v.
Karnataka Power Transmission Corp Ltd … Defendant
Rejoinder to Written Statement
1. At the outset, the Plaintiff submits that the Defendant’s bald denial of receipt of the supplied transformer units is contradicted by its own conduct on record: the goods were physically taken into stock at the Whitefield substation on 14 August 2023 Annexure A · ¶3 and the running bill RB-17 was acknowledged without protest in the Defendant’s communication of 18 January 2024 Annexure B · Invoice 04. The averments at paragraph 4 of the Written Statement are therefore traversed as wholly false and put to strict proof.
2. It is denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the fourteen units of 100 kVA distribution transformers supplied under the Purchase Order dated 04 September 2022. The Defendant’s own field-inspection report records that all units met IS 2026 specifications and were energised on the same day Email · 23 Aug 2023. The Plaintiff places on record the joint inspection note signed by the Defendant’s Executive Engineer, Mr. K. Suresh, in proof thereof.
3. The Defendant’s reliance on a purported complaint letter dated 09 September 2023 alleging defects is wholly misconceived. No such letter was received by the Plaintiff or its registered agents Email · 09 Sept 2023 ⚠, and the Defendant has produced no proof of dispatch, courier receipt, or registered post acknowledgement whatsoever. The averment ought to be expunged.
4. On quantum, the Defendant’s contention that liability is limited to ₹47.20 Lakh is squarely contradicted by its own admission of running bill RB-17 in Annexure B. The principle laid down in Hindustan Petroleum Corp v. Super Highway Services (2010) 3 SCC 321 · ¶42 applies on all fours: where part-performance of a contract has been admitted, the entire contract is enforceable unless rescission is pleaded with full particulars — which has admittedly not been done in the Written Statement.
5. On limitation, the cause of action arose afresh on 18 January 2023 when running bill RB-17 fell due, evidenced by the corresponding ledger entry in the Plaintiff’s bank statement Bank stmt · p. 14. The suit, filed on 12 March 2024 Plaint · ¶7, is well within the three-year limitation period prescribed under Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Reference may be had to Bharat Coking Coal v. Annapurna Construction (2008) 6 SCC 732.
6. Prayer. It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to — (a) decree the suit in terms of the Plaint; (b) award interest at the contractual rate of 18% per annum compounded monthly Annexure A · ¶8; and (c) grant such other and further relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.