Bangalore District Court
M/S Padmashree Enterprises vs Kalpa Electrical Pvt Ltd on 21 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF LXXXIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. (CCH-90)
Present: Sri.K.M.RAJENDRA KUMAR., LLM, M.Phil,
LXXXIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF JANUARY 2026
Com.O.S.No.475/2024
PLAINTIFF : M/s.Padmashree Enterprises,
DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd.,
# 1244, Opp. Shell Petrol Pump,
Magadi Main Road,
Jaimuni Rao Circle, A.D.Halli,
Bengaluru-560 079,
Rep.by Proprietor
Sri.Srinivasamurthy,
Email ID-murthysrinivasa
[email protected]
Phone No-92414 32344.
(By M/s.H.D.& Associates)
V/s.
DEFENDANT : Kalpa Electrical Pvt., Ltd.,
# 4413, P B 25 149,
3rd Main Road,
Rajajinagar Industrial Town,
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-560 010,
Represented by Manager,
Email ID - accounts@kalpa
electrikal.com
/2/
Com.O.S.No.475/2024
Phone No-080-23303103/080-
23356049.
(By Sri.Krishnappa, Advocate)
Date of Institution of suit : 28.03.2024
Nature of suit : Money Suit
(suit on pronote, suit for
declaration and possession
suit for injunction, etc.,)
Date of commencement of : 22.08.2024
recording of evidence
Date of judgment : 21.01.2026
Total duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 09 23
(K.M.RAJENDRA KUMAR)
LXXXIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU. (CCH-90)
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant praying the Court to pass a judgment and decree directing the defendant to pay a sum of ₹.5,01,799/- (Rupees Five Lakhs One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Nine Only) together with interest @ 12% to the plaintiff from the date of claim till its realization and for such other reliefs in the interest of justice and equity.
/3/ Com.O.S.No.475/2024 The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as under:
02. That, the plaintiff is a recognized franchise of DTDC courier service for delivery of parcels and has made a good name in delivery business through both domestic and international shipments. That, the said business is being undertaken by the plaintiff since several years.
03. That, having accepted the plaintiff as reputed franchise of DTDC, the defendant has utilized the services rendered by the plaintiff for shipment of its products since many years.
04. That, for having utilized the delivery services rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant, it has made certain payments against the invoices raised by the plaintiff for the delivery services rendered to for shipment of its products.
05. That, however the defendant has become a defaulter by not making the payment properly on time to the plaintiff and the same has fallen due to the plaintiff.
/4/ Com.O.S.No.475/2024
06. That, though the plaintiff issued individual bills, the defendant did not always clear the amount as per the bills but sometimes used to clear two or three bills at once. That, however, the plaintiff brought to the notice of the defendant time and again about the pending bills which were yet to be cleared by them. Still the defendant neither paid the amount nor replied satisfactorily to the demands of payment made by the plaintiff.
07. That, in the process the defendant did not clear the dues and huge arrears of amount payable by the defendant started accumulating. That, in this process since July 2017, some of the bills have been kept in balance. That, however, the defendant continued giving orders to the plaintiff even though there was balance pending and the plaintiff undertook those orders from the defendant in good faith and belief that the defendant would clear the outstanding payments at the earliest.
08. That, a total 27 bills are pending as of today amounting to ₹.5,01,799/- which is due to the plaintiff by the defendant.
/5/ Com.O.S.No.475/2024
09. That, in spite of the plaintiff repeated demands, the defendant has neither paid the balance amount nor responded properly to the plaintiff.
10. That, the plaintiff has maintained a detailed record of the invoices with invoice number, date and amount due from each invoice raised in the name of the defendant for the delivery services rendered through the DTDC franchise of the plaintiff.
11. That, on so many occasions, when the plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay the balance amount, the defendant has time and again evaded clearing the pending bills by offering untenable reasons to the plaintiff.
