Bangalore District Court
M/S. Brandis Manufacturing And vs M/S. Pink Rose Lingerie Private on 6 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVII ADDL.,
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE.
Present: Sri. T. GOVINDAIAH. B.Com., LLB.,
Dated: This the 6th Day of December 2021
C.C.No.1096/2017
Complainant M/S. BRANDIS MANUFACTURING AND
MARKETING PVT LTD.,
Plot No. 490A, Peenya 4th Phase,
Peenya Industrial area,
Next to office of the
Sub-Registrar (Peenya),
BENGALURU 560058.
Represented by its Partner
SRI. BHAVISH KUMAR. K.M
(Reptd by Sri. M.G.N Adv.,)
Accused M/S. PINK ROSE LINGERIE PRIVATE
LTD.,
No. C-10/04, Platinum City,
HMT Main Road,
Yeswanthpur,
Bengaluru 560022.
(Rep. By its Managing Directors)
2. Mr. Santhosh Kumar,
S/o. Brahmananda Kumar,
Aged about 46 Years,
Director,
M/S.PINK ROSE LINGERIE PRIVATE
LTD.,
Sy.No. 29, Machohalli Cross,
Magadi Main Road,
Bengaluru 560091.
2 C.C.No. 1096/2017
3. Mrs. Madhumathi Kumar,
W/o. Mr. Santhosh Kumar,
Director,
M/S.PINK ROSE LINGERIE PRIVATE
LTD.,
Sy.No. 29, Machohalli Cross,
Magadi Main Road,
Bengaluru 560091.
(Rep by Sri. L.K.N Adv.,)
Offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Plea of the Pleaded not guilty
accused
Final Order Convicted
Judgment Date 06/12/2021
*****
JUDGMENT
The complainant filed present complaint against the accused for the offense punishable U/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Brief facts of the complainant case are as follows:-
The accused are fully aware of the trade agreement entered into with the complainant for 3 C.C.No. 1096/2017 supply of garments for Rs.15,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Crores only) as against the trade advance paid to the accused for a total sum of Rs.14,70,00,000/- on different dates commencement from 11/03/2016 to 08/07/2016. As agreed upon by the accused that the entire order of consignment should be delivered by 18/07/2016 to the satisfaction of the complainant. In the event of both the complainant and accused unable to fulfill obligations of the accused. The accused shall ensure return of the trade advance without any adjustments on or before 25/06/201 along with the penalty of 36% per annum failing which the complainant reserves the right to recover the entire trade advance with penalty. The accused have issued post dated cheque bearing No. 004376 for Rs.7,50,00,000/- and another cheque bearing No. 004377 for Rs.,7,20,00,000/- dated: 26/06/2016 drawn on Dena Bank, Kepegowda Road, Bengaluru 4 C.C.No. 1096/2017 in favour of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant presented both the cheques bearing No. 004376 & 004377 dated: 26/06/2016 for Rs.7,50,00,000/- and Rs.,7,20,00,000/- respectively, for realization and encashment through his banker Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Peenya Branch, Bengaluru and the said cheques dishonoured as per the Bank memo dated 07/09/2016 as "Exceeds Arrangements" The conduct of the accused not keeping sufficient funds in the bank account though the accused were aware well in advance about the liability of the accused to repay the trade advance amount. But, accused fails to do so. Thereafter, complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 26/09/2016 through RPAD and same has been served to the accused on 27/09/2016. In-spite of service of notice, the accused neither replied to the notice nor paid the cheques amount. Hence, the present complaint.5 C.C.No. 1096/2017
3. On issuance of the summons, the accused appeared through their advocate and they enlarged on bail. Thereafter, substance of accusation read over and explained to the accused, to which they denied the issuance of cheques. Hence, the case was posted for complainant evidence. In order to prove the complainant case, one of the Authorized person of the complainant company filed affidavit by way of chief-examination as PW1 and got marked 17 documents as per Ex.P1 to P17. Further, two documents are got marked as Ex.P18 & 19 by confronting to DW1. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590 (Indian Bank Association and Ors V/s. Union Bank of India and Ors) the said evidence holds good. The counsel for the accused cross- examined the PW1 and closed the evidence of the complainant side. On closure of the complainant 6 C.C.No. 1096/2017 side evidence, the statement of the accused recorded as required U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., The accused has denied all the incriminating materials which appears against them in the complainant side evidence as false. Then the case was posted for defendant side evidence. On the other hand, One of the Director of the accused company has been examined as DW1 and 51 documents have been marked as Ex.D1 to 51 and closed their side. The counsel for the complainant cross-examined the DW1. Sri. GND advocate submits no further evidence on behalf of the accused. Hence, defence evidence closed.
