IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT HYDERABAD
Friday, the 1st day of September, 2017
Present: Smt. P.SREE SUDHA, B.Com., M.L.,
Chief Judge
Original Suit Number 209 of 2006
Between:
1.M/s. Hukmichand Sachin Kumar reptd., by its Prop. Dinesh D. s/o late Hukmichand Devda, aged: 46 years, occ: business, having its regd. off at Door No. 15764/2, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad 500012. A.P.
2.Balaji Hukmichand, Rep. by its Prop. Sri. Rajesh Devda, s/o late Hukmichand Devda, Aged: 48 years, occ: business, Having its regd. off at Door No. 157413/1, Begum Bazar,
Hyderabad. A.P. ..Plaintiffs
And
1.The Girijan Cooperative Corporation Ltd. Reptd by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, East Point Colony, China Waltair, Visakhapatnam – 530 017.
2.The Regional Manager, The Girijan Cooperative Corporation Ltd., Telugu Samkshema Bhavan, 4th floor, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 500 028,
3.The General Manager, (Marketing) The Girijan Cooperative Corporation Ltd. East Point Colony, China Waltair, Visakhapatnam – 530 017.
4.Sri. P.D.V. Prasad, the Then General Manager, (Marketing) c/o o/c Girijan Cooperative Corporation Ltd. East Point Colony, China Waltair, Visakhapatnam – 530 017. (Personal Capacity) ( on 20102004 camped at Hyderabad A.P.)
2
5.The Registrar, Office of the Commissioner, Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Gruhakalpa, 2nd floor, Opp. Exhibition Ground, Near Ajanta Gate, M.J. Road,
Hyderabad. ..Defendants
This Original Suit coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri
Shyam Sunder Murthy, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri P.V.V.Satya
Narayana, Advocate for the Defendant Nos.1 to 3, Sri P.Shiv Kumar Dass,
Advocate (Government Pleader) for the Defendant No.5 and the Defendant
No.4 having remained exparte and the matter having stood over for
consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
1)The plaintiffs filed this suit to declare the forfeiture of Earnest Money
Deposit amount of Rs.10,12,500/ by order dated 26.12.2005 in
R.C.No.1934/04/M.1 issued by the 1st defendant as illegal, valid and not binding
on the plaintiffs and consequently to direct the defendants to refund the Earnest
Money Deposit amount of Rs.10,12,500/ with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of deposit to the date of refund and for costs.
2)The brief averments of the plaint are that the 1st plaintiff is the proprietary business concern dealing in Kirana, Nimoli, General Merchant and
Commission Agent, represented by Dinesh and the 2nd plaintiff is also a proprietary business concern dealing in wholesale and retail kirana, sugar, dairy products and commission agents represented by Rajesh Devda.
3)The 1st defendant is the registered Cooperative Society and its object is to purchase outright the produce brought by members of Schedule Tribe through agency of any primary marketing Society and for this purpose to take up
3
forest contracts of bamboo coupes, fuel (and the like) and for procurement of minor forest produce from the Government. The defendants 2 to 4, who are incharge of conducting the auctions during the course of their business dealings done in pursuance of their aims and objects of the Society. The 3rd defendant is arrayed in his personal capacity as 4th defendant, who induced the 2nd plaintiff to submit an application for 500 Quintals of cleaning nuts at 07.00 p.m., on 20.10.2004. The 5th defendant is a statutory body being the Registrar of
Cooperative Societies and the 1st defendant Corporation comes under the purview of the 5th defendant. A notice under Section 126 of the A.P. Cooperative
Societies Act is mandatory and the plaintiffs have also complied the mandatory notice as required under the Act. The proposed sale is subject to availability of stocks only viz., at Vizianagaram 500 Quintals, Rajahmundry 500 Quintals,
Bhadrachalam/Paloncha 1000 Quintals and Hyderabad 500 Quintals. The
Earnest Money Deposit is to be paid was fixed at Rs.98/ per Quintal. The 2nd plaintiff participated in auction on 20.10.2004 and quoted the rates at Rs.45/ per
Kg., and offered to purchase 200 Quintals on the same day. On the inducement of the defendants 2 to 4 who camped at Hyderabad, the 2nd plaintiff submitted a tender for 500 Quintals. The defendants issued sale letter on 20.10.2004 and asked the 2nd plaintiff to pay Rs.92,500/ towards 15% security deposit, which is inclusive of Earnest Money Deposit already paid within ten days. This is beyond the power and authority of the defendants 1 to 5 as per terms and conditions of tenders. They ought not to have issued sale intimation letter for 500 Quintals. It is flagrant violation of terms and conditions. The defendants accepted the entire
4
Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.2,45,000/. The entire process was conducted in
Regional Office, Hyderabad, situated at Telugu Sankshema Bhavan. The plaintiffs stated that the entire process was void abinitio. The 2nd plaintiff deposited Rs.2,45,000/ on 20.10.2004 at Rs.98/ per Quintal for 200 Quintals.
He further deposited Rs.92,500/ on 27.10.2004.
4)On 01.11.2004 defendants offered plaintiffs to purchase 2000
Quintals in Vizag and other places and fixed the rate for confirmation on 11.11.2004. It is beyond the scope and ambit of the tender notice dated 05.10.2004. On 02.09.2004 the defendants 2 to 4 in utter violation of terms and conditions of tender induced the 2nd plaintiff through telephone directing him to submit a letter of offer dated 02.11.2004 for purchase of 1000 Quintals of cleaning nuts for Bhadrachalam pooling center and demanded payment of Rs.6,75,000/ and the same was deposited on 08.11.2004 in a SalecumDelivery letter issued on 31.12.2004. The defendants lay a bait to the plaintiffs by offering 500 Quintals at Vijayanagram Polling Centre and additional quantity at Bhadrachalam Pooling
Centre through a letter dated 03.02.2005.
5)The 2nd plaintiff wrote a letter on 05.03.2005 asking them to transfer the above transaction in the name of the 1st plaintiff and they gave acceptance letter on 05.03.2005 for novation of contract. The 2nd plaintiff gave a letter of consent on 12.04.2005 and they have transferred to the 1st plaintiff by letter dated 04.05.2005. The transaction is beyond the terms and conditions of the contract and there is no breach of contract.
