1

IN THE COURT OF HON'BLE CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION,

AT AURANGABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT NO. 256 OF 2020

Bhagirath s/o Mhasuji Kamble ...Plaintiff

Versus

M/s Matoshri Construction and others ...Defendants

Claim: Suit for recovery of amount Rs. 10,81,370.62 along with

interest and compensation.

The defendant Nos. 6 and 7 most humbly submit their Written

Statement as under:

1] That, the contents in Para No.1 to the extent of composition of

plaintiff as the Proprietor of M/s Sai Electricals and Engineers and his
involvement in the business of electrical work and supply of electrical goods.
So also the contractorship under the said name is not disputed. However, the
further contents in this para about the plaintiff used to take contract of
electrical job and of his having earned good reputation and goodwill in the
market, locality and society as well are denied by the defendants herein as the
said contents are not known to them. Further contents in this para in respect
of registration of the plaintiff under the relevant law and filing of suit through
its Proprietor need no reply being matter of record.

2] That, the contents in Para No.2 of the plaint in respect of the

composition of defendant No.1 as Partnership firm are specifically denied by
these defendants since those are not related with the present defendants.
Further contents that the defendant No.1 is Agent or Sub-contractor of
defendant Nos. 6 and 7 for various works is specifically denied by the present
defendants. Further contents in this para about the defendant Nos. 2 and 3
 2
and their relation with defendant No.1 are specifically denied by the present
defendants being not known to them.

The further contents in this para that the defendant No.4 is the
Firm acting as Agent and/or Sub-contractor present defendants for various
works are true and correct. It is also admitted that the defendant No.5 is the
Proprietor of the defendant No.4 Firm. It is also a matter of record that the
defendant No.6 is the registered company and No.7 is the M.N.G.C. office of
the defendant No.6 for the works in Maharashtra and thus the contents to
said extent are admitted. However, the defendant Nos. 6 and 7 specifically
and categorically deny the further contents in this para that they are jointly
and severally are liable and responsible for the claim of plaintiff. The present
defendants specifically deny that they are liable to play any claim in respect
of the present plaintiff

3] That, the contents in Para No. 3 which are in respect of work and
purchase order issued by the present defendants of various electrical, civil
and tower erection works with material at various sites in Maharashtra to the
defendant Nos. 4 and 5 are admitted being the matter of record. However,
the present defendant specifically denied that the said work was allotted to
defendant Nos. 4 and 5 for its completion jointly or through various sub-
contractors. The present defendants specifically deny the further contents in
this para that defendant Nos. 4 and 5 gave the said work to the defendant
Nos. 1 and 3.

4] That, the entire contents in Para No.4 that the plaintiff was given
the work/purchase order of various electrical works with material after
consultation with present defendants by the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are
specifically denied by the present defendants. Further contents in this para
that after negotiations and confirmation of rates, terms and conditions, the
plaintiff accepted the proposal and agreed for the same to the defendants are
specifically denied by the present defendants. The present defendant Nos. 6
 3
and 7 at no point of time entered into any kind of contract or agreement with
the plaintiff or the defendant No.1 to perform the works in question.

5] That, the contents in Para Nos. 5 to 8 which are in respect of the

works carried by the plaintiff and the subsequent bills/invoice raised by the
plaintiff are specifically denied by the present defendants as the said contents
are not related with the present defendants and the defendants herein have
no nexus with whatsoever bills/invoices raised by the plaintiff as averred in
the plaint in aforesaid paragraphs. The averments in the above paragraph
Nos. 5 to 8 are vague and do not assert or suggest any payment on the part of
present defendants.

6] That, the contents in Para Nos. 9 and 10 which are in respect the
liability of defendants as well as part payment made to the plaintiff in
instalments are specifically denied by the present defendants since the said
bills as mentioned in Para No. 9 or the transfer of amount as mentioned in
Para No. 10 are not related in any manner with the present defendants. Thus,
the present defendants specifically and categorically denied their liability
with the plaintiff.

7] That, the contents in Para No. 11 that out of the cumulative

amount of Rs. 12,30,131.90, the defendants have paid amount of Rs.
4,18,499/- to the plaintiff and an amount of Rs. 8,11,632.90 is kept unpaid by
the defendants are also specifically denied by the present defendants. The
plaintiff never raised any claim with the defendants in respect of the
purported amount.

8] That, the contents in Para Nos. 12 to 16 which, in sum and

substance, are related with the purported interest on the outstanding
amount, ill-motive of the defendants to avoid the legal action, their failure to
perform respect part of contract are specifically denied by the present
defendants.
 4

9] That, the contents in Para Nos. 17 to 20 are in respect of the legal

notice issued by the plaintiff through the Ld. Counsel for demanding the
outstanding amount are admitted by the present defendants. It is also a
matter of record that the present defendants did not reply to the said legal
notice. It is humbly submitted and clarified that the said legal notice was not
replied as the contents in said legal notice were frivolous and were not at all
related with the present defendants.

