1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.202 OF 1981 The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. .. Plaintiff Versus Producin Ltd. .. Defendants Mr.Rishabh Shah i/b. Divekar & Co. for plaintiff CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 28th January 2009 P.C. . This suit was directed to be placed for ex parte decree today. 2. Written statement was filed. Accordingly, the issues were framed after perusal of the pleadings and directions were issued to file affidavit of documents and evidence. Despite the same being filed, it is reported that the defendants have not taken part in the 2 proceedings after filing of the written statement. It is already observed by me in my earlier orders that despite being served with the writ of summons and filing written statement, defendants have not taken further part in the proceedings. 3. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have filed an affidavit of evidence of Mr.Unnikrishnan. He states that the affidavit of evidence filed by the plaintiffs on 26th November 2007 bears his signature. He confirms the statements made in the affidavit. He also confirms the contents of the documents and states that they are true and correct. Since the affidavit complies with all requirements stipulated in law, the same is taken on record and read in evidence. 4. The witness confirmed the plaint allegations and has referred to each of the documents which are relied upon commencing from 3 the tender notice and ending with the copy of the letter dated 7th August 1980 from defendant’s Advocate to the plaintiffs. 5. The witness has stated that he was Deputy Manager with the plaintiffs. He was a member of Export Sales Committee of the Corporation. He is personally aware of the facts relating to the suit transaction. He was the officer at the time when the transaction was undertaken. 6. It is stated that global tenders were issued giving details of varieties, types and quantities of cotton for sale required by the plaintiffs. The notices were widely circulated. Thereafter, offers were received. Offers were duly scrutinised by the Export Sales Committee and, thereafter, formal export contracts were issued in the standard form. The entire procedure which led to the issuance of tender and awarding of contract is set out in para 2 of the 4 affidavit in evidence. The witness has produced original letter dated 9th January 1979 which is duly signed by the defendants. The tender notice and this letter are proved. Their contents are also proved. They are, therefore, marked as Exhibits P-1 and P-2. 7. Thereafter, the witness states about the counter offer and has produced the original letter dated 10th January 1979. That letter is also marked as Exh.P-3. 8. The witness has referred to the acceptance of the counter offer in para 4 and, thereafter, has confirmed the contract for shipment. This contract is signed by the witness in his capacity as Dy.Manager of plaintiffs. He has confirmed the contents of the contract and his signatures on the document. He has deposed to the terms and conditions thereof. The documents which are at serial numbers 4 and 5 are 5 marked as Exh.P-4 and P-5. He has deposed as to how the request was made for return of the duplicate bill signed but the same has not been returned duly signed. 9. Thus, it is stated by him that there is a concluded contract between the plaintiffs and defendants. Subsequently, he has deposed about the breach thereof, committed by the defendants. With regard to the correspondence between the parties, he has also proved contents thereof. The documents in the compilation are marked serially as Exh.P-6 onwards till Exh.P-45. 10. The witness, although, present in Court has not been cross examined by the defendants. Apart from availing of the opportunity to lead evidence to prove the case set up in the written statement, the defendants have failed to cross examine the witness insofar as the case of plaintiffs. 6 11. The entire testimony has, therefore, not been challenged. In such circumstances, there is no impediment in law in accepting the version of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, it is held that the plaintiffs have proved Issue Nos.I and II. The defendants have not availed of the opportunity in law and, therefore, the Issue No.III has to be answered in the negative. Issue No.IV has also been proved inasmuch as the deposition of the plaintiffs’ witness and the contents of documents which are duly accepted have not been challenged by cross examining the witness nor leading any evidence. In such circumstances, Issue No.IV is also answered in the affirmative. 12. In the result, the suit is decreed as prayed. Advocate’s cost to be computed as per rules. C.C. expedited. 7 (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)