5
6)The defendants 1 to 4 illegally sought to levy penalty interest, godown rent by letter dated 02.03.2005. The plaintiffs submitted letters on 11.05.2005, 15.07.2005 and also on 01.08.2005 renewing their request for waiver of educational cess etc., by letter dated 10.08.2005. They revoked the above levies. The plaintiffs request to lift the stock as per the letter dated 11.08.2005 was negatived by the defendants and they sold the stocks at Rs.13/ per K.G., against the prepared purchase price of the 2nd plaintiff at Rs.45/ per K.G.
Defendants in retaliation to the letter dated 12.09.2005 obstructed the plaintiff to lift the stocks available at Hyderabad and Bhadrachalam Pooling Centre by 20.09.2006, failing which Earnest Money Deposit amount may be forfeited by invoking condition No.34 of terms and conditions. The said notice dated 12.09.2005 is misconceived and reply was issued on 27.09.2005. Plaintiff addressed a letter 12.10.2005 requesting for issuance of delivery orders for lifting of cleaning nuts equivalent to the amount of Earnest Money Deposit of
Rs.10,12,500/.
7)The defendants ignoring the request issued a show cause notice
dated 14.11.2005 as to why Earnest Money Deposit should not be forfeited.
Plaintiffs replied to it on 04.12.2005. Notice dated 14.11.2005 was dispatched on 22.11.2005 and the plaintiffs replied on 15.12.2005. The defendants again issued a final notice on 26.12.2005, for which the 1st plaintiff sent a reply on 09.01.2006 and the 2nd plaintiff gave a reply on 12.01.2006.
8)The plaintiffs submitted that the forfeiture notice is not valid as it is contrary to terms and conditions. The contract is only for 200 Quintals, hence,
6
forfeiture of Rs.10,12,500/ is illegal, arbitrary, void and not binding on the plaintiffs as the main contract became illegal.
9)A notice under Section 126 A.P. Cooperative Societies Act was sent on 26.04.2006 (the month appears to have been mistakenly mentioned as April instead of March) and defendants received on 28.03.2006, 29.03.2006 and 31.03.2006. The defendants issued a legal notice on 10.05.2006 claiming astronomical amounts on imaginary and speculative calculations, for which the plaintiffs replied on 29.05.2006, therefore, the plaintiffs filed this suit.
10)During the pendency of this suit, the plaintiffs filed a petition in
I.A.No.1875 of 2011 which was allowed on 16.10.2012 by introducing various allegations contradicting the claim of defendants filed before the II Additional
District Judge, Visakhapatnam in O.S.No.112 of 2006, which was transferred to
this court and numbered as O.S.No.462 of 2007.
11)The 1st defendant filed written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 2 and 3. The defendants 4 and 5 remained exparte. The 1st objection raised in the written statement is that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction as per the terms agreed by both sides and it is the Court at Visakhapatnam got jurisdiction. Secondly, it is stated that inclusion of 4th defendant in his individual capacity as a party to the suit is mischievous and unwarranted as he acted in his official capacity and that he has no personal liability.
12)The allegations against the 4th defendant that he induced the 2nd plaintiff to give an offer for 500 Quintals is denied. The defendants stated that the sum and substance of the contentions of the plaintiffs as averred in Paras 4
7
to 12 of the plaint that having invited tenders for a quantities mentioned in the tender documents, any contract between the parties for additional quantities is null and void even inspite of the fact that the terms were accepted by both parties even though the Earnest Money Deposit and Security Deposit were deposited by the plaintiff and the 2nd plaintiff was induced to purchase additional quantities.
These contentions of the plaintiff are incorrect, baseless and not warranted by the facts of the case or any law in force in India and consequently the entire basis of the suit is purely speculative and untenable.
13)The contents of paras 8 to 12 were denied. The defendants stated that from the conduct of the proprietors of the plaintiffs firms, they are hand in glove and it is evident that they acted in tandem in an attempt to derive wrongful gain, caused loss to the 1st defendant. It is further stated that there is no novation of the contract as contended by the plaintiffs. It is evident from the conduct of the plaintiffs in filing the present suit jointly and seeking for a joint relief that there is no difference between the plaintiffs and that they acted in unison in the matter.
They issued legal notice jointly and presented the suit and hence, the plaintiffs are jointly and severally bound by the terms of the contract. The letters addressed by the 2nd plaintiff are all untenable. The 1st defendant acted rightly as per the terms of the contract to protect the interest of the Society and to bring down its losses by forfeiting the security deposit and adjusting the same in part satisfaction of its losses. Finally, the defendants stated that their action of forfeiture is right and hence, prayed that this suit may be dismissed with costs.
8
14)The 1st defendant stated that they have filed a separate suit to recover Rs.54,80,464/ together with interest @ 24% per annum against the plaintiff, which is pending as O.S.No.112 of 2006 before the II Additional District
Judge, Visakhapatnam.
15)Adverting to the above pleadings, the following issues were framed on 09.10.2007:
1. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of 4 th defendant?
2. Whether the forfeiture of EMD amount by the 1 st defendant is illegal and valid?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the claim as prayed for?
4. To what relief?
16)After amendment of the plaint, the right to file additional written statement was forfeited. On 14.09.2015, the following additional issue was framed:
Additional Issue:
Whether the officials of the defendants Corporation have utterly failed in discharge of their obligatory duties by taking less EMD amount in the resale Tender on 18.04.2006 as per Tender Notice dated 31.03.2006 and responsibilities vested with them are liable for losses incurred thereby, shall pay from their own pockets only?
17)Later on, application filed in I.A.No.4190 of 2015, the Court deleted the first issue and framed the following additional issue on 14.02.2017:
Whether the Defendant No.4 and Defendant Nos.2 and 3 being the officials of the Defendant No.1 have violated the terms and conditions of their Original Tender dated 20.10.2004 and Tender Notice dated 05.10.2004 and finalized TendercumAuction Process in violation of Clauses 11 (a), 3, 5, 6, 7, 13, 27, 34 as per Annexure “A” and “B” and failed to follow the mandatory requirements of resale Tender Notice dated 31.03.2016 conducted on 18.04.2006, are illegal and void?
9
18)In order to prove the averments, the 1st plaintiff filed an affidavit by way of chief examination and marked Exhibits A1 to A89 and subsequently, the defendants failed to crossexamine him and that the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed. The 2nd plaintiff also filed affidavit stating that the transaction was already transferred to the 1st plaintiff and that he is looking after the matter and thus, he has no objection for granting a decree in favour of the 1st plaintiff. He was also not crossexamined by the defendants. The docket shows that the defendants have never appeared nor produced any evidence on their behalf and hence, this
Court treated that they have no evidence and posted the matter for arguments.