4. Heard the arguments of learned counsels for the complainant and accused. Perused the oral and documentary evidence produced by both the parties.
5. The points that would arise for my consideration are as follows:
7 C.C.No. 1096/2017
(i) Whether the complainant proves that the accused issued Ex.P.2 & 3 cheques towards discharge of any debt or liability and the said cheque dishonoured for the reason Exceeds Arrangements?
(ii) Whether the complainant proves that after dishonour of cheques, served notice to the accused in compliance of Sec.138(b) of N.I Act?
(iii) What order?
6. My answer to the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2: In the Affirmative Point No.3: As per the final order, for the following:-
REASONS
7. Point Nos.1 & 2 : These two points are taken together for common discussion to avoid reputation of facts. It is the case of the complainant that, the accused are fully aware of the trade agreement entered into with the complainant for 8 C.C.No. 1096/2017 supply of garments for Rs.15,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Crores only) as against the trade advance paid to the accused for a total sum of Rs.14,70,00,000/- on different dates commencement from 11/03/2016 to 08/07/2016. As agreed upon by the accused that the entire order of consignment should be delivered by 18/07/2016 to the satisfaction of the complainant. In the event of both the complainant and accused unable to fulfill obligations of the accused. The accused shall ensure return of the trade advance without any adjustments on or before 25/06/201 along with the penalty of 36% per annum failing which the complainant reserves the right to recover the entire trade advance with penalty. The accused have issued post dated cheque bearing No. 004376 for Rs.7,50,00,000/- and another cheque bearing No. 004377 for Rs.,7,20,00,000/- dated: 26/06/2016 drawn on Dena Bank, Kepegowda Road, Bengaluru 9 C.C.No. 1096/2017 in favour of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant presented both the cheques bearing No. 004376 & 004377 dated: 26/06/2016 for Rs.7,50,00,000/- and Rs.,7,20,00,000/- respectively, for realization and encashment through his banker Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Peenya Branch, Bengaluru and the said cheques dishonoured as per the Bank memo dated 07/09/2016 as "Exceeds Arrangements". The accused by knowing the real fact that there is no sufficient balance in their Bank account, they issued cheques only with an intention to cheat the complainant company.
8. PW1 in his chief examination affidavit has reiterated all the averments of the complaint. In support of the say of PW1, he produced Authorization letter, as per Ex.P1. Which is go to show that, PW1 is the Authorized person to give evidence on behalf of the complainant company. 10 C.C.No. 1096/2017 Ex.P2 and 3 are the cheques towards payment of the materials supplied to them and the said cheques dishonoured for the reason Exceeds Arrangement. Ex.P4 & 5 are the endorsement issued by the bank for the reason Exceeds Arrangement.
9. The counsel for the complainant relied upon the rulings reported in :
1. 2021 SCC Online 1002
2. MANU / GJ 0884 /2008
3. 2006 SCC Online Del.1448
4. (2000) 2 SCC 765
5. Crl.Petition No.8738/2016 C/w Crl.
Petition No.292/2017 I have gone through the above citations. The facts and circumstances of the above citations are clearly applicable to the case on hand.
