WS Acs

 

BEFORE THE LD. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI CIVIL SUIT NO. 336 OF 2019

IN THE MATTER OF: 

ACS NETWORK SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. … PLAINTIFF VERSUS O.P. JINDAL GLOBAL UNIVERSITY …DEFENDANT  

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT  –   O.P. JINDAL GLOBAL UNIVERSITY

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS

1.  The Defendant states at the outset that the contents of the present Plaint are denied in entirety. Except for the contents which are a matter of record and are admitted expressly and explicitly by the Defendant, no part of the Plaint should  be deemed to be admitted for specific non-traversal. 2.  The Defendant is one of the premier private universities of India. It has been established under the Haryana Private Universities Act, 2006 and has recently  been conferred with the status of “Institut “Institutee of Eminence” by the Government of India on the recommendation of the University Grants Commission. 3.  The Defendant being a premier educational institution must ensure that its teaching equipment is functioning properly at all times. Almost all lectures at the University are delivered using Audio-Visual or AV equipment by the academic faculty. Thus, the proper functioning and maintenance of such equipment is crucial for the university to fulfil its core purpose, i.e. providing education.

 

4.  In line with the above objective, the Defendant selected the Plaintiff Company to provide maintenance services for its AV Equipment in February 2014. The contract was awarded to the Plaintiff after considering c onsidering other companies and the final choice was based on various considerations such as quality assurances and the contract price offered by the Plaintiff. 5.  The

Defendant

sent

the

contract/work

order

(number

“WO/JGU/43/2013/Amended”)) along with terms and conditions to the Plaintiff “WO/JGU/43/2013/Amended” on 26th February 2014. The total amount to be paid to the Plaintiff P laintiff (exclusive of tax) was Rs. 24,52,500 (Twenty-four lakhs fifty two thousand five hundred only). The contract was for a period of 1 year  –  from   from 1st March 2014 to 28th  February 2015). 6.  On 13-08-2014, it was agreed that one additional engineer was to be stationed at the University Campus in Sonepat and at the Anand Niketan (Delhi) Office for which an additional payment of Rs. 2,40,000 (Two lakhs forty thousand only) per annum was agreed upon. 7.  The Defendant states that the contract was renewed for another year vide Work order no. WO/JGU/194/2014-15, which was sent to the Plaintiff on 5 th February 2015. The same was valid from 1st March 2015 till 28 th February 2016. 8.  During the second year of service, the Plaintiff ’s ’s services were found lacking. The Defendant received multiple complaints from various faculty members that the AV equipment were not being maintained properly and that they were not working to their satisfaction. The Plaintiff was appraised of the same but no effective action was ever taken by him. Furthermore, the plaintiff demanded a steep increase in prices from the previous year. In light of all these factors, the Defendant decided not to renew the contract for a third year.

 

9.  Therefore, once the time period of Work order no. WO/JGU/194/2014-15 expired on 28-02-2016, the Defendant instructed the Plaintiff to continue services on a monthly basis for March 2016 and April 2016. The Plaintiff also accepted this arrangement. 10. At the Plaintiff’s request, the services were renewed for a period of three months only on 29-04-2016, i.e. from 1 st May 2016 to 31 st July 2016. The terms and conditions of work order no. WO/JGU/194/2014-15 continued to apply to these extensions as well. During the course of these extensions, certain projectors on various dates from the Defendant’s campus.

Date

Item Description

Quantity

07-04-2016

Projector (Model - not stated)

1

28-04-2016

Projector –  Sanyo Projector –   Sanyo PLC

1

XU106 28-04-2016

Projector –  Hitachi –  Projector –   Hitachi –  CP  CP

1

RX70 (Without Lamp)

The removal of these equipment from the Defendant’s campus is evidenced by gate passes issued by the Security personnel of the Defendant and a nd signed by the employees of the Plaintiff –  Plaintiff –  one  one Mr. Dharmender and one Mr. Sunil Kumar. 11. The Plaintiff’s contract extension ended on 31st July 2016 and before finally leaving the Defendant’s campus on 31 st July 2016, the Plaintiff was to audit the state of the AV equipment and hand over all hardware taken by its employees for repair. This was never done. 12. In fact, it was only when the successor AMC company undertook an audit and ‘health--check’ of the AV Equipment, the decrepit state of the AV equipment ‘health

 

came to light. The Defendant had to spend Rs. 5,20,217 (Rupees Five Lakhs twenty thousand two hundred and seventeen) to repair and replace its damaged and neglected AV equipment. The same had been communicated to the Plaintiff  by email on 4 th November 2016 itself. The Plaintiff simply replied vide e-mail dt. 30-12-2016 that it did not agree with the Defendant’s estimate.  estimate.  13.  Subsequently when the Plaintiff’s legal notice dt. 27-03-2018 27 -03-2018 was sent, the defendant sent a reply on 11-05-2018 where they re-iterated the demand to the Plaintiff to make good the loss caused to the Defendant. 14. These facts above would clearly show that in the present case, the Plaintiff has made an attempt to mislead this Hon’ble Court.  Court.  15. The Defendant has separately filed counter-claims expounding its claims against the Plaintiff. The contents of the same may be read as part pa rt of this Written Statement. The same is not repeated herein in the interest of brevity.

PARA-WISE REPLY ON MERITS

1. 

Paragraphs 1 to 7 need no response as they are matters of record.

2. 

In response to paragraphs 8 to 13, it is stated that the Defendant had received re ceived multiple complaints from the University staff regarding the state of the AV equipment at the University. Furthermore, it had also come to the Defendant’s knowledge that the Plaintiff’s rates for the AMC services servic es were higher than other contractors offering similar services. Furthermore, the contractually requisite number of on-site engineers were not deployed by the Plaintiff at all times. This constitutes a fundamental breach of contract on the part of the Plaintiff and this fact has been suppressed by them. All these factors collectively are the cause for the Defendant’s decision to discontinue the Plaintiff’s services. The amounts stated in the bills/invoices

 

on various dates are denied and contested due to the various reasons stated above. 3. 

Paragraph 14 and 15 are denied. The contents of the previous paragraphs are re-iterated in response.

4. 

Paragraph 16 and 17 are matters of record.

5. 

Paragraph 18 is denied. The Defendant re-iterates that the Plaintiff is not entitled to any dues from it.

6. 

Paragraph 19 is denied and contested. The Defendant denies that any cause of action has arisen which merits the filing of the present suit. The contents of the previous paragraphs are re-iterated in response.

7. 

Paragraph 20 and 21 need no response from the Defendant.

8. 

Paragraph 22 is denied and contested. The alleged cause of action did not arise in Delhi. From a reading of the plaint itself it would be clear to this Hon’ble Court that the court having territorial jurisdiction in  in   the present matter would be the courts of Sonepat, Haryana and not Delhi. A separate application under Order 7 Rule 10 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the Defendant on this aspect. The contents c ontents of the same are not repeated herein in the interests of brevity.

Therefore, in light of the above averments a verments it is humbly prayed that the present suit  be dismissed with exemplary costs.

DEFENDANT THROUGH ANTONY R. JULIAN SAURABH BALWANI ADVOCATES FOR THE DEFENDANT 325, M.C. SETALVAD BLOCK

 

 NEW DELHI  ___ NOVEMBER 2019

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  NEW DELHI 110001

VERIFICATION Verified at New Delhi on ____ November 2019 that the facts stated in the Writt Written en Statement at Para nos. 1 to 14 are true and correct to my knowledge and record. The para-wise reply to the Plaint contained in paras 1 to 8 are believed to be true on advice received.

DEFENDANT