The learned advocate for the plaintiffs argued the matter, but there is no representation for the defendants. Hence, basing on this oral and documentary evidence, the Court has to decide the issues.
19)Additional Issues framed On 14.09.2015 and 14.02.2017:
Additional Issue framed on 14.09.2015:
Whether the officials of the defendants Corporation have utterly failed in discharge of their obligatory duties by taking less EMD amount in the resale Tender on 18.04.2006 as per Tender Notice dated 31.03.2006 and responsibilities vested with them are liable for losses incurred thereby, shall pay from their own pockets only?
Additional Issue framed on 14.02.2017:
Whether the Defendant No.4 and Defendant Nos.2 and 3 being the officials of the Defendant No.1 have violated the terms and conditions of their Original Tender dated 20.10.2004 and Tender Notice dated 05.10.2004 and finalized TendercumAuction Process in violation of Clauses 11 (a), 3, 5, 6, 7, 13, 27, 34 as per Annexure “A” and “B” and failed to follow the mandatory requirements of resale Tender Notice dated 31.03.2016 conducted on 18.04.2006, are illegal and void?
10
The defendants filed O.S.No.112 of 2006 before the II Additional
District Judge, Visakhapatnam for Rs.54,80,464/, which was transferred to this
Court and renumbered as O.S.No.462 of 2007. The same was dismissed for default on 09.12.2007. The defendants have not taken any steps to get the suit restored. These two issues relate to the contents mentioned in that suit . When that suit was already dismissed and as the defendants have not initiated any action to restore the same, I feel discussing the facts relating to the contents of that suit are not necessary. These issues are answered accordingly.
20) ISSUE NO.1:
Issue No.1 was deleted vide I.A.No.4190 of 2015 dated 14.02.2017 and hence, it need not be decided.
21) ISSUE NOS.2 & 3 dated 09.10.2007:
The plaintiffs 1 and 2 participated in the auction and became the highest bidders. Their tenders were accepted and their further request for
additional quantity was also accepted and the plaintiffs deposited Earnest Money
Deposit as demanded by the defendants on 08.10.2004. The defendants issued auctioncumshort tender notice for sale of cleaning nuts to be procured in the years 2000 to 2005 season. The sale is purely subject to the procurement and availability of stocks. It is clearly mentioned in Exhibit A2 that the quantity of
Quintals to be auctioned. It is also mentioned in the notice that the tenders will be opened at 02.30 p.m. on 20.10.2004 and the sale and other transactions arising out of the auctioncumshort tender proceedings shall be subject to terms and conditions in annexureA. Annexure A was marked as Exhibit A1. The
11
plaintiff gave a letter on 20.10.2004 to the defendant offering same rate at Rs.45/ per K.G., for 500 Quintals and the 1st defendant accepted the draft for
Rs.2,45,000/ and asked the plaintiff to deposit Rs.92,500/ towards 15% security deposit. The plaintiffs also deposited the same and as per Exhibit A3, they have deposited further security deposit of Rs.6,75,000/ under several demand drafts agreeing to purchase 1000 Quintals and the same was confirmed by the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs contention is that the 3rd defendant called him at 07.00 p.m., and induced him to offer for more quantity than 200 Quintals, which is against the terms and conditions of the tender. This is denied by the defendants.
The burden to prove this aspect is on the plaintiffs. Except the selfserving testimony of the 1st plaintiff there is no acceptable evidence to prove the alleged inducement. The letters addressed by the plaintiff would go to show that he accepted to purchase 1000 Quintals and deposited the Earnest Money Deposit, which was accepted by the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant asked the plaintiffs to lift the stocks, but the plaintiffs failed to lift them and hence, he levied penalty, such as godown rent, interest surcharge @ 2.5%, education cess 2% and VAT
Tax 4% on the sale value and TCS 2.5% etc., and 25% reduction in Earnest
Money Deposit. The plaintiff requested the defendants to levy the penalties as they could not lift the stocks of 1391 Quintals as it has become an inviable because of unprecedented recession in the over all market price and there is no scope of increase in near future on the ground that he borrowed money from relatives and friends on exorbitant rates of interest, on account of which his financial position has badly deteriorated, he requested the defendants to refund
12
the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.10,12,500/ deducting 25%. This request was not considered by the defendants and after issuing a final show cause notice on 14.11.2005 stating that the Earnest Money Deposit will be forfeited, the plaintiffs replied on 08.10.2006, but finally by an order dated 26.12.2005, defendants forfeited the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.10,12,500/. It is to declare that this forfeiture is invalid, arbitrary and against the terms and conditions of tender this suit is filed, also for refund of the Earnest Money Deposit.
22)Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the defendants violated the terms of the contract?
The defendants specifically mentioned that the tender was called for agricultural produce to be procured and this tender is subject to the procurement of cleaning nuts. Condition No.33 of the terms and conditions clearly mentions that “If the successful party/firm does not deposit the security deposit as specified under Condition No.24, within time stipulated the Earnest Money
Deposit amounts referred to under Column No.4 shall stand forfeited to the
Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited, Visakhapatnam automatically and the stocks shall be sold in any market deemed fit at the risk of the firm/party who shall be liable to pay consequential losses to the Girijan Cooperative Corporation
Limited, Visakhapatnam. If any loss incurred on account of such resale of stocks to others or any manner subsequently in addition to forfeiture of earnest money deposit paid by him/then at the time of filing tenders. The consequential losses shall include the loss sustained by the Corporation for want of buyers/bidders at
13
the time of release and also change/variation in the rates besides godown rents, interest and shortage in stocks on account of long storage.”
23)From a detailed perusal of documents produced by the plaintiffs, it is clear that the defendants asked them to lift the stocks but they failed. The failure was admitted in Exhibit A7, so the 1st defendant has forfeited the Earnest
Money Deposit. Subsequently, the defendant sold the same at Rs.13/ per K.G., and hence, the defendants sustained loss @ 25% of Earnest Money Deposit was admitted by the plaintiffs and 75% was adjusted towards the loss sustained by
Corporation. The plaintiffs added the 4th defendant in his individual capacity and stated that he induced them, but the said allegation suffers from poverty of proof.