10. In order to disprove the case of the complainant, the accused No.2 has been examined 11 C.C.No. 1096/2017 as DW1. In the evidence of DW1, he says that their company is registered under the companies Act. He and his wife namely Madhumathi Kumar are the Directors of the accused No.1 company. He further states that in the month of January 2015 they approached one of the Director of People capital LLC by name Venkata shankar. The said Venkata Shankar is also one of Director of the complainant company. He further states that, the people capital company asked the earlier promoter of the complainant company to step down in the month of January 2016. The said aspect created lot of labour unrest in the complainant company. At that point of time, the people capital company hired an executive search firm for RGF. At that time, his name identified as a suitable person for heading of the complainant company. In that context Mr. Venkata shankar of people capital company approached him. After lengthy discussion and he 12 C.C.No. 1096/2017 told to venkata shankar that he already own company and I have own brand also. The entire team of the people capital company visited his company and they were impressed with their company. At that point of time, their company was in the process of raising funds for expansion. At that time, people capital company expressed that, they wish to invest in their company and they have gave term sheets of investments on 05/02/2016. During that time, the complainant company of labour unrest was going on. Accordingly, people capital company urgently wanted to take over complainant company and head the operation. At that time, one P.V. Gopalakrishna (Bachi) was also introduced by the people capital company to him. At that time it was decided that himself and the above said P.V. Gopalakrishna (Bachi) were supposed to look after the entire operation of the complainant company and accused No.1 company. Internally it was decided 13 C.C.No. 1096/2017 that merge of complainant company and accused No.1 company. Based on the said discussion a plan was made for both the combined entity. On 22/02/2016 Mr. Venkata Shankar called him and P.V. Gopalakrishna to the complainant company office. In the office of complainant company discussion was took place and his exit Number was planned as Rs.72,00,00,000/-(Rupees Seventy two Crores only). In the same MOU mentioned about the entire corporate deposit of Rs.7.5 crores from complainant company to the accused No.1 company and format were execution of entire corporate deposit was also forwarded to him. The people capital company realized that the complainant company cannot extend the ICD as the majority of shares held by the people capital company. Accordingly accused No.1 company was totally merged with complainant company. At the time of mering the accused No.1 company to the complainant company, the Directors 14 C.C.No. 1096/2017 of complainant company have took two blank signed cheques as surety. At that time, the complainant company informed him as they will returned the said cheques after some time. He never placed any purchase order to the complainant company. The purchase order shown by the complainant company are done in the guise of investment in the accused No.1 company. Accordingly entire transaction was conducted by complainant company.
11. He further states that on 22/03/2016 a mail came to him from Potent Solutions who were conducting the due diligence to the CFO of the complainant company and himself in the style of final numbers. Based on the said report the meeting was held between himself and Venkata shankar of the complainant company, in that meeting it was realized that the accused No.1 company needed additional funding of Rs.10 crores. MOU draft on 15 C.C.No. 1096/2017 04/03/2016 recorrected and send back to him and P.V. Gopalakrishna. In the said MOU proposed investment increased from 40 to 50 crores. Out of the said 40 crores supposed to brought by people capital company and Rs.10 crores the complainant along with his sales certificates. The complainant company supposed to be returned the cheques issued by him after both signing of MOU dated:
30/03/2016. But they have not returned the said cheques. Thereafter the complainant company misused the said cheques and filed this false complaint against him, only with an intention to gain wrongful profit.
12. In support of the say of DW1, he produced the non binding term sheet, copy of emails, copy of notice dated: 08/08/2016, office copy of notice dated: 25/09/2016, postal receipt, certified copy of PCR No.11146/20116, certified copy of B-report, 16 C.C.No. 1096/2017 copy of mail dated: 28/04/2016, Certified copy of order sheet of the proceedings before NCLT, copies of e-mail dated: 14/07/2019, copies of e-mail and Certificate U/sec. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act pertaining to Ex.D3 to 43.
