SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED vs MRS. PUNITA DEVI
$~4 & 5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 3rd April, 2024
+ CS(COMM) 1670/2016
RAVI AND SINGH COMMUNICATION ….. Plaintiff
Through: Mr. G.R. Prashar, Mr. Shanta Prashar and Mr. Aryan Yadav, Advocates.
versus
SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ….. Defendant
Through: Mr. Ankit Chaturvedi and Mr. Shubham Agarwal, Advocates
5
+ CS(COMM) 73/2018
SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ….. Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Ankit Chaturvedi and Mr. Shubham Agarwal, Advocates
versus
MRS. PUNITA DEVI ….. Defendant
Through: Mr. G.R. Prashar, Mr. Shanta Prashar and Mr. Aryan Yadav, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
I.A. 4209/2018 (under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to amend the Written Statement) in CS(COMM) 1670/2016
1. The present application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC has been filed on behalf of the defendant seeking permission to amend its Written Statement dated 29.08.2017.
2. It is submitted in the application that in March, 2016, upon carrying out the verification of the invoices submitted by the plaintiff, for the months of November and December, 2015, the defendant discovered that fraudulent claims have been raised by the plaintiff, in these two months for an amount of at least Rs. 22.42 Lakhs, after which a thorough audit was carried out subsequently by the defendant and the figure of fraudulent claims enhanced to Rs.35.41 Lakhs. The defendant was then led to verify all the 1160 bills, submitted to it by the plaintiff over the years.
3. 916 bills pertained to cost of Towers and Erection charges, where each Invoice was verified with PO for the accuracy of the rates applied for each claim. Defendant was constrained to cause a comprehensive Forensic Audit of these 85 high valued Invoices of the plaintiff, in order to assess the validity and accuracy of the claims of the plaintiff. The Forensic Audit took time over a year as it involved assessment and Forensic Audit of thousands of individual jobs/assignments allegedly done by the plaintiff. Various interim updates (i.e. the Interim Reports) were issued by the Auditor, providing him an update of the ongoing process of Audit. Final Audit Report was prepared only on 31.07.2017 and a Revised Audit Report dated 04.10.2017 was prepared by the Forensic auditor. The audited findings revealed that the claims of the plaintiff contained in the various Invoices since July, 2014, were fraudulent.
4. It is submitted that vide Order dated 08.08.2017, this Court had allowed the defendant to file the Written Statement, within three weeks. Due to the limited time granted, the defendant relied on certain interim figures mentioned in the Interim Reports while preparing the Written Statement instead of the final figures as given by the Final Audit Reports. Therefore, some of the figures mentioned in the Written Statement, vary from the correct final figures of fraud, as mentioned in the Final Audit Report.
5. It is submitted that the proposed amendments do not change the nature of the defence of the defendant as contained in the Written Statement but serves to further elucidate and substantiate the details of the defence of the defendant. No prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff. Furthermore, the case is still at the initial stage as the Replication is yet to be filed to the Written Statement by the Plaintiff. Furthermore, the change in figures under different heads varies both upwards and downwards on the basis of the Final Audit Report and it is not as if the figures merely increase. Hence, the prayer is made that as many as 37 amendments be permitted to be made in respect of the periods and the dates, in the various paragraphs of the Written Statement, as indicated in the application.
6. The application is contested by the plaintiff, who has asserted that though the defendants had been served in February, 2017, the Written Statement has been filed only in August, 2017. The present Amendment application is nothing but a delay tactic. By way of the proposed amendment, the defendant intends to overhaul its entire Written Statement. Moreover, though it is alleged that the transactions/Invoices prepared by the plaintiff are fraudulent but defendant has not explained the basis of which it is so claimed. It is therefore, submitted that the application is without merit and is liable to be dismissed.
7. Submissions heard.
8. Essentially, as has been submitted by the defendant, the proposed change in figures and the periods that are sought to be made in the various paragraph as detailed in the Written Statement, are purely on the basis of Final Audit which the defendant has got conducted. The Interim Audit Report as well as the Final Audit Report, have already been placed on record. The nature of the Written Statement and the defence taken therein by the defendant has not been altered in way. Furthermore, the Suit is at the early stage when the Admission/ Denial of documents is also yet to be completed.
9. Considering the nature of the proposed amendments which is occasioned by the Audit got conducted by the defendant, the amendment application is allowed.
10. The amended Written Statement has already been filed along with the application, which is taken on record.
11. The plaintiff to file the Replication to the amended written statement within 30 days.
CS(COMM) 1670/2016 & CS(COMM) 73/2018
12. Be placed before the learned Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings and admission/denial of documents on 04.07.2024.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
APRIL 03, 2024/RS
CS(COMM) 1670/2016 & CS(COMM) 73/2018 Page 1 of 4