CHEVRON INC. Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the complainant being aggrieved of the order dtd. 9/2/2021 whereby he is directed to appear on 9/4/2021 before learned JMFC, Jabalpur in complaint case No.558/2019 on the ground that a purely civil dispute has been converted by the respondent No.4 into a criminal case with ulterior motive and, therefore, a prayer is made to set aside the criminal case instituted by the respondent with a further prayer to discharge the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts, leading to the present case, are that the petitioner is a Firm based at Mumbai, Maharashtra. They had forwarded their offer vide quotation against the requirement for supply of 100 number of smart dustbin with data sheet along with terms and conditions to the respondent No.4.

(3.) It is submitted that the said smart dustbins are manufactured by one of the Chinese company and the petitioner firm is importer of the same. A promise was made by respondent No.4 to purchase 100 smart dustbins in three lots. In the first lot, purchase order for only 31 dustbins was given after which 21 dustbins were delivered and 10 were to be delivered. Prior to the transaction taking place, the petitioner had sent one sample smart dustbin and being satisfied with the functioning of the smart dustbin, purchase order was released. It is submitted that another set of 10 dustbins was also delivered to the respondent No.4 but the respondent No.4 without following the guidelines, started functioning of the dustbins through local electrician despite the fact that the software application which operates a smart dustbin is customised and can be started by Chinese company only. It is further submitted that since unauthorised operation was initiated by technician of respondent No.4, with a view to sort out the dispute, the petitioner deputed his technician who on his visit observed that smart dustbins were kept in bad condition and installation was done by local electrician messing up the wiring which led non-working of smart dustbin. Thus, it is alleged that nonfunctioning of the smart dustbins occurred due to negligence of the respondent No.4. It is further submitted that since supply was to be made in first lot of 35 numbers therefore, only after completing the placement of purchase order of 35 number of smart dustbins and completion of its supply, the principal vender with their technician were to visit the site to install the same. Since the procedure for installation of smart dustbin was not followed by the respondent No.4 and that resulted in some issues in regard to payment of balance amount, the petitioner had approached the Maharashtra State Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Mumbai by lodging a complaint as contained in Annexure P-1.