Though the plaintiffs stated repeatedly that the defendants violated the terms and conditions, but they unable to substantiate this allegations. As could be seen from the terms and conditions, the forfeiture is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the the Condition Nos.33 and 34. Therefore, the plaintiffs contention that the action of the defendants is against the terms and conditions cannot be accepted. In as much as the forfeiture is in accordance with the condition Nos.33 and 34 and I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the reliefs prayed for.
24)The condition No.26 clearly states that “No interest shall be payable on the amount deposited under condition Nos.3 and 24 and also on the amounts deposited by the parties/firms at any time towards value of stocks purchased or deposited or any remittance may be made in favour of Girijan Cooperative
Corporation Limited, Visakhapatnam at any time on any account.” As such
14
plaintiffs are not entitled for interest as claimed in the suit. Therefore, the two issues are therefore, against the plaintiff.
25) ISSUE NO.4:
To what relief?
In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 1 st day of September, 2017.
CHIEF JUDGE
City Civil Courts: Hyderabad.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Plaintiff:For Defendants: PW1: Dinesh. None.
PW2: Rajesh Devda.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Plaintiff:
Ex. A1: ANNEXURE ‘A’; TERMS AND CONDITIONS for disposal of Minor Forest Products/Agrl. Products to be procured on forward sale subject to procurement of stocks issued by Defendants.
Ex. A2: Auction cum Short Tender Notice for Sale of Cleaning Nuts to be procured in 2004-05 Season, dated 05.10.2004 vide RC No. 1934/2004/M-1.
Ex. A3: Original copy of sale cum delivery order, vide R.C No. 1934/04 M1
dated 31.12.2004 issued by the Defendants.
Ex. A4: Original letter of GCC Limited Visakhapatnam vide Rc No. 1934/2004-M1 dated 04.05.2005 addressed to Defendant No. 2, and submitted a copy to Plaintiff No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 2 as well as Defendant No.2 regarding cleaning nuts sold to Balaji Hukmichand (Plaintiff No. 2) Hyderabad Issued consent and NOC to make all correspondence and transactions in the name of M/s. Hukmichand Sachinkumar (Plaintiff No. 1).
15
Ex. A5: Office Copy of Legal Notice under section 126 of AP Co-op Societies Act from Sri. A. Mohan Krishnaiah and Associates addressed to D1 to D5 dated 18.03.2006
Ex. A6: Office Copy of Legal Notice under section 126 of AP Co-op Societies Act from Sri. A. Mohan Krishnaiah and Associates addressed to D1 to D5 dated 24.03.2006.
Ex. A7: Office Copy of Letter addressed by Plaintiff No. 1 dated 15.07.2005 to V.C and M.D- G.C.C Ltd., Visakhapatnam i.e., Defendant No. 1.
Ex. A8: Office Copy of Letter addressed by Plaintiff No. 1 dated 15.07.2005 to General Manager (Marketing), GCC Ltd., Visakhapatnam i.e., Defendant No. 3.
Ex. A9: Returned Postal cover with ack. containing the Original copy of Legal Notice from the O/o M/s. Shyam Sunder Murthy Advocates dated 24.05.2006 addressed to Shri P.D.V Prasad the then General Manager, Visakhapatnam returned by the Postal Department with an endorsement “addressee retired from service whereabouts not known, hence returned to the sender”.
Ex.A10: Returned Postal cover with ack due containing the Original copy of Legal Notice from O/o of M/s. Shyam Sunder Murthy Advocates dated 25.05.2006 addressed to Shri P.D.V Prasad the then General Manager, Visakhapatnam returned by the Postal Department with an endorsement “addressee retired from service whereabouts not known, hence returned to the sender dt. 29-05-2006”.
Ex.A11: Office copy of Reply Notice dated 27.05.2007 from Sri. Surender Kumar Agarwal to N. Shivashankar Reddy B.E., Superintendent of Police & Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, 49-54-3, Balayya Sastri Layout, Visakhapatnam – 13 (A.P) along with Postal Receipt and Acknowledgment.
Ex.A12: Office Copy of Reply Notice dated 18.06.2007 issued from the O/o Sri. Surender Kumar Agarwal to N. Shivashankar Reddy B.E., Superintendent of Police & Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, 49-54-3, Balayya Sastri Layout, Visakhapatnam – 13 (A.P) with Postal Receipt and Acknowledgment.
Ex.A13:Office Copy of Legal Notice from Sri. B.H Ravi B.A B.L., Advocate, Secunderabad, addressed to Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 3 i.e., V.C & M.D Visakhapatnam – 530017 dated 04.12.2005 on behalf of Plaintiff No. 1 along with Professional Couriers Receipt and Speed Post Acknowledgment.
16
Ex.A14: Office Copy of Legal Notice from Sri. G. Ramudu, Advocate, Jiyaguda Road, Hyderabad addressed to Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 3 i.e., V.C & M.D Visakhapatnam – 530017 dated 04.12.2005 on behalf of Plaintiff No. 2 along with Professional Couriers Receipt and Speed Post Acknowledgment.
Ex.A15: Letter of Plaintiff No. 2 addressed to Sri K. Rajeshwar Rao, General Manager (M), GCC Limited, Visakhapatnam i.e., Defendant No. 3
dated 27.09.2005.
Ex.A16: Proceedings of the VC & MD, GCC limited issued to Plaintiff No. 1 on 10.08.2005 vide Rc. No. 1934/04/M-1 order issued for waiving of go- down rent and interest for cleaning nuts.
Ex.A17: Letter original proceeding vide No. Rc.1774/03/M-1 dated 10.11.2003 of GCC Limited (Defendants) addressed to M/s. Hukmichand & Bros, 15-7-356, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad – 500012 by registered post with ack due along with postal cover filed for consideration of this Hon’ble Court.
Ex.A18: Office copy of Letter addressed by M/s. Hukmichand & Bros, 15-7- 356, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad – 500012 to Defendant No. 1 dated 31.10.2003 along with fax receipt.
Ex.A19:Office Copy of Legal notice issued by M/s. Shyam Sunder Murthy, B.H Ravi & G. Ramudu Advocates (plaintiffs) dated 29.05.2006 addressed to Defendants advocate Sri M. Ram Das, Visakhapatnam - 530016 (A.P).
Ex.A20: Office copy of Legal notice issued by M/s. Shyam Sunder Murthy, and Surender Kumar Agarwal Advocates (plaintiff No. 1) dated 27.01.2008 addressed to Defendants No. 1 (Complaint Petition).
