'1 Orders Vo 04-10-2005 Present : Mr Parag P. Tripathi, Sr- Advocate with Mr. Anurag Kumar Agarwal for appellant' This appeal tras been filed irnpugning ilre order of the learned Cornpany Judge dated 2O.7.2OO5. Mr- Parug P. Tripuhi learned counsel for the appellant has contendecl that the learned Cornpany Judge failed to take into consideration the fact that as per the collaboration agreement the permission granted by ttre Reserve Bank of India was for supply of technological know- how and as thc respoudent failecl to supply the technical know-trow in entirety the appellant. was not. bound [o make the paytnenl 6arned cotrnsel for the appellant. has drawn our atLention lo a letter written on 4'h [llarch 1996 af page 228 trf the paper book inrer-alia stating t'hat even in 1996 rnuch prior Lo the start of lirigation the appellant had writLen a letter to the respondent to supply complete drawings to ilre appellant and that the learnetl Company Judge erred in not. taking into sottsideration the letler datetl4'h March 1996. It is further submitted that the obsen'ation of the learned Cornpaly Judge that the compauy is lying closed since 1996 is also uol corlecl as the cornpany is still manufacturing. On the basis of the afrlresaitl subrnissions learned couuscl for the appellant has contended that in view of , c,ornple[e fuawings i.e. the techuology [ransfer in terrns of the agreement. having nol been done by the respontlent, the appellant. was not bound to make the -1 \.1, /05 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified ..l Sr. No. { 2- payment to the rcspoudent. aud that the finding of the learned Cornpany Judge ilr* rlre colnpany was unable to pay its clebf was based on surmises and conJectures. We trave given our careful considcrations [o the arguments atlvanced by learned counsel for ehe appellant. but. we find no rneril in the same. The leamed Corqoany Judge in para 12 of the irnpugnecl juclgrnent has held that the appellant had infonned the respondent lry letter dated 9.2.1996 ttrat it was satisfied with ltre technologlr docurnentation etc. given by the respondent and that. the cusl.omers were highly satisfied wiflr the quality of product. the relevant extracl of the said lel.ter are as under:- "( 1) I arn thankful to the a.ssistanoc given to us iir respecl of technical docurnentatioq [esting of subrnersilrle mo[ors and initial order of machined castings placed on us. (7)As far as using the word 'Itr collaboration with Aturia Pompe S. P. A., Italy, the usage of the same was clarified and permitted by Dr. r\lessendro Rent during his visit to Delhi. Howevet, I can assure you that there will never be any risk to ATURIA/ROIOS irnage in Indian rnarket as our future is also linked in developing and upgrading the irnage of Aturia/Rotos in the Indian rnarket. Only a good irnage can tre helpful [o us. Wherever we have supplied submersible purnps uncler your know-ltow, the customers are higtrly satisfied with the quality of the product and have placed. repeat orders for the same. Further once Aturia name is popular in India tnarket, we '1. iu, Continuation Sheet Sr. No. Orders -3- have plans to irnporl certain sophisticated pumps manufastured tiy Aturia, Italy for refinery, Oil & Natural Gas, Pe[ro Chemicals and otlter products for which Lhere is a big scope in India- As a matter of fact, we are thinking of recruiring a percon to lrandle imporl such special pumps in India and. send hirn to Aturia, Gessate factory for one rnonth training in order to upgrade his knowledge and expertise in selling such pumps in India-" it is clearly borne ou[ from the atrove extracts of the letter dated 9m F-ebruary, 1996 that the appellant comrnunicated to ttre respondcnt 'that wherever they had suJrplied submersitrle purnps under the know-how of the respontlent, the custorners were highly satisfietl urith the qualiry of product antl trrat they placecl repeated orrler for the sanx!. It therefore fi>llows that. the production of the appellant was nol in any rnanner affected by lack of technical know-how. As a matter of fact, the appellanl expressed sarisfactiotr antl thanks th r}re respoucbn[. ]n this view of rhe maller ttre appellau[ canno[ now lurn around and say that the coruplete sel of drawings was not supplied to it. We have asked Mr. Parag P.Tripathi learned. counsel appearing for the appellant. tt> strow any letter written to the respondent for nrrn- supply of cornplete drawings from 1994 onrvards but he has failed to show any such letter. The learnetl Company Judge has also given a finding that within feyr mtrnths tf rvriting of letcer datcd 9e February, 1996 iltere was closure of tlte v e \ I 1 \ 1 \t ?{ Orders 4- aJrpcllant's factory. The learned Crrn:pany Judge relied upon appellant's own letter darerl 27m July, 1996 and has held that the factory rvas close,l t.lorun not becaus'e of lack of technical know-how but becarse the requirernent of pumps by the Government had gone down sutrstantially because of elimination of aids previously given to them and rhe new econornic policy guided by the World Ilank had laid great ernphasis on shifting of Governnrent purchase to privatisation. z"--1 In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with rlte findings as given by learued Cornpany Judge., There is no merit in tlte appeal. 'I'he same is dismissed. October O4,2OO5 kv ,l_^