was US $
343829.50. A sum of US $ 164980.52 was received as part payment.
While returning goods supplied under Purchase Order Nos.100470
and 100471, stocks of the value of US $ 36494 were retained by the
contesting defendants. By adding this amount to US $ 343829.50 and
deducting the sum of US $ 164980.52 therefrom, the net receivable of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
US $ 86838.18 was arrived at. The relevant purchase orders were filed
as Exs.P4-P10 and P12-P14. Corresponding invoices were filed as
Exs.P15-P17, P31, P37, P41 and P47-P49. In response to Ex.P92, the
first defendant issued email of 21 November 2012. This email refers
to an attached statement of account, but neither party has placed the
same on record. On balance of probability, especially in the absence
of effective rebuttal, this claim stands proved. On account of the
conclusions reached while disposing of Issue Nos.2 to 4, the second
defendant also becomes liable for this claim.
48. The second component of the suit claim is for a sum of
Rs.67,82,147/- towards alleged losses suffered on account of return of
consignments by the defendants. The details of this claim are set out
in Table X and XI at internal pages 28 to 30 of the plaint. The claim
consists of four components. These components are interest, foreign
exchange loss, price discount and cold storage charges and transport
charges.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
49. The defence raised by the second defendant is that the
goods were returned by the first defendant to the plaintiff because
they did not meet the quality requirements or standards. In the
written statement, the second defendant asserted that these goods
were taken back by the plaintiff without demur. It was further stated
that the defendant failed to adduce evidence with regard to the re-
sale of such goods at discount or with regard to any of the claims
made under Sl. Nos.1 to 3 of Tables X and XI.
50. On examining the documentary and oral evidence of the
plaintiff, the first aspect to be noticed is that the plaintiff appears to
have accepted the return of goods without communicating that it is at
the risk and cost of the first and second defendants. It is also
conspicuous that no credible documentary evidence of resale,
including the alleged discounted resale price, is available. Although
the plaintiff relied on Ex.P101 in this regard, on examining the same,
it is not possible to discern whether it pertained to stock returned by
the first defendant or, more importantly, to conclude that the re-sales
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
were at a discount. Likewise, no evidence of foreign exchange losses
was adduced. As regards cold storage charges and transport charges,
the plaintiff relied on Ex.P100. As in the case of alleged discounted
re-sales, on the basis of Ex.P100, it is not possible to identify the
shrimp stocks it pertains to. For these reasons, including the failure to
submit a statement of account in this regard, the contention of the
second defendant is liable to be accepted and the suit claim as
regards the alleged loss of Rs.67,82,147/- towards the return of
consignments of Frozen Head-on Shell on Freshwater Shrimp
exported under the brand 'Blue Rose' is rejected.
51. The third component of the suit claim is for US $ 199,233.60
towards export of Frozen Raw Headless Shell on Black Tiger shrimp
under the brand 'Sea Wealth' pursuant to Purchase Order No.100477.
The claim consists of the principal sum of Rs.1,13,17,464.65 + interest
of 13,87,944 + foreign exchange loss of 1,16,846/- + Government
incentive loss at Rs.7,74,720/-. As regards this claim, there is an
admission both in Exs.P91 and P93 to the extent of US $ 199,382.40.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Similarly, in the bankruptcy petition, at Schedule F, the first
defendant acting through the second defendant, disclosed claims of
US $ 199,333 towards the above mentioned purchase order and a
further sum of US $ 71637.12/- towards the first component
discussed above. In the written statement of the second defendant,
this claim was dealt with as under:
“21. The Defendant submits that, 1st Defendant had also
issued import purchase order on the Plaintiff, the details
whereof is given hereunder:
S No Purchase Dated Descriptio Invoice Value of Goods Supplied
order No n of the No/Dated
Goods In USD In INR
supplied/
Exported
12 100477 04.05.2012 Frozen FSMP/SW 1,99,233.6 113,17,464
Raw Head P/005/201 0 .65
Less Shell 2-13 Dated
on Black 10.05.2011
Tiger
Shrimps
“Sea
Wealth”
Brand
22. The Defendant submits that, however the 1st
Defendant was not able to sell the "Goods" to the customers. In
fact, some customers returned the "Goods" citing poor quality,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
some customers refused to pay the price of the "Goods" citing
poor quality and some customers neither returned the "Goods"
nor paid the price of the "Goods".