13. On perusal of the evidence of DW1 and Ex.D1 to 43 it is clear that the accused No.1 company was merged with the complainant company and accused No.2 also appointed as one of the Managing Director of the said company. It is important to note that, the accused contend that at the time of merging the accused No.1 company with complainant company, complainant company have received two cheques by assuring to him as they have returned the said cheques after completion of the terms of MOU. Now, the complainant company by misusing the said cheques filed the present complaint with an intention to harass the accused. 17 C.C.No. 1096/2017
14. It is important to note that, the counsel for the complainant argued that the accused are fully aware of the trade agreements entered into with the complainant for supply of garments of Rs.15 crores as against the trade advance paid to the accused for a total sum of Rs.14,70,00,000/- on different dates commencing from 11/03/2016 to 08/07/2016. As agreed upon by all the accused that the entire order of consignment should be delivered by 18/07/2016 to the satisfaction of the complainant. In the event of both the complainant and accused, the accused unable to fulfill obligations of the accused. All the accused ensure return of the trade advance with any adjustments (if any) on or before 25/06/2016 along with the penalty 36% per annum failing which the complainant reserves rights to recover the entire trade advance with penalty. The accused have issued two post dated cheques bearing No. 004376 18 C.C.No. 1096/2017 for Rs.7,50,00,000/- and another cheque bearing No.004377 for Rs.7,20,00,000/- dated: 26/06/2016. On presentation of the said cheques the same were dishonoured for the reason "Exceed Arrangements". After dishonoured of the cheques complainant issued legal notice. But the accused fails to pay the cheques amount.
15. It is important to note that, the accused admits the issuance of cheques belongs to their bank account. Further, the accused also not denied their signatures on Ex.P2 & 3 cheques. Now the accused took various contentions by denying transaction with the complainant company. But they have not denied the issuance of cheques and their signatures on the disputed cheques.
16. In the cross-examination of DW1, he admits issuance of Ex.P2 & 3 cheques infavour of the 19 C.C.No. 1096/2017 complainant company. Further, DW1 clearly admits his signatures on Ex.P2 & 3. It is settled position of law that, when the accused admits the issuance of cheques and signatures, the presumption U/sec. 139 of the N.I Act and raises in favour the complainant that the accused issued Ex.P2 & 3 Cheques to the complainant company towards discharge of debts or liability. The burden shifts on the accused to rebut the said presumption. With this background let the court appreciate the evidence on record, whether the accused are able to rebut the presumption U/sec. 139 of the N.I. Act raises infavour of the complainant. Further, evidence of PW1 are clearly corroborated with Ex.P1 to 19. The accused led evidence and produced Ex.D1 to 51, but they are not helpful to the case of the accused.
17. The counsel for the accused relied upon the following citations:-
20 C.C.No. 1096/2017
1. (2018) 2 AIR KAR 440
2. 2014 (12) SCC 539
3. (2006) 6 SCC 39
4. (2009) 2 SCC 513
5. SCC Online KAR 6022
6. (2010) 6 Mh.Lj 65 I have gone through the above citations. But the facts and circumstances of the above citations are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.
