IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

No.- of 2015

IN

CS(OS) No. 1126/2015

IN THE MATTER OF:

RAM KISHORE NAGARMAL MARKETING PVT LTD

….PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

TAGHLEEF INDUSTRIES L.L.C ….DEFENDANT

REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT TO THE

COUNTER CLAIM FILED BY PLAINTIFF BEFORE
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS: -

A. That at the very outset the Defendant denies all that has

been alleged, averted, contented and submitted by the

Plaintiff in their Counter Claim filed by them, and

further the contents of the Reply are reaffirmed as true.

B. That the Plaintiff has filed the Counter Claim only as a

counterblast to the already existing suit filed by the

Defendant against the Plaintiff wherein the Plaintiff of

this Counter Claim is liable to pay the duly recoverable

amount as mentioned by the Defendant of this Counter

Claim.
C. That this Counter Claim by the Plaintiff is nothing but

are in the nature of sham proceedings only meant for the

sole purpose to delay the judicial process in the already

sub- judice suit for recovery of money filed by the

Defendant herein against the Plaintiff herein.

D. That the Plaintiff herein has no grounds at all to sustain

and defend in the already pending suit for recovery filed

by the Defendant herein before the High Court of Delhi

and thus this Counter Claim is being initiated by the

Plaintiff to derail the process of justice.

E. That the present Counter Claim is liable to be dismissed

on this ground that it has not been filed by the duly

authorised person / representative of the Plaintiff

Company and no Board Resolution to file the Counter

 Claim has been passed by the Plaintiff Company as per

the rules and thus this Counter Claim has no legal

submissive value in the eyes of law.

F. That the present Counter Claim is not liable to be

allowed on the basis of the completely vague and

frivolous averments made by the Plaintiff in the Counter

Claim under reply. Hence in the present circumstances

the present Counter Claim is liable to be dismissed.

G. That the Counter Claim filed by the Plaintiff is not

maintainable and none of the defense taken by the

Plaintiff are of any legal consequence since the defense

taken by the Plaintiff are completely contradictory to the

written terms and conditions/contents of the written

agreement and document/s between the parties.

H. That the Counter Claim by the Plaintiff is not

maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, as the same is

nothing but an abuse of the process of this Hon’ble

Court and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed

with exemplary costs.

I. That the Counter Claim by the Plaintiff is not

maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, as the

Plaintiff has not come to this Hon’ble Court with clean

hands and have concealed material & vital facts from

this Hon’ble Court & have further, presented a false,

malafide, distorted & incorrect version of the facts

before the Hon’ble Court, and have thereby attempted to

misguide and mislead this Hon’ble Court.

 J. That the present Counter Claim by the Plaintiff is liable

to be dismissed as there is no act or omission on the part

of the Defendant which constitutes deficiency in service

in any manner, hence the present Counter Claim is liable

to be dismissed in limine.

PARA WISE REPLY TO THE COUNTER CLAIM

1. & 2. That the contents of Paragraph numbers 1 and

2 of the Counter Claim are accepted as a matter of record

and hence warrant no reply by the Defendant herein.

3. & 4. That the contents of Paragraph numbers 3 & 4

of the Counter Claim are also admitted as a matter of

record. The Plaintiff had deposited a security

amount/advanced deposit of US $25,000 with the

 Defendant before starting the business relations with each

other.

5. That the contents of para no. 5 of the Counter

Claim are accepted as a matter of record and hence need no

reply.

6. That the contents of para no. 6 of the Counter

Claim are accepted as a matter of record. The Plaintiff had

placed an order for ten containers in July/August, 2014

consisting of three containers of metalized films, one

container of NHS15/18Mic films and six containers of

TPT23 Tape films with the Defendant on cash against

documents basis.
7. That the contents of para 7 of the Counter Claim

under reply are wrong and denied. Each and every averment

made therein is wrong and hence specifically denied. It is

submitted respectfully that the six containers of TPT23

Tape films had no quality issues and had there been such

quality issues in the products, the Plaintiff should have

raised it at the very first opportunity when the same was

allegedly noticed by the Plaintiff and further the same could

have also been brought in at the time of the Agreement

dated 11.11.2014 between the parties with a mention that

the discounted price is being raised and given on these

containers due to some quality issues, but the very fact that

the same was neither ever raised before this date by the

Plaintiff nor brought up in the agreement between the

parties, clearly proves the hollowness of these allegations

and are being raised to only wriggle themselves out of their

 fault and breach of obligation under the agreement and

making of payment for the remaining pending shipment due

to the Defendant for which the Defendant has already filed

a suit for recovery against the plaintiff.