12. That, the plaintiff used to render the services to the defendant in good faith and thus although there was balance amount pending with defendant, the plaintiff, keeping faith and confidence in the defendant, used to render the services to the defendant and thus till March 2020, the defendant used to place the orders. That, in bonafide belief, the plaintiff used to render the services, hoping to have a good business rapport with the defendant for the years to come. But the hopes of the plaintiff did not /6/ Com.O.S.No.475/2024 run for a longer period as he was cheated by the defendant by not making a prompt payment for having utilized the services of the plaintiff for delivery of goods through plaintiff's DTDC franchise.
13. That, since March 2020, when the defendant did not place any services with the plaintiff, the plaintiff hitherto has called over phone to the defendant to make good the payment of the balance amount and to place orders. That, in response, the defendant went on dodging the issue of payment and further promised that immediately after sometime they would come forward and utilized the services of the plaintiff. The last payment made to the plaintiff by the defendant was on 08.03.2021. That, no payments have been made by the defendant after this.
14. That, the plaintiff also took efforts to take the outstanding Bill Report to the office of the defendant and has brought it to his notice that there is an amount of ₹.5,01,799/- pending clearance by the defendant. That, the said report has been received by the defendant, by affixing an authorized sign on the Endorsement copy of the same on 10.04.2023.
/7/ Com.O.S.No.475/2024
15. That, being left with no other option the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 16.06.2023 to the defendant to make good of the balance amount of ₹.5,01,799/-. That, notice dated 16.06.2023 has been received by the defendant, but unfortunately neither any payment in response to the said legal notice has been made nor a reply to the said notice has been sent by the defendant.
16. That, in these hard days, the plaintiff is feeling difficulty in running the business as a huge amount of ₹.5,01,799/- is due to the plaintiff. That, the act of the defendant in paying the amount to the plaintiff after having utilized the shipment services extended by the plaintiff amount to deficiency of service.
17. That, the plaintiff is entitled to an interest @ 12% thereon. That, since the amount due to the plaintiff is being long pending amount, being payable by the defendant, it requires imposition of interest on the said pending amount. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the interest to the plaintiff along with the principal amount of ₹.5,01,799/-.
/8/ Com.O.S.No.475/2024
18. That, the defendant is liable to pay the interest as it has retained the monies of the plaintiff without any cause or reason, for the services rendered to the defendant by the plaintiff.
19. That, the plaintiff has filed Pre-Institution Mediation bearing PIM 2925/2023 before DLSA on 07.12.2023 but the defendant did not even choose to participate in PIM Proceedings, hence the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit. By contending so, the plaintiff prays to decree the suit.
20. After service of summons the defendant putforth its appearance through its counsel and filed written statement.
21. In the written statement the defendant has contended that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts, and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.
22. The defendant has denied that it has become a defaulter by not making the payments properly on time to /9/ Com.O.S.No.475/2024 the plaintiff and the same has fallen due to the plaintiff, but as and when it falls due the defendant settled the amounts to the plaintiff and has cleared the amount as per the bills.
23. That, the defendant has denied all the allegations of the plaintiff.
24. It is the specific contention of the defendant that it has paid the amounts to the plaintiff as and when it falls due to the plaintiff and as on today the defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff as alleged in the suit. That, the defendant has not received any bills from the plaintiff for a sum of ₹.1,32,557/- for the years 2017 and 2018, intentionally and deliberately in order to gain the plaintiff has included the said amount. Even though the defendant has not sent any goods to the plaintiff through courier and the same has been included.
25. That, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation and there is no cause of action to file this suit. All the other allegations made in the plaint which are are not expressly traversed are specifically denied as false. By /10/ Com.O.S.No.475/2024 contending so, the defendant prays to dismiss the suit.
26. On the basis of the rival contentions, pleadings, material proposition of fact and law and the documents this Court has framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of ₹.5,01,799/- (Rupees Five Lakhs One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Nine Only) with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till its realization?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
3. What Order/decree?
27. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, Sri.Srinivasamurthy, the Proprietor of the plaintiff got examined as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. On the other hand, the Manager/HR of the defendant company got examined as DW.1 and marked documents at Ex.D1 to Ex.D.8.