Exhibits 21 to 82 marked on 19.06.2017 through PW – 1.
Ex.A21: Original Certificate of registration issued by Labour Department, Govt., of A.P. in FORM II Vide Registration No. C6/3213/2002 dated December 2002 in the name of M/s. BALAJI HUKMICHAND Prop. Sri Rajesh Devda i.e., Plaintiff No.2. Ex.A22: Original Certificate of registration issued by Commercial Taxes Department, Govt., of A.P. in FORM D-I vide Registration No. CHM/05/1/3027/97-98 dated 24-01-1998 in the name of M/s. BALAJI HUKMICHAND Prop. Sri Rajesh Devda i.e., Plaintiff No.2.
17
Ex.A23: Original Certificate of registration issued by Commercial Taxes Department, Govt., of A.P. in FORM D-I vide Registration No. CHM/04/1/2801/2004-05, dated 26-02-2005 on the name of M/s. HUKMICHAND SACHIN KUMAR Prop. Sri Dinesh .D i.e., Plaintiff No.1.
Ex.A24: Original Certificate of registration issued by Commercial Taxes Department the Central Sales Tax in FORM B Vide Registration CST. No. CHM/04/1/2438/2004-05, dated 26-02-2005 on the name of M/s. HUKMICHAND SACHIN KUMAR Prop. Sri Dinesh .D i.e., Plaintiff No.1.
Ex.A25: Original letter issued by Defendant No. 4 on behalf of Girijan Co-op Corporation Ltd, Vishakhapatnam-Defendant No.1, vide Rc No. 1934/04/M-1, dated 01-11-2004 addressed to Plaintiff No. 2.
Ex. A26: Certified Copy of Judgment and Decree in O.S No. 462 of 2007 passed by the Hon’ble Chief Judge: City Civil Court; Hyderabad dt.
09-12-2015. (Dismissing the suit)-which has attained finality).
Ex.A27: Returned registered postal cover with ACK Due issued by plaintiffs with an endorsement addressee refused hence returned to the sender. Original legal notice from M/s. Surender Kumar Agarwal Advocate, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad on behalf of the plaintiffs vide postal RLAD No. 1548 dated 17-03-2008 addressed to Shri P.D.V Prasad the then General Manager, Visakhapatnam 530017 A.P i.e., Defendant No. 4.
Ex.A28: Returned Speed Post cover with ACK Due issued by plaintiffs with an endorsement insufficient addressee hence returned to the sender. Original legal notice from M/s. Surender Kumar Agarwal Advocate, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad on behalf of the plaintiffs vide Speed Post No. EN620912627IN dated 22-02-2008 addressed to Shri P.D.V Prasad the then General Manager, Visakhapatnam A.P i.e., Defendant No. 4.
Ex.A29: Certified copy of order dated 30-11-2009 of Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s) 1132/2007 before their Lordships Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S Radhakrishnan (from the judgment and order dated 16-10-2006 in TRCMP No. 298/2006 & TRCMP No. 395/2006 of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P AT: Hyderabad in favour of M/s. Hukmichand Sachin Kumar and others(Plaintiffs Herein) vide No. 379979).
Ex.A30: Order copy of High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at: Hyderabad dated 16-10-2006 before the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.
18
Narsimha Reddy in Tr. Civil Miscellaneous Petition Nos 298 and 395 of 2006.
Ex.A31: Original order copy of Hon’ble Chief Judge City Civil Court At: Hyderabad in O.S No. 462 of 2007 (Old OS No. 112 of 2006 on the file of II Addl. District Judge, Vishakhapatnam) calling upon M/s. Hukmichand Sachin Kumar and another to appear before the
Hon’ble Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.
Ex.A32: Annexure ‘B’ dated 20-10-2004 of Defendants Corporation for purchase of cleaning nuts to be procured which was submitted on behalf of plaintiff No. 2 firm, represented by Dinesh .D who submitted in a sealed cover enclosed (EMD) DD No. 773217 for Rs. 2,45,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Only) dated 20- 10-2004 in favour of the Girijan Co-operative Corporation Limited, Vishakhapatnam along with letter of the plaintiffs No. 2 represented by Dinesh .D before 2:00 PM as per tender notice dated 05-10-2004. Annexure ‘B’ shows rate offered per quintal, quantity of cleaning nuts and place of delivery in the tender which was issued by Defendant No’s.1 Corporation to the Plaintiff on 20-10-2004.
Ex.A33: Letter from Sri Rama Trading Company, Tuni – 533401, E.G Dist., (AP) dated 23-11-2006 addressed to the Senior Stores Assistant, The GCC Limited (Defendants Corporation) Hyderabad Pooling Center, Hyderabad to arrange delivery of 100 Quintals of cleaning nuts to Abhishek Devda as per resale tender proceedings vide RC No. B/320/2006 shows that the resale of cleaning nuts purchased by Sri Rama Trading Company, Tuni from Defendant Corporation was delivered on 02-12-2006 as per the proceedings of Regional Manager, GCC Limited, Hyderabad dated 10-11-2006 vide RC No. B/320/2006.
Ex.A34 :Original proceeding letter of Regional Manager, GCC Limited Hyderabad of the then Sri S. Jangu in favour of Sri Rama Trading Company, Tuni which was signed by the then manager, Sri P. Rangaiah for the delivery order of 300 quintals of cleaning nuts vide proceeding No. RC No. B/320/2006 dated 10-11-2006 which was enclosed by Sri Rama Trading Company, Tuni to Sri Abhishek Devda to take delivery of 100 quintals of cleaning nuts as per Sri Rama Trading Company, Tuni letter dated 23-11-2006.
Ex.A35 : GCC Limited (Defendant Corporation), one sale bill No. 148 dated 02-12-2006 regarding delivery of resale of cleaning nuts for the year 2004-2005 for 50 quintals amounts to Rs. 67,500/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only) issued in favour of Sri Rama
19
Trading Company, Tuni issued by defendant corporation as per proceeding vide RC No. B/320/2006, dated 10-11-2006 by Godown Stores incharge of Girijan Co-operative Corporation Limited at Hyderabad and delivered to Abhishek Devda.