10] That, the contents in Para No. 21 are related in respect of the
repeated requests by the plaintiff to the defendants to pay the outstanding
amount the failure of defendants to pay the same. It is also pleaded that the
defendants gave false assurances and lastly denied the payment and the
payment is avoided to deceive the plaintiff and siphon the amount. The
present defendants specifically denied the entire contents in para No. 21 as
the said contents are imaginary, baseless and do not have any foundations.
There is nothing on record, so far as present defendants are concerned, that
at any point of time they gave assurance to the plaintiff of his alleged
payment. Thus the defendants categorically deny the entire contents in Para
No. 21.

11] That, the contents in Para No. 22 which are in respect of claimed
amount of plaintiff are specifically denied by the present defendants. It is
also specifically denied that the present defendants are jointly and severally
liable to pay the claim amount of plaintiff.

12] That, the contents in Para No. 23 which are in respect of

purported cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiff are specifically
denied by the present defendants. It is humbly reiterated that the dates when
the cause of action purportedly accrued have nothing to do with the present
defendants and all the contents in this para so far as the present defendants
are concerned are vague, omnibus and imaginary. Thus the present
 5
defendants denied all contents in present paragraph. It is also specifically
denied that the plaintiff has cause of action to file the instant suit.

13] That, the contents in Para No. 24 which are in respect of

valuation of suit, its nature and the residence plaintiff are specifically denied
by the present defendants since they have no acquaintance with the plaintiff
and thus all the contents in this paragraphs are specifically denied.

14] That, the contents in Para No. 25 which are in respect of court
fees deposited by the plaintiff in this Hon'ble Court are specifically denied by
the present defendants. Though the present defendants specifically denied
the claim of plaintiff, however, as an abundant precaution, it is humbly
submitted that the suit of plaintiff is not properly valued and requisite court
fees is not paid. Thus the plaint of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected.

15] That, the contents in Para Nos. 26 to 28 are in respect of the

formal paragraphs which need no reply. However, the contents in Para No.
26 regarding filing of similar proceeding by the plaintiff are not known to the
present defendants and thus said contentions are denied specifically.

16] That, the contents in Para No. 29 that the plaintiff has made out
the prima facie case and therefore it is just to decree the suit in order to
prevent his irreparable financial loss are specifically denied by the present
defendants. Considering the entire pleadings in the plaint, no prima facie
case is made out qua the present defendants and thus the suit to the extent of
present defendants is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed with
costs.

17] That, the Para No. 30 of the plaint is related with the prayers of
the plaintiff which are specifically denied by the present defendants and it is
humbly submitted that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief from this
Hon'ble Court.
 6
TRUE AND ADDITIONAL FACTS

18] That, it is a matter of record that the present defendants are

privately held company registered under the Companies Act engaged in the
business of erecting and installing the telephonic towers in the whole of India
and all the things incidental thereto. The present defendant Nos. 6 and 7 are
the foremost players in the above field and have huge goodwill and
reputation in the market. The present defendants follow industry leading
policies and work culture.

19] That, in the light of above the nature of work, admittedly the
present defendants were required to carry out the work of installing mobile
towers in the State of Maharashtra and for said purpose they appointed the
defendant No.4 M/s Manikaran Builders. Accordingly, on 15/03/2018, an
agreement came to be effected between the present defendants and
defendant No.4 at Amravati after mutually agreeing the terms and conditions
to carry out the work of installing the mobile towers at various places in
Maharashtra. The agreement also stipulates the work conditions so also the
liability condition. Clause-8 (vi) pertains to assignment/ sub-contracting of
the work as stated in the agreement dated 15/03/2018. In the light of said
clause, it is humbly submitted that the defendant No.4 was not at all
permitted to sublet the work awarded to it by the present defendants and
therefore no question arises in respect of any third party involved in the said
work much less the plaintiff.

20] That, in so far as the work allotted to the defendant No.4 is

concerned, time to time, the present defendants totally paid the entire bills of
the defendant No.4 as raised by them and there is no outstanding dues on the
part of present defendants in respect of the work entrusted and carried out by
defendant No.4. The present defendants are submitted herewith the copies of
invoices of defendant No.4 and statement of accounts showing the payment
to defendant No.4 by the present defendants.
 7
21] That, in the light of speaking and uncontroverted agreement
between the defendant No.4 and present defendants, there is no question of
subletting the work by the defendant No.4 to the defendant No.1 and further
to the plaintiff by the defendant No.1. Without admitting even if it is accepted
that the plaintiff has performed any work, still the present defendants would
not have any liability as the said subletting would be beyond the purview of
agreement dated 15/03/2018 between the present defendants and defendant
No.4 and thus, the activities and liabilities of defendant No.4 or the
defendant No.1 cannot be fastened upon the present defendants.

22] That, considering the entire conspectus of the matter, the suit of
the plaintiff in relation to the present defendants is misconceived and is
liable to be dismissed at threshold being not maintainable. The present
defendants have arraigned in the present suit in order to malign their
reputation and goodwill in the market. Hence, it is humbly submitted that
the suit of the plaintiff may kindly be dismissed with cost and oblige.

That the said Written Statement is filed by the authorized officer

of the defendant Nos. 6 and 7 who is conversant with the facts of the case.

HENCE PRAYED THAT:

The suit may kindly be dismissed with costs and plaintiff may
kindly be saddled with compensatory cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- and
oblige.

Place: Ambajogai DEFENDANT NOS. 6 AND 7

Date:
through:

For Indus Towers

S.S. Deshmukh through its Authorized Officer
Advocate