23. The Defendant submits that, therefore the 1st
Defendant had contacted the Plaintiff asking them to inspect
and take back the returned "Goods" so that the accounts could
be finalized and settled. The Plaintiff promised to take an
inventory and take back the returned "Goods" and adjust the
sale price, but failed to do so. On account of shortage of
quantity and lack of quality the Defendant is not liable to pay
any money to the Plaintiff.”
52. The second defendant failed to adduce any evidence to
substantiate the assertions in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the written
statement with regard to the poor quality of the consignment, the
alleged return of goods by the first defendant's customers or the non-
payment by such customers. In these facts and circumstances, on
appreciation of the evidence on record, the only reasonable
conclusion is that the claim stands proved on balance of probability.
The other defence on the basis of the payment of Rs. 79,50,000/- by
ECGC was refuted by the plaintiff on the ground that the amount is
liable to be refunded to ECGC upon recovery of the same from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
contesting defendants. In response to Question No.55 in cross-
examination, PW1 deposed to this effect. Therefore, the claim cannot
be rejected for this reason. Since the amount has remained unpaid
from May 2012, the plaintiff is also entitled to interest on this claim.
Interest has been claimed and computed at 12% p.a. from 24th May
2012. By taking into account the interest rate prevailing at the
relevant point of time, the claim is reasonable notwithstanding the
absence of a contractual rate of interest. The claims towards foreign
exchange loss due to crystallisation by bank (Rs.1,16,846) and
Government incentive losses (Rs.7,74,720/-) are, however, rejected
due to lack of credible evidence.
53. The plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.2,59,683/- as court fee. As
the partly successful party, the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- towards court fee and a further sum of Rs.4,00,000/-
towards lawyer's fees and other expenses. In the aggregate, the
plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
54. In the result, the suit is partly decreed by directing the first
and second defendants to pay the plaintiff the following:
(i) a sum of Rs.52,36,671.72, including the principal sum of
Rs.46,89,261.27 and interest of Rs.5,47,410/- up to 31 May 2013,
towards balance dues for supply of 10 consignments of shrimp on
local stock transfer basis under the brand “Bamboo”, and for the
price of retained goods under Purchase Order Nos.100470 and
100471.
(ii) a sum of Rs.1,27,05,408.65 towards supply of shrimp
pursuant to Purchase Order No.100477, which sum consists of the
principal sum of Rs. 1,13,17,464.65 and interest of Rs.13,87,944/- up
to 31 May 2013.
(iii) The principal sums of Rs.46,89,261.27 and Rs. 1,13,17,464.65
shall be paid with further interest on these amounts from the date of
plaint till the date of decree at 12% per annum and at 6% p.a. from
the date of decree until realisation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(iv) a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as costs to the plaintiff.
(v) The order of attachment issued earlier in this suit shall
remain in force until the decree is fully discharged.
23.01.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking/Non-speaking Order: Yes/ No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kal
Plaintiff's witness:
Mr.K.Eravikumar - P.W.1
Second defendant's witness:
Mr.Paul Morris Faustin - D.W.1
Documents exhibited by the plaintiff:
Sl.No. Description
Ex.P1 The Board Resolution of the plaintiff authorizing the signatory dated
20.08.2021.
Ex.P2 The print out copy of Direct Exports Against Purchase orderP.O
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
No.100470 issued by 1stdefendant to plaintiff dated 20.12.2011 along
with enclosures and originals of Pre shipment report, test report, Bill
of lading, certificate of origin declaration Form. (The learned counsel
for the 2nddefendant objected the 65 B certificate enclosed are not
conformity under section 65 B proviso four) (Affidavit under section
65 B filed).
Ex.P3 The print out copy of Direct Export Against Purchase order P.O
No.100471 also dated 5/4/2012) issued by 1stdefendant to plaintiff
dated 20.12.2011 along with enclosures and originals of pre-shipment
report, Test report, Bill of lading, Declaration Form (The learned
counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate enclosed
are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four) (Affidavit under
section 65 B filed).
