Bangalore District Court
Siemens Ltd vs Electro Controls on 7 November, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XX ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AND XXII
ADDITIONA SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
PRESENT: Smt. HIREMATH SHOBHARANI BABAYYA
B.Com.LL.B.(Spl.)
XX A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
DATED: THIS THE 7th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015.
CRIMINAL CASE NO.19266/2006
Complainant - Siemens Ltd.
A company incorporated under
the Companies Act, 1956,
having it's registered office at
No.130, Pandurang budhkar marg,
Worli,
Mumbai-18
and its branch office at
3rd floor, Jyoti mahal,
No.49, St. Marks road,
Bangalore-01,
Represented by
Its authorized signatory,
Thomas Mathews,
Chief Manager-Marketing.
(Reptd. :By Sri. B.N. Prakash-
Advocate, Bengaluru).
-Versus-
2 XX ACMM
C.C.NO.19266/2006
Accused 1. Electro Controls,
A partnership firm,
No.7, B.V.K. Iyengar road,
Bangalore-53,
Represented by its partner,
Sri. B.V. Dwarakanath.
2. B.V. Dwarakanath,
Partner,
Electro Controls,
No.7, B.V.K. Iyengar road,
Bangalore-53,
(Reptd: By: Sri. D. Prabhakar-
Advocate, Bengaluru).
Date of : 06.04.2006.
commencement of
offence
Name of the : Siemens Ltd.
complainant
Date of recording : 20.06.2014.
evidence
Date of closing : 23.09.2015.
evidence
Date of Judgment : 07.11.2015.
Offence complied of : Under Sec.138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
Opinion of the : Accused is Convicted.
Judge
XX ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
AND XXII A.S.C.J., Bengaluru.
3 XX ACMM
C.C.NO.19266/2006
JUDGEMENT
This case is arising out of the private complaint filed in P.C.R.No.No.5430/2006 under Section 200 of The Criminal Procedure Code for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, against the accused No.1 and 2 to prosecute and punish them in accordance with law.
2. As per the Notification No.ADM1(A) 1131/2008 dated:19.12.2008, this case has been transferred to this court for disposal in accordance with law.
3. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are as under :
The complainant alleges that, it is the Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. The complainant is engaged in multifaceted activities. The first accused is a firm
4 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 and second accused is one of the partners of the first accused and is in management of the day to day affairs of the first accused. The first accused represented by the second accused is a dealer of the complainant and transacting with the complainant. The complainant supplied certain goods and equipments in response to the purchase orders by the accused, as per various invoices at certain intervals with consent of deferred payments on the dates as mentioned in the invoice. However, the payments became due from the accused beyond the permitted period agreed to. It is alleged that, the accused became due in a sum of Rs.64,00,000/-. The officials of the complainant had various personal and telephonic discussions and ultimately a meeting was convened on 26.07.2005 for liquidation of the payment by the accused. In the said meeting, it was discussed in detail with the second accused, who 5 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 was representing the first accused in the meeting well as himself as the partner. In the meeting, the said due was liquidated and the second accused issued two post dated cheques, on behalf of the first accused and duly signed by the second accused, in discharge of part of said liability for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each bearing No.141932 and No.141933, dated:30.07.2005, drawn on Union Bank of India, B.V.K. Iyengar road branch, Bangalore.
4. It is alleged that, after issuing the cheques, the accused kept on requesting the complainant to postpone the presentment of the cheques under the assurance that, the accused would give a demand draft for the said total sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. However, in the meanwhile, the accused confirmed the balance due to the complainant by a letter dated:17.08.2005. As the accused did not furnish the demand draft as 6 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 promised and the complainant, the complainant herein wrote a letter dated:10.08.2005 requesting the accused to furnish the information regarding the presentment of the cheques. However, no further information was received from the accused. The accused again confirmed the balance due by his confirmation letter dated:22.11.2005. Though, the accused confirmed the balance due to the complainant, did not come forward either to furnish the demand draft for the said sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as assured or to make the payment of the amount covered under the negotiable instruments dated:30.07.2005 in discharge of the part of the liability.