/11/ Com.O.S.No.475/2024
28. Heard on both sides.
29. My answer to the above framed issues are as follows:
ISSUE No.1 : In the AFFIRMATIVE
ISSUE No.2 : In the AFFIRMATIVE
ISSUE No.3 : As per final Order
for the following
REASONS
30. ISSUE No.1 & 2: For the purpose of brevity and convenience I would like to answer above two issues in common.
31. It is pertinent here to mention that as I have already narrated the facts of the case in detail at the inception, I will not repeat the facts once gain at length, but I will confine myself to the material facts.
32. It is the specific case of the plaintiff herein that the plaintiff is a recognized franchise of DTDC courier service for delivery of parcels and has made a good name in delivery business through both domestic and international shipments. That, the said business is being undertaken by the plaintiff since several years.
/12/ Com.O.S.No.475/2024
33. That, having accepted the plaintiff as reputed franchise of DTDC, the defendant has utilized the services rendered by the plaintiff for shipment of its products since many years.
34. That, for having utilized the delivery services rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant, it has made certain payments against the invoices raised by the plaintiff for the delivery services rendered to for shipment of its products.
35. That, however the defendant has become a defaulter by not making the payment properly on time to the plaintiff and the same has fallen due to the plaintiff.
36. That, in the process the defendant did not clear the dues and huge arrears of amount payable by the defendant started accumulating. That, in this process since July 2017, some of the bills have been kept in balance. That, however, the defendant continued giving orders to the plaintiff even though there was balance pending and the plaintiff undertook those orders from the defendant in good faith and belief that the defendant would clear the /13/ Com.O.S.No.475/2024 outstanding payments at the earliest.
37. That, a total 27 bills are pending as of today amounting to ₹.5,01,799/- which is due to the plaintiff by the defendant.
38. That, in spite of the plaintiff repeated demands, the defendant has neither paid the balance amount nor responded properly to the plaintiff.
39. That, the plaintiff has maintained a detailed record of the invoices with invoice number, date and amount due from each invoice raised in the name of the defendant for the delivery services rendered through the DTDC franchise of the plaintiff.
40. That, on so many occasions, when the plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay the balance amount, the defendant has time and again evaded clearing the pending bills by offering untenable reasons to the plaintiff.
41. That, the plaintiff used to render the services to the defendant in good faith and thus although there was /14/ Com.O.S.No.475/2024 balance amount pending with defendant, the plaintiff, keeping faith and confidence in the defendant, used to render the services to the defendant and thus till March 2020, the defendant used to place the orders. That, in bonafide belief, the plaintiff used to render the services, hoping to have a good business rapport with the defendant for the years to come. But the hopes of the plaintiff did not run for a longer period as he was cheated by the defendant by not making a prompt payment for having utilized the services of the plaintiff for delivery of goods through plaintiff's DTDC franchise.
42. That, since March 2020, when the defendant did not place any services with the plaintiff, the plaintiff hitherto has called over phone to the defendant to make good the payment of the balance amount and to place orders. That, in response, the defendant went on dodging the issue of payment and further promised that immediately after sometime they would come forward and utilized the services of the plaintiff. The last payment made to the plaintiff by the defendant was on 08.03.2021.
/15/ Com.O.S.No.475/2024
43. That, being left with no other option the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 16.06.2023 to the defendant to make good of the balance amount of ₹.5,01,799/-. That, notice dated 16.06.2023 has been received by the defendant, but unfortunately neither any payment in response to the said legal notice has been made nor a reply to the said notice has been sent by the defendant.
44. That, the plaintiff is entitled to an interest @ 12% thereon. That, since the amount due to the plaintiff is being long pending amount, being payable by the defendant, it requires imposition of interest on the said pending amount. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the interest to the plaintiff along with the principal amount of ₹.5,01,799/-.
45. That, the plaintiff has filed Pre-Institution Mediation bearing PIM 2925/2023 before DLSA on 07.12.2023 but the defendant did not even choose to participate in PIM Proceedings. All the efforts made by the plaintiff did not yield any result. Hence, plaintiff was constrained to file this suit.
/16/ Com.O.S.No.475/2024
46. On the other hand the defendant has denied the entire case of the plaintiff in toto, however, defendant has taken a specific defense that it has paid entire amount to the plaintiff as and when it fell due. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.
