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 “Institute 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 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

on 26th February 2014. The total amount to be paid to the Plaintiff (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 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 5th February

2015. The same was valid from 1st March 2015 till 28th February 2016.

8. During the second year of service, the Plaintiff’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 1st May 2016 to 31st 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 PLC 1

XU106

28-04-2016 Projector – Hitachi – 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 signed by the

employees of the Plaintiff – 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 31st 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

 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 4th November 2016 itself. The Plaintiff simply replied vide e-mail

dt. 30-12-2016 that it did not agree with the Defendant’s estimate.

13. Subsequently when the Plaintiff’s legal notice dt. 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.

15. The Defendant has separately filed counter-claims expounding its claims

against the Plaintiff. The contents of the same may be read as part 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

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 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 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 of the same are

not repeated herein in the interests of brevity.

Therefore, in light of the above averments 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 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
___ NOVEMBER 2019 NEW DELHI 110001

VERIFICATION

Verified at New Delhi on ____ November 2019 that the facts stated in the Written

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