5. It is alleged that, the accused represented the complainant that, the said two cheques dated:30.07.2005 be presented for realization with the assurance that, the cheques would immediately 7 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 be honoured on the same being presented upon the drawee Bankers for acceptance and the payment of the amount due there under at any time subsequent there to within the period of its validity. The said cheques issued by the accused in favour of the complainant came to be presented on 20.01.2006 for encashment through its banker, Standard Chartered Bank, Bangalore. The drawee Banker could not honour the said cheques, as the accused had not kept sufficient funds in his account and consequently the said cheques were returned dishonoured by the drawee Bank for the reason "Exceeds Arrangements" on 20.01.2006 and the complainant Banker returned the dishonoured cheques and the drawee Bankers endorsement to the Complainant on 21.01.2006. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a notice of demand to the accused on 18.02.2006 demanding the payments, for 8 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 which the accused issued the cheque. The accused received the said notice sent by Registered Post Acknowledgment due on 21.02.2006. The notice sent under Certificate of Posting as well as duly served on the accused. Inspite of receipt of the said notice, the accused has failed to make the payment of the amount due there under within the notice period nor paid any amount till this date nor have sent any reply to the notice issued on behalf of the complainant. For all these reasons, the complainant prays to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and to sentence him imprisonment with fine.
6. After filing of the complaint, cognizance of the offence was taken against the accused No.1 and 2 and sworn statement of the complainant recorded by way of affidavit. As a prima-facie of the case, it 9 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 was registered as a Criminal case and summons was issued to the accused persons.
7. After the issuance of the summons, the accused No.2 appeared before this Court and order sheet reveals that, he is on bail.
8. Thereafter, substance of the acquisition was framed for the offence punishable under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instrument Act and read over and explained to the accused No.1 and 2. The accused No.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. In order to prove the guilt of the offence, one witness has been examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. Thereafter, the complainant closed it's side evidence.
10. After closer of the evidence of the complainant, the accused No.1 and 2 were questioned under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure 10 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 Code. Wherein they denied the complainant's case and have chosen to lead evidence.
11. Thereafter, the accused No.2 entered into witness box and got himself examined as D.W.1 and no documents came to be marked in his side. Thereafter, defence side evidence closed.
12. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and accused and material placed on record are perused.
13. Now the points that would arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, the accused No.1 and 2 are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act. ?
2. What sentence or order ?
11 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006
14. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative. Point No.2: As per final order, for the following :
REASONS POINT No.1 :
15. The case of the complainant is that, it is a Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. The complainant is engaged in Multifaceted activities. The first accused is a firm and second accused is one of the partner of the 1st accused and he is in management of the day to day affairs of the first accused. The complainant supplied certain goods and equipments in response to the purchase orders by the accused, as per various invoices at certain intervals. The accused became due in a sum of Rs.64,00,000/-. Thereafter 12 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 the meeting was convened on 26.07.2005 for liquidation of the payment by the accused. In the said meeting, the 2nd accused issued two post dated cheques, on behalf of the first accused and duly signed by the second accused, in discharge of part of the said liability for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each bearing No.141932 and No.141933 dated:30.07.2005 drawn on Union Bank of India, B.V.K. Iyengar Road Branch, Bangalore. Thereafter the said cheques were presented by the complainant on 20.01.2006 for encashment through its banker, Standard Chartered Bank, Bangalore. But the said cheques were returned on 21.01.2006 by the drawee Bank with remarks "Exceeds Arrangements". Thereafter, the complainant issued the legal notice to the accused on 18.02.2006 through Registered Post Acknowledgment Due as well as Under Certificate of Posting. The accused received the notice sent by 13 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 Registered Post Acknowledgment Due on 21.02.2006 and notice sent by Under Certificate of Posting is also received by the accused. Even after notice was served, the accused neither made the payment, nor responded to the same.
16. The case of the accused is that, he is the partner of the accused No.1 and the accused No.1 is doing business of electrical goods. The accused No.1 is the authorized dealer of the complainant. The specific defence of the accused is that, the alleged two cheques were issued to the complainant for the purpose of security deposit amount and not for the payment of debt or liability.
17. In order to substantiate his case, the authorized representative of the complainant has field the affidavit in lieu of examined in chief and got examined as P.W.1. He has reiterated the averments and allegations made in the complaint. During the 14 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 course of cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that, Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.8 both cheques are given by the accused for the purpose of security to the complainant company. He has further denied the suggestion that, at the time of issuing Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.8, amount and other details were not written in the cheques and they were only blank signed cheques.