47. Having regard to the rival contention of both the parties I would like to bestow my attention to the evidence adduced by both the parties.
48. The proprietor of the plaintiff firm has filed affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief and examined as PW.1 reiterating the entire plaint averments. Apart from the PW.1 got produced details of invoice from 01.07.2017 till 31.03.2020 and it is marked at Ex.P.1.
49. On going through Ex.P.1/details of the invoices it is crystal clear that the plaintiff has rendered courier service to the defendant on various dates from the year 2017 till 2020.
50. The Ex.P.2 is the account ledger extract for the year 2021 wherein it appears the last payment which has /17/ Com.O.S.No.475/2024 been made by the defendant to the plaintiff was on 08.03.2021 for ₹.26,688/-.
51. On perusal of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 this Court has got no impediment to come to a conclusion that since from the year 2017 to 2021, the plaintiff and the defendant have involved in the business transactions.
52. The Ex.P.3 is the statement of outstanding bills from 01.01.2017 to 27.02.2021 wherein it appears the outstanding due amount is ₹.5,01,799/- which is payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.
53. The Ex.P.3(a) is the seal and the signature of defendant firm/Manager. It is pertinent to note that during the course of Cross-examination of DW.1, the DW.1 has categorically admitted the seal of defendant firm.
54. In view of the admission made by DW.1 this Court can draw an inference that the defendant firm has acknowledged the Ex.P.3 and admitted that it is liable to make payment of ₹.5,01,799/- as outstanding due amount to the plaintiff.
/18/ Com.O.S.No.475/2024
55. The Ex.P.4 is the copy of legal notice dated 16.06.2023 wherein it appears the defendant was called upon to pay the amount of ₹.5,01,799/- to the plaintiff.
56. The Ex.P.5 is the postal acknowledgment which clearly goes to show that the notice issued by the plaintiff has been duly served to the defendant.
57. The Ex.P.6 is the 2 postal receipts. The Ex;P.7 is the Certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
58. The Ex.P.8 is the certified copy of PIM Report.
59. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant has Cross-examined PW.1 wherein nothing has been elicited from the mouth of witness which goes against to the case of the plaintiff and in turn supports to the case of the defendant. Admittedly, the defendant counsel has not disputed the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant were into the business transaction for the past 10 to 12 years.
60. On careful reading of the evidence of PW.1 along with documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8, I am of the view that the /19/ Com.O.S.No.475/2024 plaintiff has proved that it has rendered services to the defendant and the defendant has acknowledged the same by affixing its seal and signature upon Ex.P.3/Outstanding bill report.
61. The defendant has raised defense that it has already paid the entire amount to the plaintiff as such there is no outstanding due.
62. In order to support its defense, the Manager/HR of defendant company has filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and examined as DW.1 reiterating written statement averments.
63. Apart from DW.1 got produced the letter of authorization dated 13.02.2024 which is marked at Ex.D.1
64. The Ex.D.2 is the 8 Debit notes raised by the defendant on various dates. However it is pertinent to note that in the entire written statement the defendant has not at all raised any defense stating that it has raised debit notes towards documents or the courier which were not reached to the assigned destination. Hence, I am of the view /20/ Com.O.S.No.475/2024 that the Ex.D.2 do not help the case of the defendant in any manner.
65. The Ex.D3 to Ex.D.6 are the account ledger extract from 01.04.2017 till 01.04.2020 wherein it appears even as per the said document the defendant was liable to make payment of ₹.1,57,584/- as on 09.02.2021 to the plaintiff. It is pertinent to mention that the DW.1 during his Cross- examination has clearly admitted that after deducting the amounts which are mentioned in the debit notes the defendant is liable to pay ₹.1,57,584/- to the plaintiff, however, the defendant has not paid the said amount. The said admission of DW.1 makes it clear that the defendant is liable to pay amount to the plaintiff and therefore the defense raised by the defendant that it has paid entire amount is unbelievable and unacceptable.