Ex.A36 : GCC Limited (Defendant Corporation), one sale bill No. 149 dated 02-12-2006 regarding delivery of resale of cleaning nuts for the year 2004-2005 for 50 quintals amounts to Rs. 67,500/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only) issued in favour of Sri Rama Trading Company, Tuni issued by defendant corporation as per proceeding vide RC No. B/320/2006, dated 10-11-2006 by Godown Stores incharge of Girijan Co-operative Corporation Limited at Hyderabad and delivered to Abhishek Devda.
Ex. A37 : GCC Limited (Defendant Corporation) Visakhapatnam- 530017 issued sale bill No. 150 dated 02-12-2006 for Rs. 2,910/- (Rupees Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Ten Only) towards go-down rent and empty gunnies as per resale proceedings of cleaning nuts vide RC No. B/320/2006, dated 10-11-2006 issued and delivered by go- down stores incharge at Hyderabad to Sri Abhishek Devda. The above sale bill shows that the delivery of cleaning nuts of resale tender took place after filing of the above suit.
Ex. A38: Notice of auction cum tender for disposal of cleaning nuts (Ready Stock and 2006-2007 season stock) vide Rc No. 1410/2006 M-1,
dated 07-09-2007 along with Annexure ‘A’ & Annexure ‘B’ (Terms
and Conditions) issued to M/s. Balaji Assam Tea Company, Nallakunta, Hyderabad -044.
Ex. A39 :Tender notice issued by the V.C & M.D, GCC Limited Vishakhapatnam to the buyers as per mailing list vide RC No. 03/2006/M-1, dated 02-01-2006 for auction cum tender for disposal of cleaning nuts (resale of unlifted stock relating to M/s. Balaji Hukmichand and M/s. Hukmichand Sachin Kumar, Hyderabad).
Ex. A40: Receipt of speed post with ACK due vide No. EE620996643IN addressed to N. Shiva Shanker Reddy (Vigilance Department), Vishakhapatnam – 13 by Surender Kumar Agarwal, Advocate dated 29-06-2007.
Ex. A41: Receipt of Speed Post with ACK due vide No. EE620978415IN addressed to N. Shiva Shanker Reddy (Vigilance Department), Vishakhapatnam – 13 by Surender Kumar Agarwal, Advocate dated 31-05-2007.
20
Ex. A42: Acknowledgment Receipt of Govt. of India, Department of Post vide No. 993/2005 – 06, dated 15-05-2006 sent to the Vice Chairman, GCC Limited, Vishakhapatnam showing article delivered on 29-03- 2006 booked on 27-03-2006 from Shyam Sunder Murthy, Advocate, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.
Ex. A43:Acknowledgment Receipt of Govt. of India, Department of Post vide No. 1508/2005–06, dated 29-05-2006 sent to the Regional Manager, GCC Limited, Hyderabad showing article delivered on 28-03-2006 booked on 27-03-2006 from Sri Shyam Sunder Murthy, Advocate, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.
Ex. A44: Acknowledgment Receipt of Govt. of India, Department of Post vide No. 994/2005–06, dated 15-05-2006 sent to the General Manager, GCC Limited, Vishakhapatnam showing article delivered on 29-03- 2006 booked on 27-03-2006 from Sri Shyam Sunder Murthy, Advocate, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.
Ex. A45: Acknowledgment Receipt of Govt. of India, Department of Post vide No. 1507/2005–06, dated 29-05-2006 sent to the Sri PDV Prasad (Defendant No. 4), GCC Limited, Vishakhapatnam shows article delivered on 31-03-2006 booked on 27-03-2006 from Sri Shyam Sunder Murthy, Advocate, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.
Ex. A46: Acknowledgment Receipt of Govt. of India, Department of Post vide No. 995/2005–06, dated 15-05-2006 sent to the Registrar, Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Guhakalpa, M.J Road, Hyderabad shows article delivered on 28-03-2006 booked on 27-03-2006 from Sri Shyam Sunder Murthy, Advocate, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. Ex.A47: Inland Couriers Pvt Ltd Acknowledgment No. 55848 courier sent to the Regional Manager, GCC Limited, Hyderabad vide receipt No. 11632050 dated 31-01-2008 sent by the plaintiff counsel Sri Shyam Sunder Murthy, Advocate, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.
Ex.A48: Bye laws (Book) of the GCC Limited, Vishakhapatnam amended upto 31-12-1998.
Ex.A49: Bye laws (book) of the GCC Limited, Vishakhapatnam amended upto 30-06-2004.
Ex.A50: Defendant Corporation issued proceedings of auction copy for sale of cleaning nuts 2004-2005 at Regional Office at Hyderabad on 20- 10-2004 at 2:00 PM for 500 quintals for Hyderabad pooling center showing the upset price, name of the party, rate offered, signature of the party, issued by (Defendant No. 4) G.M (Marketing) of Defendant Corporation at the time of tender.
21
Ex.A51: Legal Notice dated 27-01-2008 issued by Plaintiffs Advocates M/s. Shyam Sunder Murthy and Surender Kumar Agarwal, Advocates, Postal receipt and acknowledgement card dated 30-01-2008 addressed to the Hon’ble Chairman, Sri V. Nagi Reddy, GCC Limited, Secretary Tribal Welfare Department, D Block, Secretariat, Hydedrabad which was received by them on 31-01-2008.
Ex.A52: Office Copy of Legal Notice dated 27-01-2008 issued by Plaintiffs Advocates M/s. Shyam Sunder Murthy and Surender Kumar Agarwal, Advocates, Postal receipt and acknowledgement card dated 30-01- 2008 addressed to the Hon’ble Sri Radya Nayak Dharmodh, Social Welfare and Tribal Welfare Minister of A.P, Secretariat, Hydedrabad which was received by them on 31-01-2008 and postal receipt addressed to the registrar of Co-op Societies Hyderabad and also to
i)Dr. Y.S Rajasekhara Reddy, Hon’ble Chief Minister of A.P Secretariat, Hyderabad ii)Sri M. Mukesh Goud, Hon’ble Back ward class welfare minister of A.P Hyderabad. iii)Sri K. Rosaiah, Hon’ble Finance Minister of A.P, Hyderabad. Ex.A53: Office Copy of Legal Notice dated 27-01-2008 issued by Plaintiffs Advocates M/s. Shyam Sunder Murthy and Surender Kumar Agarwal, Postal receipt and acknowledgement card dated 30-01-2008 & 31- 01-2008 addressed to the Defendants No. 1,2 & 3.