18. The complainant has relied upon the documents produced at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. Out of which, Ex.P.1 is the Authorization Letter, Ex.P.2 is the minutes of meetings, Ex.P.3 is the Confirmation of Balance, Ex.P.4 is the letter issued by the complainant to the accused No.1, Ex.P.5 is the Confirmation of Balance, Ex.P.6 is the Original Cheque, Ex.P.7 is the Bank Endorsement, Ex.P.8 is the Original Cheque, Ex.P.9 is the Bank Endorsement, Ex.P.10 is the copy of the Legal Notice, 15 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12 are the two Postal Receipts, Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.14 are the two Postal Acknowledgments and Ex.P.15 is the Dealership Agreement.
19. In order to rebut the evidence placed on record by the complainant, the accused himself entered into witness box and got examined as D.W.1. D.W.1 has deposed in the examination in chief that, he is the partner of the accused No.1 and accused No.1 is doing the electrical goods business. The accused No.1 is the authorized dealer of the complainant company. He says that, there was condition to give blank signed cheques and letterheads to the complainant company to become authorized dealer. He says that, blank signed cheques and the blank signed paper were given to the complainant. He has deposed that, Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.8 are taken for the purpose of security. In the 16 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 cross-examination, he has deposed that, he has given Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.8 to the complainant at the time of placing the order in the year 2006. He has deposed that, Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.5 are also given to the complainant in the year 2006. He has deposed that, since 36 to 37 years he is the authorized dealer of the complainant. He has deposed that, there is no any written agreement with regard to complainant company and the accused No.1. He says that, there are no documents to show that, he become an authorized dealer of the complainant company and there is condition to submit blank signed cheques and letter heads. He says that, Manager of the complainant company being orally submitted the conditions. He admits that, on 01.12.2003 he had executed the dealer ship agreement with the complainant. He admits that, in the said agreement, there is no condition that to give blank signed 17 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 cheques or letterheads to the complainant. The said agreement is ended on 30.09.2005. He says that, after the dishonour of the cheque, he has not taken any action against the complainant. He admits that, his office address is No.7, B.V.K. Iyengar road, Bangalore and he admits that, if the letters are addressed to the above address, those letters will serve on him.
20. I have carefully gone through the complaint averments, documents and evidence placed on record before this Court. At the outset, it may to noticed that, to constitute the offence, under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to prove that, in the course of transaction, the accused had issued the said cheque and the same were presented within the prescribed period of it's validity or within six months, whichever is earlier and that, the said 18 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 cheque should be dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. That, soon after the dishonour of the cheque, the complainant got issued notice on demand to the accused, within 30 days there from, calling upon him to make payment and avoid prosecution. That, from the date of service of notice, if the drawer failed to comply with the notice, the complaint would lie for prosecution. In this case, now, let us see whether, the complainant has complied the requirements of law.
21. Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.8 are the two cheques, which are said to have been issued by the accused No.2 towards repayment of the debt due to the complainant. P.W.1 corroborates the complaint averments and he has clearly stated that, the accused No.2 issued Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.8 cheques towards the repayment of the debt. On close scrutiny of the cross-examination directed to P.W.1, 19 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 the issuance of cheques is not disputed. But, it has denied that, the cheques in question had been issued for the payment of debt/liability to the complainant. Since, the issuance of the cheques to the complainant is not disputed, I hold that, the accused No.2 had issued the cheques as per Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.8 to the complainant. Admittedly the said Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.8 cheuqes are dated:30.07.2005. The complainant has to present the said cheques for encashment within the period of validity of the cheques or within six months whichever is earlier. The said cheques do not indicate their validity or any period. Therefore, normally six months period was it's validity period. The complainant has presented the said cheques on 20.01.2006. Thus, the cheques were presented on 20.01.2006 can be said to have presented within time. Thus, the complainant has proved that, the cheques were presented intime.