66. The Ex.D.7 is the consolidated statement made by DW,1 and as per the case of the DW.1 as on 01.07.2024 the defendant was liable to pay ₹.1,57,584/-. In my opinion when the defendant admitted its liability to pay an amount of ₹.1,57,584/- as on 09.02.2021 as per Ex.D.6, then it cannot be said that it is still liable to pay the same amount /21/ Com.O.S.No.475/2024 to the plaintiff even as on 01.07.2024. Hence, in my opinion the defendant has produced documents which in fact goes against to its case.
67. The Ex.D.8 is the certificate under Section 63 of BSA.
68. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has Cross- examined DW.1 wherein DW.1 admits that the defendant has used the service of the plaintiff. The DW.1 also admits that initially defendant company was honest in making payment to the plaintiff company and agreed that the defendant was holding the payments after July 2021. The said admission makes it clear that the defendant was irregular in making payment to the plaintiff after availing services from the plaintiff.
69. It is pertinent to note that even though the DW.1 has raised some of the facts stating that the goods were damaged during shipment, in my opinion as the said fact was not pleaded in the written statement and as no documentary proof is forthcoming, the said evidence is of no use to the case of the defendant.
/22/ Com.O.S.No.475/2024
70. It is pertinent to note that the DW.1 has undertaken to produce bank statement in order to prove the payments made to the plaintiff. However, the DW.1 has not produced its bank statement. Hence, adverse inference can be drawn as against to the case of DW.1 that the defendant intentionally has withhold its bank statement. In my opinion the bank statement of the defendant is a clinching document which could have produced by DW.1 to prove its payment. If the DW.1 has not produced the bank statement, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that defendant has not made payment in full to the plaintiff.
71. Per contra, the plaintiff has successfully proved that the defendant is liable to pay the outstanding due amount of ₹.5,01,799/- (Rupees Five Lakhs One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Nine Only) together with interest @ 12% to the plaintiff from the date of claim till its realization. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 and 2 in the AFFIRMATIVE.
/23/ Com.O.S.No.475/2024
72. Issue No.3: In view of my findings on Issue No:1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit filed by plaintiff is hereby decreed with cost.
The defendant is hereby directed to pay a sum of ₹.5,01,799/- (Rupees Five Lakhs One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Nine Only) together with interest @ 12% to the plaintiff from the date of suit till its realization.
The pending IAs if any are disposed off accordingly.
The office is hereby directed to send a copy of the judgment to the plaintiff and the defendants through e-mail as per Order XX Rule 1 of CPC as amended by Section 16 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
(Directly dictated to the Stenographer on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of January 2026).
(K.M.RAJENDRA KUMAR) LXXXIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-90) /24/ Com.O.S.No.475/2024 ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1 SRI.SRINIVASAMURTHY List of documents exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff:
Sl. Particulars of documents Ex.P. No.
1. Account ledger extract from 01.07.2017 till Ex.P.1 31.03.2020
2. Account ledger extract dated 24.01.2023 Ex.P.2
3. Outstanding bills from 01.01.2017 to Ex.P.3 27.02.2021
4. Signature of defendant's Manager Ex.P.3(a)
5. Office copy of legal notice dated 16.06.2023 Ex.P.4
6. Postal acknowledgment Ex.P.5
7. 2 postal receipts Ex.P.6
8. Certificate U/Sec. 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.7
9. PIM report Ex.P.8 /25/ Com.O.S.No.475/2024 List of witnesses examined for the defendant/s:
D.W.1 SRI.KIRAN KUMAR.K.S. List of documents marked for the defendant/s:
Sl.No. Particulars of documents Ex.D.
1. Letter of authorization dated 13.02.2024 Ex.D.1
2. 8 debit notes Ex.D.2
3. Account ledger extract from 01.04.2017 Ex.D.3 to 31.03.2018
4. Account ledger extract from 01.04.2018 Ex.D.4 to 31.03.2019
5. Account ledger extract from 01.04.2019 Ex.D.5 to 31.03.2020
6. Account ledger extract dated 01.04.2020 Ex.D.6 to 31.03.2021
7. Consolidated statement Ex.D.7
8. Certificate U/Sec. 63 of BSA 2023 Ex.D.8 (K.M.RAJENDRA KUMAR) LXXXIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-90) ****