Dismissed

The Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry of India v. Zeal Infotech Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC11 Jan 2019FAO(OS)/4/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses an appeal against a single judge's decision. The High Court held that the replacement of witness PW-1 by an affidavit was permissible as per earlier submissions and found no reason to interfere with the admission of documents relevant to the controversy regarding Service Tax.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. The plea for witness replacement was treated as unmerited based on prior submissions. The plea regarding document admissibility was rejected.

The Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry of India… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~32

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO(OS) 4/2019 & CM. Nos. 1084/2019 and 1085/2019 THE ASSOCIATED CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY OF INDIA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. J.K. Mittal, Adv.

¶4

versus ZEAL INFOTECH PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through:

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

¶7

O R D E R % 11.01.2019

¶8

CM. No. 1085/2019 (for exemption)

¶9

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶10

Application stands disposed of.

¶11

FAO(OS) 4/2019

¶12

This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order

¶13

dated 5^th December, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissed the

¶14

appeal filed by the appellant. Vide the impugned order the learned Single

¶15

Judge has in Para 3 & 4 and 6 to 10 stated as under:

¶16

“3. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the plaintiff is bound to produce PW-1 for cross-examination and it cannot be permitted to examine another witness in place of PW-1.

¶17

4. After some hearing, learned counsel for the defendants submit that if PW-1 cannot be produced for cross-examination, his affidavit by way of evidence should not be read in evidence. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has no objection to this.

¶18

********

¶19

6. The documents permitted by the learned Joint Registrar are the copies of the bills/invoices alleged to have been sent by the plaintiff to the defendants on the basis of which the plaintiff is claiming the Service Tax.

¶20

7. Learned counsel for the defendants submit that the documents are not relevant for determining the real controversy between the parties. It is further submitted that the documents are forged and were never delivered to the defendant.

¶21

8. This Court is satisfied that the documents are relevant for determining the real controversy between the parties. The defendants contention that the documents were never delivered to the defendant, can be decided after evidence.

¶22

9. There is no infirmity in the order dated 25th September, 2018. There is no merit in the appeal and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited by the defendants with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority within two weeks.

¶23

The grievance of the appellant as urged by Mr. Mittal is that once

¶24

PW1/ Sanjay Jha is not appearing for cross-examination, he could not have been replaced by Ms. Veena Saini as a witness. In this regard, we may state that in Para 4 of the impugned order, the counsel for the appellant had himself submitted that if PW1/Sanjay Jha cannot be produced for crossexamination, the affidavit by way of evidence should not be read in evidence. The said submission was accepted by the counsel for the respondent herein. So the plea of Mr. Mittal is unmerited.

¶25

In so far as the plea on documents is concerned, we find that it is the case of the respondent that as the said documents were not traceable they could not be filed at the time of filing of the suit. We also find that it is the case of the appellant, that it had not received the said documents.

¶26

Be that as it may, the Joint Registrar has accepted the said prayer which had been confirmed by the learned Single Judge finding that those are relevant for determining the real controversy between the parties. We do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding.

¶27

The appeal is dismissed.

¶28

CM. No. 1084/2019 (for stay) Dismissed as infructuous.

¶29

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶30

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶31

JANUARY 11, 2019 /jg

The Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry of India v. Zeal Infotech Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry of India v. Zeal Infotech Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Sabharwal Vs Sneh Lata Sethi & Anr.

Rekha Kapoor Vs Dr Pavan Chandra & Anr.

Mahesh Kumar & Ors. Vs Assam Wood Products Pvt. Ltd.

Himmat Singh Grewal Vs Amrit Kaur (Now Deceased) Bering Represented by Lrs & Ors.

Shradha Poly Prints N Packs P Ltd. Vs Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd.

Sushil Gahlot Vs Mohinder Singh & Ors.

Rms Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Proactive Universal Trading Co. Ltd. & Anr.

M/S Mirage Hospitality & Ors. Vs Hotel Hans Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Raj Kumar Sabharwal Vs Sneh Lata Sethi & Anr.

Harkesh Bhojihoke & Anr. Vs Punjab National Bank & Ors.

Shivam Nayak Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

The Indian Newspaper Society & Anr. Vs the Chairman Press Council of India & Ors.

Radhey Shyam Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Sagar Sharma and Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.