Ex.P4 The print out copy Mail attaching purchase order of the defendant to
the plaintiff for stock transfer in P.O.No.L00863/02.02.2012 dated
03.02.2012 (The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65
B certificate enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso
four) (Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P5 The print out copy of Mail from 3rdDefendant to plaintiff attaching
PO.No.L00864 and mail attaching revised P.O.No.L00864 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P6 The Mail attaching purchase Order of the defendant to the plaintiff
for stock transfer in P.O.No.L00865/07.02.2012. (The learned
counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate enclosed
are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four) (Affidavit under
section 65 B filed).
Ex.P7 The Mail attaching purchase order of the defendant to the plaintiff for
stock transfer in P.O.No.L00866 / 03.05.2012 (The learned counsel
for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate enclosed are not
conformity under section 65 B proviso four) (Affidavit under section
65 B filed).
Ex.P8 The Mail attaching purchase order of the defendant to the plaintiff for
stock transfer in P.O.No.L00872/07.03.2012 (The learned counsel for
the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate enclosed are not
conformity under section 65 B proviso four) (Affidavit under section
65 B filed).
Ex.P9 The Mail attaching purchase order of the defendant to the plaintiff for
stock transfer in P.O.No.L00876/23.03.2012 (The learned counsel for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate enclosed are not
conformity under section 65 B proviso four) (Affidavit under section
65 B filed)
Ex.P10 The Mail attaching purchase order of the defendant to the plaintiff for
stock transfer in P.O.No.L00877 / 02.04.2012 (The learned counsel
for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate enclosed are not
conformity under section 65 B proviso four) (Affidavit under section
65 B filed).
Ex.P11 The print out copy of Direct Exports Against Purchase order P.O
No.100477 issued by 1st Defendant to plaintiff together along with
enclosures and originals of pre-shipment report, Test report, Bill of
lading, Declaration Form (The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant
objected the 65 B certificate enclosed are not conformity under
section 65 B proviso four) (Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P12 The print out copy of Mail attaching purchase order of the defendant
to the plaintiff for stock transfer in O.P.No.L00883/ 11.05.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nddefendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P13 The print out copy of Mail attaching purchase order of the defendant
to the plaintiff for stock transfer in O.P.No.L00884/ 14.05.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nddefendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed)
Ex.P14 The print out copy of Mail attaching purchase order of the defendant
to the plaintiff for stock transfer in O.P.No.L00885/ 14.05.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nddefendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P15 The print out copy of Invoice No.FSMP/SWP/TRF/002/2011- 2012
for P.O.No.L00863 together with details of cases released from US
Growers Cold Storage Inc. dated 02.02.2012. (The learned counsel
for the 2nd defendant objected the 65B certificate enclosed are not
conformity under section 65 B proviso four) (Affidavit under section
65 B filed).
Ex.P16 The print out copy of Invoice No FSMP/SWP/TRF/002/2011- 2012
for P.O.No.L00864 together with details of cases released from US
Growers Cold Storage Inc. dated 07.02.2012. (The learned counsel
for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate enclosed are not
conformity under section 65 B proviso four) (Affidavit under section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