20 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006
22. Now let us see, whether the complainant has complies all the provisions of Section 138 (b) and
(c) of The Negotiable Instruments Act. According to P.W.1, the notice on demand was issued to the accused No.1 and 2 on 18.02.2006 and the same came be duly served on the accused No.1 and 2 on 21.02.2006. In this regard, the complainant has produced the postal acknowledgments at Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.14. Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.14 are marked without any objections. In the course of cross- examination, D.W.1 has admitted that, his office address is No.7, B.V.K. Iyengar Road, Bengaluru and any letter addressed to the said address will serve on him. Thus, according to the complainant both the provisions of Section 138(b) and (c) of The Negotiable Instruments Act duly complied with. Non-payment of the amount remains till today. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the legal presumption 21 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 under Section 138 and 139 of The Negotiable Instruments Act. The presumption referred to in Section 139 of The Negotiable Instruments Act is a mandatory presumption and not the general presumption. But, the accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption. The defence raised by the way of rebuttal evidence must be probable and accepted by the Court.
23. I have carefully gone through the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both the parties. The complainant has alleged that, the accused No.1 represented by the accused No.2 is the dealer of the complainant and the complainant supplied certain goods and equipment in response to purchase orders placed by the accused, as the accused became due in a sum of Rs.64,00,000/-. In discharge of the part of the said liability, the accused No.2 has issued two post dated cheques on behalf of 22 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 the 1st accused in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each bearing No.141932 and No.141933 dated:30.07.2005. In the present case, the cheques have not been disputed nor the signature of the accused on it. Thus, the presumption under Section 139 of The Negotiable Instruments Act will operate. Thus, the burden is on the accused is to disprove the cheques issued on the any legally recoverable debt or liability. To this effect the accused has come up with his case that, he has given the cheques to the complainant in the year 2006 as a security as per the conditions of dealership agreement. During the course of cross-examination, D.W.1 has stated that, there is no any written agreement to show that, there was a condition to give the signed cheques and letterheads to the complainant to become the authorized dealer of the complainant. During the course of cross examination, the Dealership 23 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 Agreement was confronted to D.W.1. He identified and admitted the same. Hence, the said original Dealership Agreement is marked as Ex.P.15. Ex.P.15 is the Dealership Agreement entered into between the complainant and the accused No.1 and 2 on 01.12.2003.
24. The learned counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 has argued that, as per para No.14 of the Ex.P.15, there was condition to deposit additional security. Hence, Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.8 were given to complainant for security purpose. He further argued that, the accused is still due to the complainant. D.W.1 in his evidence has admitted that, on 01.12.2003 he had Dealership Agreement with the complainant. In para No.14 of the Ex.P.15, i.e., Dealership Agreement, it is recited as under:
" This Agreement shall operate from the date deemed to be effective as mentioned in clause 1 or from the date 24 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 of payment of an unsecured interest free deposit of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) either by way of Cheques or Draft which shall be held by Siemens during the validity of this Agreement. This Security Deposit shall be returned to the Dealer at the time of termination of the Dealer at the time of termination of the Dealers appointment after deducting therefrom any sums due to Siemens, on any account, including publicity expenses or any other reason whatsoever. This Agreement shall remain in force upto 30.09.2005 in the first instance and thereafter may be extended by mutual consent of the parties hereto for further period on mutually agreed terms and conditions. Siemens, from time to time, as it deems fit, shall have a right to ask the Dealer to deposit additional security amount as may be decided by Siemens periodically after reviewing the situation and such additional security deposit shall be subject to the same discipline as the original deposit".
On going through the contents of Ex.P.15 i.e., the Dealership Agreement, it clearly reveals that, the said agreement remained in force till 30.09.2005 and thereafter may be extended by mutual consent of the 25 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 parties for the further period. If so, the complainant has right to ask additional security. In the present case, it is not the defence of the accused that, Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.8 are issued for the purpose of additional security.