Ex.A54: Returned Speed Post cover with ACK Due issued by plaintiffs with an endorsement addressee retired without instructions hence returned to the sender. Original legal notice from M/s. Shyam Sunder Murthy Advocates Hyderabad on behalf of plaintiffs vide postal SP-POD No. EE62547513IN dated 18.03.2006 addressed to Shri P.D.V Prasad the then General Manager, Visakhapatnam 530017 A.P i.e., Defendant No. 4.
Ex.A55: Office Copy of Legal Notice dated 27-01-2008 issued by Plaintiffs Advocate Surender Kumar Agarwal, Advocate addressed to the Defendant No. 5 sent by Speed Post which was delivered on 31-01- 2008 under proper receipt as per Government of India, Department of Post, Hyderabad vide their letter dated 21-02-2008.
Ex. A 56: Five Speed Postal Receipts Sent to Defendant No. 1 to 5 dated 27- 03-2006. SP-POD EE620954201IN, SP-POD EE620954127IN, SP-POD EE620954161 IN, SP-POD EE620954042IN, SP-POD EE620954087IN.
Ex. A 57: SP-receipt, dated 18-03-2006 sent to Defendant No. 1 to 5 five receipts sent by Shyam Sunder Murthy Advocate. SP-POD
22
EE625475105IN, SP-POD EE625475131IN, SP-POD EE625475091IN, SP-POD EE625475128IN, SP-POD EE625475114IN.
Ex. A 58: Speed Post Acknowledgment sent to the superintendent of Police and Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, 49-54-3, Balayya Sastry lay-out, Vishakhapatnam – 013, A.P., dated 30-01-2008 sent by Plaintiffs Advocate, S.S Murthy along with S.P receipt, dated 30- 01-2008 SP-POD EN626760773IN.
Ex. A 59: Three acknowledgments sent by Sri S.S Murthy Advocate to Defendant No. 1 to 3, dated 18-03-2006 received on 20-03-2006 by Defendant No. 1 to 3.
Ex.A60: Sale Intimation Letter issued by The Defendant Corporation at Hyderabad vide Rc No. 1934/04/M1, dated 20-10-2004 for 500 quintals of cleaning nuts at Hyderabad Division in favour of Plaintiff No. 2 represented by Dinesh .D in the said sale intimation reference No. 1 issued by the Defendants No. 1 and Defendants No. 4 shows that the tender held on 20-10-2004 at Regional Office Hyderabad and the tender will be opened on 20-10-2004 between 2:00 PM and 2:30 PM. In the said sale intimation vide Reference No. 2 shows that the Plaintiff (your offer) dated 20-10-2004 was taken at 7:00 PM on 20-10-2004. Ex.A61: Final Notice along with postal cover issued by the Defendant No. 1 Corporation vide RC No. 1934/2004.M1, dated 14-11-2005 addressed to Plaintiffs.
Ex.A62: Office copy of Reply Notice dt. 09-01-2006 - issued by Sri B.H Ravi Advocate on behalf of Plaintiff No. 1 to the Final Notice dated 14-11- 2005 issued by Defendant No. 1.
Ex.A63: Final notice along with postal cover issued by the Defendant No. 1 Corporation vide RC No. 1934/2004.M1, dated 14-11-2005.
Ex.A64: Office copy of Reply notice dt. 12-01-2006, issued by Sri G. Ramudu Advocate on behalf of Plaintiff No. 2 to the Final notice dated 14-11- 2005 issued by Defendant No. 1.
Ex.A65: Letter of Govt. Of India, Department of Post bearing No. 1508/2005 – 2006 dated 29-05-2006 about the disposal of speed post article sent to the Regional Manager, GCC Ltd, Hyderabad sent by Sri Shyam Sunder Murthy, Advocate Hyderabad.
23
Ex.A 66: Proceeding issued by Defendant No. 1 corporation Vide Rc No. 1934/04/M1, dated 26-12-2006 to Plaintiff No.1.
Ex.A 67: Proceeding issued by Defendant No. 1 corporation Vide Rc No. 1934/04/M1, dated 26-12-2006 to Plaintiff No.2.
Ex. A 68: Letter from N. Shivashankar Reddy B.E., addressed to Dinesh.D M/s. Balaji Hukumichand, Hyderabad vide Rc No. 40/RV&EO- VSP/DEV(IOP-II)/2007 dated 04.05.2007 regarding enquiry into the purchase of huge quantity of cleaning nuts by the GCC limited i.e., defendants during 2004-2005 season along with postal cover.
Ex. A 69: Tender notice vide R.C No. 1410/2006 M-3, dated 13-07-2009 along with Annexure “A” & Annexure “B” auction cum tender for disposal of GIRIJAN Cleaning Nuts (ready stock conducted on 27-07-2009 at 10:30 am). Ex. A 70: Form – II original transit Way Bill permit No. A013387 Book No. 268 issued by Regional Manager GCC Ltd Hyderabad in favour of M/s. Hukmichand Sachin Kumar, Hyderabad as per Invoice No. 165 & 166 for 8 quintals of cleaning nuts dated 08-06-2005.
Ex. A 71: Auction cum tender notice vide RC No. 03/2006/M.1 dated 31-03- 2006 for disposal of cleaning nuts (Resale of un-lifted stock relating to M/s. Balaji Hukmichand and M/s. Hukmichand Sachin Kumar Hyderabad) appended with Annexure “A” & Annexure “B” conducted on 18-04-2006 at 2:00 pm at Regional Manger Office, Hyderabad issued to Vikas Kumar Chauhan, Hyderabad from Defendant corporation.
Ex. A 72: Proceedings of the Regional Manager (Defendant No.2) (I/C), GCC Ltd, Hyderabad Sri S. Jangu vide RC No. B/467/2004 dated 30-06- 2005.
Ex. A 73: Defendant Corporation proceeding vide RC No. 1934/04/N.1 dated 03-02-2005. Issued to Plaintiffs by the Defendant No. 4.
Ex. A 74: Plaintiff No. 1 issued letter to Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 3
dated 24-05-2005 with original acknowledgement and postal receipt
No. RLAD A 3845 dated 25-05-2005.
Ex. A 75: Defendants Corporation Proceeding of the Senior Manager, Regional Officer (I/c) GCC Ltd, Hyderabad Sri V. Seetharam vide Rc No. B/46/2004 dated 02-03-2005.