65 B filed).
Ex.P17 The print out copy of Invoice No.FSMP/SWP/TRF/003/2011- 2012
for P.O.No.L00865 together with details of cases released from US
Growers Cold Storage Inc. dated 07.02.2012 (The learned counsel for
the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate enclosed are not
conformity under section 65 B proviso four) (Affidavit under section
65 B filed).
Ex.P18 The print out copy Mail from 2nd Defendant to Motiphilip dated
09.02.2012 (The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the
65 B certificate enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B
proviso four) (Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P19 The print out copy Mail from 2nd Defendant to Moti philip dated
10.02.2012 (The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the
65 B certificate enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B
proviso four) (Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P20 The print out copy Mail from 2ndDefendant to Moti philip dated
15.02.2012 (The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the
65 B certificate enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B
proviso four) (Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P21 The print out copy email from 2nd Defendant to Gadler dated
15.02.2012 (The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the
65 B certificate enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B
proviso four) (Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P22 The print out copy email from 3rd Defendant to plaintiff dated
16.02.2012 (The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the
65 B certificate enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B
proviso four) (Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P23 The print out copy of email from 2nddefendant to plaintiff dated
21.02.2012 (Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P24 The Email from 2nddefendant to plaintiff dated 02.03.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P25 The Email from 2nd defendant to Timothy Jr.McDonell dated
24.02.2012 (The learned counsel for the 2nddefendant objected the 65
B certificate enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso
four) (Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Ex.P26 The email from 2nd defendant to plaintiff dated 28.02.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex P27 The Email from plaintiff to 2nd defendant dated 28.02.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nddefendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P28 The Email from 2nd defendant to plaintiff dated dated 29.02.2012
(The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B
certificate enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso
four) (Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P29 The email from 2nd defendant to plaintiff dated 2.03.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P30 the Email from 2nd defendant to plaintiff dated 03.08.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P31 the print out copy of Invoice No.FSMP/SWP/TRF/004/2011- 2012
Invoice No.FSMP/SWP/TRF/005 2011-2011 Invoice
No.FSMP/SWP/TRF/006/2011-2012 for P.O.No.L00866 together
with details of cases released from US Growers Cold Storage Inc.
(The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B
certificate enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso
four) (Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P32 The Email from 3rd Defendant to Plaintiff dated 05.03.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B four) (Affidavit under
section 65 B filed).
Ex.P33 The Email from Plaintiff to 3rd Defendant dated 6.3.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P34 The Email from 3rd Defendant to Plaintiff and Email from 2nd
Defendant to Plaintiff dated 06.03.2012 and 07.03.2012 respectively
(The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B
certificate enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso
four) (Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Ex.P35 The Email from 3rd Defendant to Plaintiff dated 06.03.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P36 The Email from 2nd Defendant to Plaintiff dated 08.03.2012
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P37 The Invoice No. FSMP/SWP/TRF/008/2011-2012 for P.O.No.
L00876 together with details of cases released from US Growers
Cold Storage Inc. dated 23.03.2012 (The learned counsel for the 2 nd
defendant objected the 65 B certificate enclosed are not conformity
under section 65 B proviso four) (Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P38 The Email from 2nd Defendant to Plaintiff dated 10.03.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P39 The Email from 2nd Defendant to Plaintiff dated 16.03.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nddefendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P40 The Email from 3rd Defendant to Plaintiff dated 21.03.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nddefendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P41 The Invoice No. FSMP/SWP/TRF/007/2011-2012 for P.O.No.
L00877 together with details of cases released from US Growers
Cold Storage Inc.dated 23.03.2012 (The learned counsel for the 2nd
defendant objected the 65 B certificate enclosed are not conformity
under section 65 B proviso four) (Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P42 The Email from 2nd defendant to Plaintiff dated 04.04.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso
four)(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P43 The Email from 3rd Defendant to Plaintiff dated 06.04.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P44 The Email from Plaintiff to 2nd Defendant dated 18.04.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P45 The Email from 3rd Defendant to Plaintiff dated 23.04.2012
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P46 The Email from Plaintiff to 1st Defendant dated 12.05.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P47 The Invoice No. FSMP/SWP/TRF/009/2012-2013 for P.O.No.
L00883 together with details of cases released from US Growers
Cold Storage Inc. dated 11.05.2012 (The learned counsel for the 2 nd
defendant objected the 65 B certificate enclosed are not conformity
under section 65 B proviso four) (Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex. P48 The Invoice No. FSMP/SWP/TRF/010/2012-2013 for P.O.No.
