IN THE HON’BLE XVII ASST CITY CIVIL COURT

AT CHENNAI

I.A. No. of 2019

In

O.S. NO. 4605 OF 2018

Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd.,

Having registered office at
34, M.G.R.Rd ,Kalashetra Colony
Besant Nagar Chennai 600090 …Petitioner/2nd Defendant

Vs.

1. C.H. Robinson Worldwide Freight (India) Private Limited,

S.B.L House, No. 54/28, First Floor,
Montieth Road, Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
Mr. M. Balasubramaniam …Respondent/Plaintiff

1. 2. T. Nagarajan,
Proprietor of Vel Logistics,
16J/17 J, .P. Thanam Complex
Palayamkottai Road
Tuticorin- 628 008 …2nd Respondent/1st Defendant

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

I, M. Balasubramanian, Hindu, son of H.S. Mani, aged about 56 years having office at
No. 77, Potti Patti Plaza, Ground Floor, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600034, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows: 

1. I am the Authorized Signatory of the Respondent/Plaintiff herein and as such I

am well acquainted with the facts of the case.

2. I have perused the affidavit in support of the Leave to Defend Petition and I
deny all the contents thereof as false and baseless, save those that are
specifically admitted hereunder. All of the averments contained in the plaint
may be read as part and parcel of the present affidavit. For the purpose of
convenience, the Plaintiff begs to refer parties as arrayed in the main suit.

3. As regards to Para 1 of the Affidavit, the same pertain to statement of facts and
as such does not warrant any response.

4. As regards to Paragraph 2 of the Affidavit, the contentions of the 2 nd Defendant

that the present suit is not maintainable is law and liable to be dismissed is
denied in toto. It is submitted that all of the conditions mandated by Order 37
Code of Civil Procedure have been complied with and the plaintiffs have filed
 several documents to substantiate their claim. Further, the admission of
liability for the suit claim by the Defendants is absolute and all of the defences
raised by them are sham and nominal defences and the same has to be rejected
in limine and the suit has to be decreed as prayed for.

5. As regards to Paragraph 3 of the Affidavit, it is pertinent to note that even

though it was the 1st Defendant who had approached the Plaintiffs with regard
to the above consignment, the 2 nd Defendant cannot escape liability in payment
of freight charges to the Plaintiff as the 1 st Defendant did not approach the
Plaintiff in their individual capacity, but only as the registered Customs
Clearing Agents of the 2nd Defendant.

6. It is further pertinent to state that the 2 nd Defendant have categorically

admitted to the fact that the 1st Defendant are their Clearing Agents and they
had a long standing business relationship with them for two years. Therefore,
under such circumstances, the 2 nd Defendant cannot at this stage, shift the
blame on the 1st Defendant and prevent the Plaintiff herein from realizing their
legitimate claims, when in fact the 2 nd Defendant has admitted that the 1 st
Defendant approached his agent. In any event, the shipment of the goods which
were effected, were admittedly the goods of the 2 nd Defendant. Hence, 2nd
Defendant is liable in tort if not under contract.

7. As regards to Paragraph 4, 5 and 6 of the Affidavit, the contention of the 2 nd

Defendant that they have paid the consignment charges along with the other
charges to the 1st Defendant is false and baseless and they are put to the strict
proof of the same. It is submitted that the 2nd Defendant was well aware of the
fact that the consignments were being exported by the Plaintiff. In fact, the Bill
of Lading and Shipping Bill clearly mentions the name of the 2 nd Defendant
(Shipper). Furthermore, after rendering services, the invoice number bearing
19017107304 dated 10.12.2017 for a sum of Rs. 16,16,034/- was also raised
on the 2nd Defendant. Therefore, it is the duty of the 2 nd Defendant to ensure
that the payment of freight charges was received by the Plaintiff and since the
Plaintiff has not received payments from both the 2 nd Defendant and the 1st
Defendant, they are jointly and severally liable to settle the outstanding dues to
the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff.

8. It is submitted that vide several emails dated 04.06.2018, 27.06.2018,

03.07.2018, 05.07.2018 and 09.07.2018 and by issuance of cheque nos.
439097 dated 25.05.2018 and 000093 15.06.2018, the 1st Defendant on behalf
of the 2nd Defendant had unequivocally admitted liability. The 2nd Defendant
being the shipper of the goods, was under an obligation to ensure that the
 payment of freight charges was made to the Plaintiff and not the shift the blame
on the 1st Defendant.

9. As regards to Paragraph 7, 8 and 9 of the Affidavit, it is submitted that all of

defenses raised by the 2nd Defendant in LDP are nothing but moonshine and
deserve to be dismissed at the threshold and the suit be decreed. It is reiterated
that all of the conditions mandated by Order 37 Code of Civil Procedure have
been complied with. The admission of liability for the suit claim by the
Petitioner/2ndDefendant is absolute and the Petitioner/2 ndDefendant ought not
to be allowed to file a written statement in the above suit as the same is only
bound to prolong the proceeding and delay the legitimate dues of the Plaintiff as
there is no triable issue in the present case, the leave to defend petition is liable
to be rejected.

Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the leave to
defend petition, consequently decree in the suit in favour of the plaintiff and thus
render justice.

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai

On this the day of March 2020
And signed his name in my presence.
BEFORE ME

ADVOCATE, CHENNAI
 IN THE HON’BLE XVII ASST
CITY CIVIL COURT
AT CHENNAI

I.A. No. of 2019

In

O.S. NO. 4605 OF 2018

Transworld Garnet India Pvt

Ltd.,

…Petitioner/2nd Defendant

Vs.

1. C.H. Robinson Worldwide

Freight (India) Private Limited,

…Respondent/Plaintiff

2. T. Nagarajan,
Proprietor of Vel Logistics,

…2nd Respondent/1st Defendant

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED ON

BEHALF OF RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

M/s P Giridharan

(Counsel for Respondent/Plaintiff)