24
Ex. A 76: Defendants Corporation Proceedings vide Rc No. 1934/04/M.1
dated 25-11-2004 issued by Defendant No. 4 to the Plaintiffs with
postal cover dated 29-11-2004.
Ex. A 77: Defendants Corporation Proceedings of the Regional Manager (Defendant No.2), GCC Ltd, Hyderabad Sri S. Jangu vide RC No. B/320/2006 dated 26-08-2006. As per Sub:- MFP – Sale of Cleaningnuts 2004-05 stock (un lifted by M/s., Hukmichand & Bro’s Hyderabad) 1000 quintals relating to Bhadrachalam Pooling Centre sold to M/s. Rama Trading Co., Tuni – Sale Intimation issued – amount remitted by the firm – delivery of stock instructions – issued. Along with copy of letter of Sri Rama Trading Company Tuni E.G Dist., A.P
dated 21-08-2006.
Ex. A 78: Auction cum tender notice for disposal of cleaning nuts (ready stock 2005-06 season) vide Rc No. 04/2006/M.1 dated 04-05-2006 along Annexure “B” and Annexure “A” issued to Sri Vasudeva Trading Company Tuni – 533401, E.G Dist.,
Ex. A 79: Defendant No.1 issued Speed Regd. Post with ACK Due letter dated 12-10-2005 to Defendant No. 1 to 3.
Ex. A 80: Defendants Corporation Proceedings of the Regional Manager (Defendant No.2), GCC Ltd, Hyderabad Sri S. Jangu vide RC No. B/320/2006 dated 26-10-2006. As per Sub:- MFP – Sale of Cleaning nuts 2004-05 stock (un lifted by M/s., Hukmichand & Bro’s Hyderabad) 1000 quintals relating to Bhadrachalam Pooling Centre sold to M/s. Rama Trading Co., Tuni – Sale Intimation issued – amount remitted by the firm – delivery of stock instructions – issued. Along with copy of letter of DD’s of Sri Rama Trading Company Tuni E.G Dist., A.P dated 23-10-2006, Form 27–C and demand draft copies.
Ex. A 81: Defendants Corporation Proceedings of the Regional Manager (Defendant No.2), GCC Ltd, Hyderabad Sri S. Jangu vide RC No. B/320/2006 dated 14-09-2006. As per Sub:- MFP – Sale of Cleaning nuts 2004-05 stock (un lifted by M/s., Hukmichand & Bro’s Hyderabad) 1000 quintals relating to Bhadrachalam Pooling Centre sold to M/s. Rama Trading Co., Tuni – Sale Intimation issued – amount remitted by the firm – delivery of stock instructions – issued. Along with Girijan Co-op. Corporation Ltd., Visakhapatnam sale invoice No. 77 & 78 dated 15-09-2006.
Ex. A 82: Defendants Corporation Proceedings of the Regional Manager (Defendant No.2), GCC Ltd, Hyderabad Sri S. Jangu vide RC No.
25
B/320/2006 dated 23-06-2006. As per Sub:- MFP – Sale of Cleaning nuts 2004-05 stock (un lifted by M/s., Hukmichand & Bro’s Hyderabad) 391 quintals relating to Hyderabad Pooling Centre sold to M/s. Rama Trading Co., Tuni – Sale Intimation issued – amount remitted by the firm – delivery of stock instructions – issued.
Exhibits 83 to 89 marked on 28.06.2017 through PW – 1.
Ex. A 83 Office copy of letter with acknowledgment dated 20.10.2004 submitted by the Plaintiff (Dinesh D) making fresh offer for purchase of 500 Qtls. Of Cleaning Nuts at Hyderabad pooling Centre submitted at 7.00 p.m. along with copy of sale intimation letter
dated 20.10.2004 in respect of 500 (Five Hundred) Quintals for
Hyderabad Division.
Ex. A 84: Office copy of letter addressed by M/s. Hukmichand & Bros 15-7- 356, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad addressed to Defendant No. 1 i.e., VC & MD Visakhapatnam along with postal receipts and Department of Telecommunication Sl No. 85 dated 04.11.2003. (M/s. Hukmichand & Bros, 15-7-356, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad – 500012 addressed to Defendant No. 1 i.e., VC & MD Visakhapatnam along with postal receipts and Department of telecommunication Sl No. 85.)
Ex.A85: Proceedings issued by GCC Limited Visakhapatnam vide Rc No. 1774/2003/M-1, dated 27.10.2003 addressed to M/s. Hukmichand & Bros, rejecting tender consequent on rejecting of offer and returned the EMD amount. (GCC Limited Visakhapatnam – 17 GM Marketing Ch. Yallamandaiah General Manager (Mktg).
Ex. A 86: Office copy of Letter from Plaintiff No. 1 addressed to Defendant No. 1 and 3 dated 11.08.2005.
Ex.A 87: Copy of proceedings in Rc No. B/320/2006 dated 09.06.2006. (Auction cum tender for disposal of cleaning nuts (Re-sale of un lifted stock relating to M/s. Balaji Hukmichand and M/s. Hukmichand Sachin Kumar Hyderabad) vide Rc No. 03/2006/M.1 dated 31.03.2006 along with Annexure B, of Sri Rama Trading Company, Tuni and Vimal Industries, Hyderabad Letter dated 18.04.2006 along with Annexure B, defendant proceedings dated 18.04.2006, Sri Rama Trading Company, Tuni letter addressed to defendant No. 3
dated 02.05.2006 proceeding of RM GCC limited Hyd i.e., defendant
No. 2 dated 09.06.2006 vide Rc No. B/320/2006 along with mailing list of tender notice dated 31.03.2006 vide Rc No. 3/2006/M.1.)
26
Ex. A 88: Copy of Auction cum tender for disposal of cleaning nuts in Rc No. 1934/2004 M1 dated 03.10.2006. (Original tender notice dated 03.10.2006 vide Rc No. 1934/2004 M.1 issued by defendants for auction cum tender for disposal of cleaning nuts (Ready stock) conducted on 19.10.2006 at RM Office GCC Limited, Hyderabad.)
Ex. A 89: Copy of proceedings in Rc No. B/320/2006 dated 26.08.2006. (Defendants issued proceedings Rc No. B/320/2006 dated 26.10.2006 of cleaning nuts sold to Sri Rama trading Company, Tuni original copy. Copy of bill Nos. 68, 69 dated 29.08.2006)
For Defendants: Nil.
CHIEF JUDGE
City Civil Courts: Hyderabad.