Reply
Reply
Reply
SURYAVANSHI
B.S.L., LL.M,
Advocate High Court, Mumbai
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office: 15, Vasudev Mension, 3rd Floor, 30-C/F, Opposite Yazdani Bakery, Cawasji
Patel Street, Fort, Mumbai - 400001
Contact: +91 97307 36824 / +91 8422953831
e-mail: suryavanshisangram@gmail.com
Ref Date: 28/11/2022
To,
Bhagvan Swarup Shukla )
Central Govt. Standing Counsel, )
Supreme Court of India & Delhi High Court, )
Ch. 459, Block-I, Delhi High Court, )
New Delhi - 1100503 )
Mob. No. 9910483635 )
Subject : Reply to your Notice dated 24th October, 2022 and 10th November,
2022 issued on and under the instructions of your Client – Hitex Industries
having registered office at L-304, Devi Indrayani Co. Op Housing Society, Dehu
Alandi Road, Talwade, Pune 411062 to my Clients to amicably settle the financial
loss of about Rs. 1.10 Crore.
Dear Sir,
East, Thane – 401105, (2) Mr. Raneesh Rajan R/at A-4, Gulshan Manzil Chawl,
1
Behind Shivner Mohili Village, Sakinaka S. O. Mumbai – 400072 and (3) Omkar
Colony, Near Tambe School, Nakhate Wasti, Rahatani, Pune – 411017. Upon
referred to in your Notices dated 24th October, 2022 and 10th November, 2022
issued upon untrue / false instructions given by your Client - Hitex Industries
having registered office at L-304, Devi Indrayani Co. Op Housing Society, Dehu
Alandi Road, Talwade, Pune 411062 Mr. Manoj Kagde by suppressing the
1. At the outset, my Clients have denied all the allegations / contentions made
in the Notices dated 24th October, 2022 and 10th November, 2022
2. As far as the contents of para No. 1 of the said Notices dated 24 th October,
2022 and 10th November, 2022 is concerned, the same are false and
3. As far as the contents of para No. 2 of the said Notice dated 24 th October,
2022 and 10th November, 2022 is concerned, the same are false and
baseless and your client put the strict proof thereof. My client no. 2 and 3
i.e. Raneesh Rajan and Omkar Jagdale are professionally engineers and
they were worked in Monga Stryfield Company and they are expert
4. As far as the contents of para No. 3 of the said Notice dated 24 th October,
2022 is concerned, the same are false and baseless and your client put the
strict proof thereof. My clients states that My client no. 2 and 3 i.e. Raneesh
Rajan and Omkar Jagdale were / are not any employee of your client i. e.
Hitex Industries my clients were business partner but when business set
then your client change his words, my client no. 2 and 3 are working
5. As far as the contents of para No. 4 of the said Notice dated 24 th October,
2022 and 10th November, 2022 is concerned, the same are false and
baseless and your client put the strict proof thereof. My client no. 2 and 3
are technical expert as well as having knowledge of spare parts. Your client
6. As far as the contents of para No. 5 of the said Notice dated 24 th October,
2022 and 10th November, 2022 is concerned, the same are false and
baseless and your client put the strict proof thereof. My clients states that
your client promises to give 10% commission on sales when your client
3
% to my clients. Then my clients decline to do the business with your client.
7. As far as the contents of para No. 6 of the said Notice dated 24 th October,
2022 and 10th November, 2022 is concerned, the same are false and
8. In view thereof your client is hereby called upon you to withdradw the
notices dated 24th October, 2022 and 10th November, 2022 issued on behalf
411062 Mr. Manoj Kagde within 15 days from the receipt of this Reply
legal advice and instruct me to reply your notices dated 24 th October, 2022
and 10th November, 2022. Thus, the cost of this Reply cum Notice is
Advocate
CC to
4
Hitex Industries