L00884 together with details of cases released from US Growers
Cold Storage Inc. dated 14.05.2012 (The learned counsel for the 2 nd
defendant objected the 65 B certificate enclosed are not conformity
under section 65 B proviso four) (Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P49 The Invoice No. FSMP/SWP/TRF/011/2012-2013 for
P.O.No.L00885 together with details of cases released from US
Growers Cold Storage Inc. dated 14.05.2012 (The learned counsel for
the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate enclosed are not
conformity under section 65 B proviso four) (Affidavit under section
65 B filed).
Ex.P50 The Email from 2nd Defendant to Plaintiff dated 29.05.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P51 The Email from Plaintiff to 2nd Defendant dated 12.06.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P52 The Email from 2nd Defendant to Plaintiff dated 12.06.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P53 The Email from 2nd Defendant to Plaintiff dated 13.07.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P54 The Email from 3rd Defendant to 2ndDefendant dated 18.07.2012
(The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B
certificate enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso
four) (Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P55 The Email from Plaintiff to 2nd defendant dated 27.07.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P56 The photocopy of F.I.R. 1881/2012 registered with the (J-9 Police
Station) Thoraipakkam, Adyar filed by another party in the similar
offense. Dated 21.07.2012.
Ex.P57 The Mail correspondence for taking back of returned consignments
and truck charges paid details dated July 25 to August 4, 2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P58 The Email from 2nd Defendant to Plaintiff dated 03.08.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P59 The Email from Daniel to 3rd Defendant and Email from 3rd
Defendant to Plaintiff both dated 06.08.2012 (The learned counsel for
the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate enclosed are not
conformity under section 65 B proviso four) (Affidavit under section
65 B filed).
Ex.P60 The Email from 3rd Defendant to Plaintiff dated 08.08.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P61 The Email from Plaintiff to 2nd defendant dated 08.08.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P62 The Email from 2nd Defendant to Plaintiff dated 14.08.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P63 The Email from Plaintiff to 2nddefendant dated 18.08.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P64 The Email from 3rd defendant to Plaintiff dated 24.08.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nddefendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P65 The Email correspondence from Plaintiff to 2nddefendant dated
24.08.2012 (The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the
65 B certificate enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B
proviso four) (Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P66 The Email from Plaintiff to 2nd defendant dated 25.08.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P67 The Email from Welcome Fisheries to Plaintiff dated 01.09.2012
(The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B
certificate enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso
four) (Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P68 The Email from Defendant to Welcome fisheries 3rd attaching
accounts dated 06.09.2012 (The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant
objected the 65 B certificate enclosed are not conformity under
section 65 B proviso four) (Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P69 The Email from Plaintiff to 3rd defendant dated 07.09.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P70 The Email from 3rd Defendant to Plaintiff dated 11.09.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P71 The Email from Plaintiff to 1st defendant dated 12.09.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nddefendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Ex.P72 The Email from Plaintiff to 3rddefendant dated 14.09.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P73 The Email from Plaintiff to 2nd defendant dated14.09.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nddefendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P74 The Email from Plaintiff to 2nddefendant dated 24.09.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nddefendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P75 The Email from Plaintiff to 2nd defendant dated 27.09.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nddefendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P76 The Email from 2ndDefendant to Plaintiff dated 25.09.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P77 The Email from Plaintiff to 2 ^ (nd) defendant dated 26.09.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2 ^ (ed) defendant objected the 65 B
certificate enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso
four) (Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P78 The Email from Plaintiff to 2nd defendant dated 01.10.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P79 The Email from Plaintiff to 2nd defendant dated 3.10.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P80 The Email from Defendant to Plaintiff dated 2nd 04.10.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nddefendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P81 The Email from Plaintiff to 2nd defendant dated08.10.2012 (The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P82 The Reminder Email from Plaintiff to 2nddefendant dated16.10.2012