18. It is relevant here to refer the decisions reported in 2001 AIR Karnataka HCR 2154 between 'M/s.Devi Tyres V/s.Navab Jan' and in 2011 ACD 1521 (KAR) between 'Smt. Usha Suresh V/s. Shashidharn', in 2010 SC 1898 between 'Rangappa Vs. Mohan' and 2011 ACD 1412 (KAR) between 'N.Hasainar Vs. M.Hasainar, S/o. Ibrahim'. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in 21 C.C.No. 1096/2017 the above decision i.e., 2001 AIR Karnataka HCR 2154 at para No.6 was pleased to hold that issuance of cheque itself was adequate proof of existence of debt or liability. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in the decision referred above, the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2010 SC 1898 in case of 'Rangappa Vs. Mohan' that, presumptions U/sec.118(a) and 139 of N.I. Act indeed does extend to the existence of legally recoverable debt, of course the said presumption is rebuttable one, the accused has to rebut the presumption by taking probable defence. In another decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India reported in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2018 DT 15-03-2018 between ROHITBHAI JIVANLAL PATEL Vs STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR held that "Negotiable Instruments Act facts like source of funds are not relevant if the Accused has not been able to rebut the presumption. It is further held that "When such a presumption is drawn, the facts 22 C.C.No. 1096/2017 relating to the want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence as regards source of funds were not of relevant consideration while examining if the Accused has been able to rebut the presumption or not". In another decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2019 KAR 493 in the case of Sri.Yogesh Poojary Vs. Sri.K.Shankara Bhat, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that, the presumption mandated by Sec.139 of N.I Act includes the presumption that, there existed a legally enforceable debt or liability, however such presumption is rebuttable in nature". In another decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Shri.V.R.Shresti Vs. Shri. Bhaskara.P. in Crl. Appeal No. 2109/2017 dated: 15.10.2019 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that "the Accused has not given any reply to the notice and also in the cross- 23 C.C.No. 1096/2017 examination, he categorically admits that, the cheque has bounced on account of no sufficient fund in the bank account of the Accused. Mere non producing of the document before the court with regard to the source of income to advance a loan is not a ground to dismiss the complaint. The Accused ought to have rebutted the contention of the complainant by producing cogent evidence before the court and mere denial is not enough". In another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in ICL 2021(2) SC 529 in the case of M/s. Kalamani Tex Vs. P.Balasubramanian , dt: 10.02.2021 wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that " once the accused had admitted his signatures on the cheque and deed, the trial court ought to have presumed that, the cheque was issued as consideration for legally enforceable debt". Hence the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and 24 C.C.No. 1096/2017 Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above referred decisions are aptly applicable to the case on hand, since in the present case also the complainant has proved that, the cheques in question belonging to the account of the Accused No.2 and signatures appearing on the cheques is that of the Accused No.2 and it was issued to the complainant, in such circumstances, this court has drawn presumption of existence of legally enforceable debt as per Sec.139 of N.I. Act.
19. Therefore, considering all these aspects of the case and totality of the circumstances and careful perusal of the evidence adduced by both the parties, the court is of the opinion that the accused have entered into trade agreement with the complainant company and issued Ex.P2 & 3 chrques for discharge of legal debt of Rs.14,70,00,000/-. Therefore complainant has 25 C.C.No. 1096/2017 successfully established beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused have entered into trade agreement and issued Ex.P2 & 3 to discharge legal debt of Rs.14,70,00,000/-. But, in spite of service of notice accused have fails to pay the cheques amount infavour of the complainant company. Thereafter, complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 26/09/2016 through RPAD and same has been served to the accused on 27/09/2016. In-spite of service of notice, the accused neither replied to the notice nor paid the cheques amount. Therefore, the accused have committed an offence punishable U/sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. Accordingly, this court answered Points No1 & 2 in the Affirmative.
20. Point No.3 :- In view of my findings on Point No.1 & 2 the complainant proved that the accused have issued Ex.P2 & 3 cheques to discharge legal debt of Rs.14,70,00,000/- and the said 26 C.C.No. 1096/2017 cheques dishonoured and the complainant has complied the mandatory requirement of Sec.138(b) of N.I Act, by issuing demand notice to the accused, after dishonour of the cheques. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment for the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I Act. In the cheque bounce cases apart from the punishment to the accused, compensation can also be awarded to the complainant with respect to the dishonoured cheque. The accused have issued Ex.P.2 & 3 cheques in favour of the complainant towards discharge of legal debts. Ex.P.2 & 3 cheque bearing No. 004376 for Rs.7,50,00,000/- and another cheque bearing No. 004377 for Rs.,7,20,00,000/- dated: 26/06/2016 is dated 25/04/2017 and the amount involved therein is of Rs.14,70,00,000/-. The transaction between the complainant and the accused is commercial transaction. If the cheques were honoured on the day when it were presented for encashment, the 27 C.C.No. 1096/2017 complainant would have utilized the said amount for its business purpose and would have got substantial profits. The act of the accused caused loss to the complainant and dragged the complainant to the court for redressal. Therefore, the complainant has to be suitably compensated in the matter. In the result, this court proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant company is allowed.