25. It is pertinent to note that, Ex.P.2 is the Minutes of Meeting held between Siemens Ltd., and Electro Cntrols, Bengaluru dated:26.07.2005. Ex.P.3 is the Confirmation of Balance issued by the accused No.1 and 2 dated:17.08.2005. Ex.P.5 is also the Confirmation of Balance issued by the accused No.1 and 2 dated: 22.11.2005. D.W.1 in his evidence deposed that, Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3, Ex.P.5, Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.8 are given in the month of January or February 2006. Though, the accused No.2 has disputed the issuance of Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.5 as created, but he has not disputed the signatures on the said documents. Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.5 26 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 appears that, they have been executed during the agreement period. Ex.P.3 clearly shows that, the total amount due by the accused to the complainant is Rs.62,88,291/-. Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.5 are marked without any objections. Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.8 both cheques are dated:30.07.2005. Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.8 also discloses that, they have been issued within the period of agreement. As per Ex.P.15, the dealership agreement remained in force upto 30.09.2005. There are no documents to show that, the period is further extended mutually by the parties. It is not the case of the complainant and accused No.1 and 2 that, after the expiry of the Dealership Agreement period i.e., 30.09.2005, they have mutually extended the further period. During the course of cross- examination, D.W.1 has clearly stated that, 27 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 2006gÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ 1£Éà DgÉÆæ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢zÁgÀjUÉ DxÀgÉʸïÝ rîgï DVzÉÝ JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸À®Ä zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ E®è."
In the absence of the documentary evidence, an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused No.1 and 2. Thus, the documents produced at Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3, Ex.P.5, Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.8 are executed prior to the 30.09.2005. In Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.8, the handwriting and the signatures of the said cheques appears to be of the same person. It is pertinent to note that, in Ex.P.15, the mode of security deposit is described as either by way of cheque or draft. That means to pay the security deposit amount and not to give the blank signed cheque as security. Except the self-serving testimony of D.W.1, there is no material evidence placed before this Court to show that, the accused has issued both the Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.8 cheques for 28 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 the purpose of security. Thus, the defence raised by the accused No.1 and 2 states that, Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.8 are issued by the accused No.1 and 2 in favour of the complainant company as security appears to be unworthy of credit. Hence, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption with cogent evidence. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the complainant is able to establish it's case beyond all reasonable doubt.
26. Now with regard to imprisonment of sentence. The accused No.1 and 2 have issued two cheques for Rs.5,00,000/- each dated:30.07.2005 i.e., in total Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. It is proved by the complainant that, the accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus, Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that, the accused shall be 29 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 convicted by imposing sentence of imprisonment or he shall be convicted to pay double the fine amount or with both. In this case the cheuqes issued by the accused persons is for Rs.10,00,000/-. Accused No.1 is the firm and accused No.2 is the partner of the accused No.1. There is no mitigating circumstances brought on record by the accused No.1 and 2 to show any leniency in imposing of the sentence. Therefore, looking to the gravity of the offence, if the accused No.1 and 2 are convicted and sentence to pay the fine of Rs.20,05,000/-, it would meet the ends of justice. Further, the complainant has approached this Court and fought the litigation without any fault of it. Therefore, if the compensation is paid to the complainant out of the fine amount to be paid by the accused it sub-serves the justice. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
30 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 Point No.2 :
27. For the foregoing reasons and discussion as stated above, the accused No.1 and 2 are liable to be convicted.
In result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused No.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act. Accused No.1 and 2 are sentence to pay the fine of Rs.20,05,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, the accused No.2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for the period of six months.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.20,00,000/- which is double the amount of cheques is awarded as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) of The Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bond and surety bond of the accused No.1 and 2 stands discharged.
31 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 Supply copy of the judgment to the accused at free of cost.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 7th day of November, 2015).
(HIREMATH SHOBHARANI BABAYYA) XX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AND XXII A.S.C.J., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION :
P.W.1 - Thomas Mathews.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE :
D.W.1 - Dwarakanath.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION :
Ex.P.1 - Authorization Letter of P.W.1. Ex.P.2 - Letter issued by the Complainant to the Accused No.1.
Ex.P.3 - Confirmation of Balance issued by the Accused No.2.
Ex.P.4 - Letter issued by the Complainant to the Accused No.1 in favour of Complainant. Ex.P.5 - Confirmation of Balance issued by the Accused No.2 in favour of Complainant.
32 XX ACMM C.C.NO.19266/2006 Ex.P.6 - Cheque.
Ex.P.7 - Bank Endorsement. Ex.P.8 - Cheque. Ex.P.9 - Bank Endorsement.
Ex.P.10 - Copy of the Legal Notice. Ex.P.11 - Postal Receipt.
Ex.P.12 - Postal Receipt.
Ex.P.13 - Postal Acknowledgment. Ex.P.14 - Postal Acknowledgment. Ex.P.15 - Dealership Agreement.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE :
- Nil -
XX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AND XXII A.S.C.J., Bengaluru.