(The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B
certificate enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso
four) (Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P83 The Reminder Email from Plaintiff to 2nddefendant and Reminder
Email from Plaintiff to 2nd defendant both dated 19.10.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nddefendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P84 The Email from 2nd Defendant to Plaintiff dated 19.10.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nddefendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P85 The Email from 2nd Defendant to Plaintiff dated 07.11.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nddefendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P86 The Email from Daniel Christen to Plaintiff dated 31.10.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nddefendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P87 The Email from 2nd defendant to Plaintiff dated 05.11.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nddefendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P88 The Email from Plaintiff to 2nddefendant dated 08.11.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nddefendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P89 The Reminder Email from Plaintiff to 2nddefendant dated 09.11.2012
(The learned counsel for the 2nddefendant objected the 65 B
certificate enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso
four) (Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P90 The Email from 2nd Defendant to Plaintiff dated 11.11.2012 (The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P91 The Email from 2ndDefendant to Plaintiff dated 17.11.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nddefendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P92 The Email from Plaintiff to 2nd defendant dated 17.11.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nddefendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P93 The Email from 3rd Defendant to Plaintiff dated 21.11.2012
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P94 The Email from Plaintiff to 3rd defendant dated 21.11.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P95 The Email from Plaintiff to 2nd defendant dated 30.11.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P96 The Email from 2nd Defendant to Plaintiff dated 30.11.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P97 The Email from 2ndDefendant to Plaintiff dated 7.12.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P98 The Email from Plaintiff to 2nd defendant dated 07.12.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nddefendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P99 The Email from 2nd Defendant to Plaintiff dated 11.12.2012 (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Ex.P100 The Details of storage charges paid by the Plaintiff (Affidavit under
section 65 B filed).
Ex.P101 The Details of goods sold after returned by the 1st Defendant (The
learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate
enclosed are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four)
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P102 The office copy of Criminal Complaint lodged by the Plaintiff with
F1-Chitadripet Police Station 29.12.2012
Ex.P103 The original Complaint Acknowledgment vide Community Service
Register No. 402/2012 filed before the Chintadripet Police Station
dated 31.12.2012.
Ex. P104 The photocopy of Petition for direction u/s 156(3) of CrPC in Crl MP
No.276/2013 dated 18.1.2013.
Ex.P105 The photocopy of Order in Crl MP.No.276/2013 dated 23.01.2013.
Ex.P106 The original of F.I.R.108/2013 registered with the (F1-Police Station)
Chintadripet, Egmore by the Plaintiff dated 03.02.2013.
Ex.P107 The Intimidating Email sent by 2nd defendant to Plaintiff and reply
by the Plaintiff dated 17.02.2013 (The learned counsel for the 2nd
defendant objected the 65 B certificate enclosed are not conformity
under section 65 B proviso four) (Affidavit under section 65 B filed).
Ex.P108 The photocopy of Legal Notice issued by the 2nd Defendant dated
24.03.2013.
Ex.P109 The photocopy of Petition for anticipatory bail by 2nd defendant in
Crl.O.P.MNo.4862/2013 inCr.no.108/2013 dated 25.02.2013.
Ex.P110 The photocopy of Status Report filed by Chintadripet Police in
Crl.OP No.4862 / 2013 in Cr No.108/2013 dated 14.03.2013.
Ex.P111 The original of High Court Order in CrlOP.No.4862/2013 dated
10.04.2013.
Ex.P112 The photocopy of Bail Petition filed by 2nd 30.01.2013.
Ex.P113 The photocopy of Condition Bail granted by the Hon'ble Judicial
Magistrate Court, Alandur in Crime No. 1881/2012 dated
01.02.2013.
Ex.P114 The photocopy of Intervening Petition in Crime No.1881/2012, filed
before the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate Court, Alandur, by the
Plaintiff dated 18.02.2013.
Ex.P115 The Email correspondence of Magnum Estates Ltd. from B.B.Mishra
to Consulate General of India in USA dated 13.02.2013 (The learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
counsel for the 2nd defendant objected the 65 B certificate enclosed
are not conformity under section 65 B proviso four) (Affidavit under
section 65 B filed).