Acting U/s.255(2) of Cr.PC, the accused are convicted for the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act.
The accused are to sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.14,71,10,000/-. (Rupees Fourteen Crores Seventy one Lakhs and Ten Thousand Only). In default of payment of said fine amount, the accused No.2 & 3 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (1) One Year.
Further, acting U/sec. 357 (1) of Cr.P.C., out of the fine amount on recovery, a sum of Rs.14,71,00,000/-. (Rupees Fourteen Crores and Seventy one 28 C.C.No. 1096/2017 Lakhs Only). shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.
Further, acting U/sec. 357(1) (a) of Cr.P.C. out of the fine amount on recovery, a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) shall be defrayed as expenses to the state.
The bail bonds of the accused No.2 & 3 shall cancelled after appeal period is over.
Office is directed to furnish a free Certified copy of this judgment to the Accused incompliance of Section 363(1) of Cr.P.C.,.
(Dictated to the stenographer on computer , corrected and then pronounced in open court by me on this the 6th day of December, 2021) (T.Govindaiah) XXVII A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW1 : BHAVISH KUMAR Documents marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Authorization letter
Ex.P.2 &3 : Cheques
Ex.P.2(a) & 3(a) : Signatures of the accused No.2
29 C.C.No. 1096/2017
Ex.P.4 & 5 : Bank endorsements
Ex.P.6 : Legal Notice
Ex.P.7 to 9 : Postal receipts
Ex.P10 to 12 : Postal acknowledgements
Ex.P13 : Copy of reply notice
Ex.P14 : Agreement
Ex.P15 : Copy of purchase order
Ex.P16 : Copy of Board Resolution
Ex.P17 : Authorization letter
Ex.P18 : Bank Account Statement
Ex.P19 : Copy of protest petition
Witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
DW1 : SANTHOSH KUMAR Documents marked on behalf of the accused:
Ex.D1 : Copy of E-mail dated: 14/07/2016 Ex.D2 : Copy of Non-binding term sheets Ex.D3 to 44: Copy of E-mails Ex.D45 : Copy of Reply notice Ex.D46 : Office copy of Legal notice dt:25/09/2016 Ex.D46(a) : Postal receipts Ex.D47 : Copy of PCR No.11146/2016 Ex.D48 : Copy of B-Report Ex.D49 : Copy of E-mail 30 C.C.No. 1096/2017 Ex.D50 : Copy of NCLT order sheet Ex.D51 : Copy of E-mail.
XXVII A.C.M.M Bengaluru.31 C.C.No. 1096/2017
06/12/2021 Comp: Sri. M.G.N. Adv., Accd: Sri. S.K.G Adv., For Judgment (Order typed vide separate sheet) ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant company is allowed.
Acting U/s.255(2) of Cr.PC, the accused are convicted for the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act.32 C.C.No. 1096/2017
The accused are to sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.14,71,10,000/-. (Rupees Fourteen Crores Seventy one Lakhs and Ten Thousand Only). In default of payment of said fine amount, the accused No.2 & 3 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (1) One Year.
Further, acting U/sec. 357 (1) of Cr.P.C., out of the fine amount on recovery, a sum of Rs.14,71,00,000/-. (Rupees Fourteen Crores and Seventy one Lakhs Only). shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.
Further, acting U/sec. 357(1) (a) of Cr.P.C. out of the fine amount on recovery, a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) shall be defrayed as expenses to the state.
The bail bonds of the accused No.2 & 3 shall cancelled after appeal period is over.
Office is directed to furnish a free Certified copy of this judgment to the Accused incompliance of Section 363(1) of Cr.P.C.,.
XXVII A.C.M.M, Bengaluru.