8. That the contents of Para no. 8 of the Counter

Claim under reply are wrong and denied. Each and every

averment made therein is wrong and hence specifically

denied. It is reiterated that the six containers of TPT23 Tape

films had no quality issues and hence no need to ship back

the consignment of the remaining four containers. No such

process for calling back of the containers of the said TPT23

Tape films was started as alleged by the Plaintiff and the

whole story is only made up to cover the dishonest intention

of the Plaintiff of gaining unfair advantage over the

Defendant.
9. That the contents of para. 9 of the Counter

Claim under reply are admitted to the limited extent that an

Agreement dated 11.11.2014 was entered into between the

parties whereby the Defendant agreed to send revised

invoices at a discounted price of $1.85 per kg (from $2.05)

for the four remaining containers of TPT23 tape films and

also agreed to pay $5000 for the wastage incurred in already

cleared two containers of TPT23 Tape films as well as

detention and ground charges of the remaining four

containers till 21.11.2014, only in case the Defendant sent

the revised invoices to the bank of the Plaintiff by

14.11.2014. Each and every averment made therein is

wrong and hence specifically denied. Further it is most

respectfully submitted that in complete compliance with the

aforementioned agreement as executed by the parties, the

Defendant sent the revised discounted invoices to the bank

of the Plaintiff on 12.11.2014, that is, prior to 14.11.2014,

 which is within the time period as mentioned in the

Agreement and as agreed between the parties.

10. That the contents of Paragraph number 10 of

the Counter Claim under reply are wrong and denied. Each

and every averment made therein is wrong and hence

specifically denied. It is submitted that there was no such

email from the Plaintiff to the Defendant to change the date

of 21.11.2014 to 25.11.2014 on the alleged grounds.

11. That the contents of Para no. 11 of the

Counter Claim under reply are wrong and denied. Each and

every averment made therein is wrong and hence

specifically denied. It is submitted that that in complete

compliance with the aforementioned agreement as executed

by the parties, the Defendant sent the revised discounted

invoices to the bank of the Plaintiff on 12.11.2014, that is,

 prior to 14.11.2014, which is within the time period as

mentioned in the agreement and as agreed between the

parties.

12. That the contents of Para no. 12 of the

Counter Claim under reply are wrong and denied. Each and

every averment made therein is wrong and hence

specifically denied. It is submitted that the Plaintiff was to

pay the said amount as per terms and conditions of the

aforesaid agreement but since the Plaintiff didn’t fulfill their

part of the agreement, the same stands void in the eyes of

law.

13. That the contents of para. No. 13 of the

Counter Claim under reply are admitted to the limited

extent that the Defendant had sent a legal notice to the

Plaintiff on 26.11.2014. It is submitted that the Defendant

 honored their part of commitment of the aforesaid

agreement fully.

14. That the contents of Para no. 14 of the

Counter Claim under reply are wrong and denied. Each and

every averment made therein is wrong and hence

specifically denied. It is submitted that the Defendant had

already sent the revised discounted invoices to the bank of

the Plaintiff on 12.11.2014, that is, prior to 14.11.2014,

which is within the time period as mentioned in the

agreement and as agreed between the parties and hence

there was no failure on the part of the Defendant as alleged

by the Plaintiff. It was the Plaintiff who failed to make

payment as per the conditions of the agreement.

15. That the contents of Para no. 15 of the

Counter Claim under reply are accepted as correct and

hence need no further reply.

16. That the contents of Para no. 16 of the

Counter Claim under reply are wrong and denied. Each and

every averment made therein is wrong and hence

specifically denied. It is submitted that there was no

agreement by the Defendant to compensate the Plaintiff for

the wastage incurred by the Plaintiff in the two cleared

TPT23 Taped films and there was no quality issues with

them. Neither were the Defendant liable to pay the sum of

Rs. 3,30,338.40 as per Clause 4 of the aforesaid agreement.

17. That the contents of Para no. 17 of the

Counter Claim under reply are wrong and denied. Each and

every averment made therein is wrong and hence

 specifically denied. It is submitted and reiterated that the

Defendant had already fulfilled their commitments under

the aforesaid agreement hence there lies no cause of action

against them. Since it was the Plaintiff itself that violated

the terms of the agreement, the Defendant has suffered huge

losses in business and hence are not liable to return the

amount of US$ 36000 deposit amount as it shall be used as

a compensation of the same.

18. That the contents of para. No. 18 of the

Counter Claim under reply are admitted to the limited

extent that the Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to try the

counter claim. Each and every averment made therein is

wrong and hence specifically denied. It is submitted that

there is no cause of action against the Defendant and hence

the aforementioned Counter Claim is liable to be dismissed.

19. That the contents of Para no. 19 of the

Counter Claim under reply are wrong and denied. Each and

every averment made therein is wrong and hence

specifically denied.

PRAYER

Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances as

mentioned above, the Defendant prays that this Hon'ble

Court may graciously be pleased to:-

(a) Dismiss the Counter Claim of the Plaintiff with costs;

(b) Award the cost of the present proceedings, in favour of

the Defendant Company;

(c) Pass any other and further relief which this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances

of the case be also passed in favour of the Defendant.

 
 Defendant

Taghleef Industries LLC

Through its Authorised Representative

Mr. Marwan Kiswani

Throug
h

New Delhi JP ASSOCIATES

…/01/2016 Counsel for the Defendant