Ex.P116 The office copy of Plaintiff's letter to American Citizen Services
dated 18.02.2013.
Ex.P117 The office copy of Letter from Plaintiff to Chief Public Grievances
Officer, Chennai dated 25.02.2013.
Ex.P118 The office copy of Letter from Plaintiff to Commissioner of Police,
Chennai dated 11.04.2013.
Ex.P119 The office copy of Letter from Plaintiff to Foreign Regional
Registration Office, Chennai-6 dated 03.05.2013.
Ex.P120 The office copy of Letter from Plaintiff to the Chief Public
Grievances 03.05.2013. Officer,, Chennai-2 dated
Ex.P121 The office copy of Letter from Plaintiff to American Citizen
Services, Chennai-2 dated 03.05.2013.
Ex.P122 The office copy of Letter from Plaintiff to Foreign Regional
Registration Office, Chenai-6 dated 13.06.2013.
Ex.P123 The Printout of the U.S journal SEAFAX, article made against due
payments by 1st defendant dated 14.01.2013 (Affidavit under section
65 B filed)
Ex.P124 The Copy of Publication from US journal SEAFAX about 1st
Defendant's Bankruptcy petition filed in US dated 27.06.2013
(Affidavit under section 65 B filed)
Ex.P125 The Bankruptcy Notice issued by US Bankruptcy Court on behalf of
1st Defendant (Affidavit under section 65 B filed)
Ex.P126 The Details of goods locally transferred from US Growers Cold
Storage Inc. for stock transfer (The learned counsel for the 2 ^ (rd)
defendant objected the 65 B certificate enclosed are not conformity
under section 65 B proviso four) (Affidavit under section 65 B filed)
Ex.P127 The photocopy of Details of properties owned by Mr.Paul Morris
Faustin, in Kerala, India.
Ex.P128 The Details of the Mr. Paul Morris Faustin, in their company portal id
[email protected] (The learned counsel for the
2nddefendant objected the 65 B certificate enclosed are not
conformity under section 65 B proviso four) (Affidavit under section
65 B filed)
Ex.P129 The photocopy of Details of amounts due to the various customers by
Mr. Paul Morris Faustin.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Ex.P.130 Invoice No.330311 of William Clarke Company
Ex.P131 Entry Summary of PO.No.100477
Documents exhibited by the second defendant
Ex.D2 The photocopy of certificate of Incorporation dated 6.2.2001
Ex.D3 The photocopy of Articles of Association dated 06.02.2001
Ex.D4 The Bye Laws of 1 ^ (st) defendant dated 05.02.2001
Ex.D5 The Import refusal by FDA dated 24.09.2009
Ex.D6 The Email of plaintiff & defendant dated 13.3.2012
Ex.D7 The Debit memo dated 30.03.2012
Ex.D8 The email of plaintiff to 1st defendant dated 7.7.2012
Ex.D9 The email of plaintiff to 1st defendant dated 03.08.2012
Ex.D10 The email of plaintiff to 3rd defendant dated 03.08.2012
Ex.D11 The email of 3rddefendant to plaintiff dated 04.08.2012
Ex.D12 The Release orders issued to plaintiff dated 06.08.2012
Ex.D13 The defendant August, September 2012 Bank Statement of 1st
defendant
Ex.D14 The IDBI bank ECGC Claims Reg dated 25.09.2012
Ex.D15 The email of 1" defendant dated 30.11.2012
Ex.D16 The Bankruptcy Proceedings of 1 defendant dated 21.06.2013
Ex.D17 The Import refusal by FDA dated 16.07.2013
Ex.D18 The Import refusal by FDA dated 16.7.2013
Ex.D19 The Import refusal by FDA dated 17.9.2013
Ex.D20 The Bankruptcy of 2nd defendant dated 09.12.2013.
Ex.D21 The plaintiff Director Disqualification dated 01.11.2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
23.01.2025
kal
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY J.
kal
Pre-delivery judgment in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
23.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
