Bangalore District Court
M/S.Icici Securities vs Mr.C.Baburavindranath.P on 5 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH.No.27), AT BANGALORE.
PRESENT:SRI.BHAIRAPPA SHIVALING NAIK, B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl),
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE.
DATED: THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2015
O.S.No.2414/2011
Plaintiffs:- 1. M/s.ICICI Securities
Limited, A Registered
Company having its
Registered Office at
# ICICI Centre,
HT Parekh Marg,
Church Gate,
Mumbai - 400 020,
Represented by its
Senior Manager
Ms.Pretti Bharadwaj.
Having its Regional
Office at:
# 46, 100 Feet Road,
1st Floor, Koramangala,
6th Block,
Bangalore-560 095.
2. ICICI Bank Limited,
ICICI Bank Limited
2 O.S.No.2414/2011
is a Company,
Its Registered Office at
Land Mark,
Race Course Circle,
Vadodara-390 007,
Represented by
its Manager Legal
Mr.Harish Srivatsa
And also at
ICICI Bank Tower,
Ground Floor,
Shoba Pearl
#1, Commissariat Road,
Bangalore-560 025.
(By Sri.Vivek Holla ,
Advocate)
-VS-
Defendants:- 1. Mr.C.Baburavindranath.P.,
Father's name not known,
Major, R/at #123, A4
Krishna Block, Nagarbhavi,
Bengaluru-560 047.
2. Mr.Ireddy Siddalingappa,
Father's name not known,
Major, R/at # A-117,
Krishna Block,
National Games Housing
Complex,
Bengaluru-560 034.
3 O.S.No.2414/2011
3. Mrs.Sumangala,
Father's name not known,
Major, R/at 2839 1st Main
Road,
Kodihall Off 80 Feet Road,
HAL 2nd Stage,
Bengalure-560 038.
4. Mr.Ramanjaneyulu.V.,
Father's name not known,
Major, R/at # 10,
Krishna Block b
3 NGV Complex,
Koramangala,
Bengaluru-560 047.
5. Mr.Lingappa Sheshadri,
Father's name not known,
Major, R/at # 62, 18th Main
1st Stage, 2nd Block,
Banashankari,
Bengaluru - 560 050.
6. Mr.Ramprasad L N
Father's name not known,
Major, R/at # 142, 48th
Cross,
III Block Rajaji Nagar,
Bengaluru- 560 010.
7. Mr.Hosurkar M
Father's name not known,
Major, R/at # 92,
Kaundinya
4 O.S.No.2414/2011
3rd Main, 8th Cross, 6th
Block, Nagarabhavi 2nd
Stage,
Bengaluru-560 072.
8. Mr.Sridhar Pamadi,
Father's name not known,
Major, R/at # 63,
Godhavari Krupa,
7th Cross, Vigneswar Nagar,
Bengaluru-560 091.
9. Mr.Kambi Dinakar,
Father's name not known,
Major, R/at #38,
Rangarao Road,
Shankarapuram,
Bengaluru-560 004.
10. Mr.Neergunda Venugopal,
Father's name not known,
Major, R/at # No.15/31
Basappa
L / O Gavipuram Extn.
Bengaluru-560 019.
11. Mr.P.Sridharan,
Father's name not known,
Major, R/at # 414, Yamuna
Block,
National Games Village,
Koramanagala,
Bengaluru-560 047.
5 O.S.No.2414/2011
12. Mr.Subramanian Janaki,
Father's name not known,
Major, R/at # 14,
Bimajyothi
LIC Colony, 3rd Cross
Bangaluru - 560 079.
13. Mr.K.Kumar,
Father's name not known,
Major,
C/o.Senior Quality
Assuranieestd
DGQA Complex 1st Main
Road
Bangaluru-560 046.
14. Mr.Sastry J.G.
Father's name not known,
Major, R/at # B 602G
Kumaradhara
Koramangala NGV Complex,
Bangaluru -560 047.
15. Mr.Gulbanoo
Father's name not known,
Major, R/at # 206,
Cauvery Block,
National Games Village
Complex
Koramangala,
Bangaluru -560 047.
16. Mr.Sabapathy Sundarraj,
Father's name not known,
6 O.S.No.2414/2011
Major, R/at # 238,
Old Police Station Road,
C T Bed, T.R.Nagar,
Bangaluru- 560 028.
17. Mr.Nagendrakumar.N
Father's name not known,
Major, R/at # 235,
7th Main, 7th Cross,
Hampinagar / RPC Layout,
Bangaluru-560 040.
18. Mr.Sushma Behl
Father's name not known,
Major,
R/at # 506, A3 Malaprabha
National Games Village
Koramangal,
Bangaluru- 560 034.
19. Mr.Jagannatha
Anandateertha
Father's name not known,
Major, R/at # 120 Ananda
16th Main Road Srinagar,
Bangaluru- 560 050.
20. Mr.S.Chandrashekara,
Father's name not known,
Major,
60Saraswath Nagar
Bapuji Layout,
Vijaynagar,
Bangaluru- 560 040.
7 O.S.No.2414/2011
21. Mr.Ayvaiyengar
Parthasarathy
Father's name not known,
Major, 48 Sarthy Apt 13
Crs 08 Mn
Malleshwaram,
Bangaluru-560 003.
22. Mr.Sai Raghu,
Father's name not known,
Major, 379, 4th Main,
2nd Block, 3rd Stage,
Near Kathriguppe Water
Tank Bangaluru-560 085.
23. Mr.Jayadeappa.R.,
Father's name not known,
Major, R/at # 303/3,
Krishna Block,
Koramangala National
Games Village
Bangaluru-560 047.
24. Mr.Halappa Prabhu,
Father's name not known,
Major,
R/at # 2 A C827, 2nd Cross,
Kalyan Nagar 1st Block,
Bangaluru- 560 043.
25. Mr.Shivamma,
Father's name not known,
Major, R/at # 39 & 40,
1st Cross, Vyalikaval Layout
Bangaluru- 560 040.
8 O.S.No.2414/2011
26. Mr.Akshatha Raghu
Father's name not known,
Major,
Kalyani 379 Second Block
Banashankari 3rd Stage
Bangaluru- 560 085.
27. Usha,
Father's name not known,
Major,
402 Srinivas 10th Cross
8th Main, Padmanabha
Nagar,
Bangaluru-560 070.
28. Rekha Sankar,
Father's name not known,
Major,
395, 17th Cross, 33rd Main,
6th Phase, Behind Frank
School,
Bangaluru-560 078.
29. A.Tarachand,
Father's name not known,
Major,
27/1 Gospel Street,
Thomas Town,
Bangaluru-560 084.
30. Anand Premchand,
Father's name not known,
Major,
9 O.S.No.2414/2011
Gf4 Sovereign Park 38
Imn Rd
R T Nagar,
Bangaluru-560 032.
31. Jayaraj Michael
Father's name not known,
Major,
No.96 - Bisfs 06 B Cross
B Sector, Yelahanka New
Town
Bangaluru- 560 064.
32. Pallasana Subramanian,
Father's name not known,
Major,
No.35 Chbs 2 Layout,
11th Main Road,
Bangaluru-560 040.
33. L.Joseph Stanley,
Father's name not known,
Major
106 Lake City,
Kodichikkanahalli
Bangaluru-560 076.
34. Y.Rao
Father's name not known,
Major,
C 503 Ittina Akkala
White Field Road,
Rajapalya,
Bangaluru- 560 048.
10 O.S.No.2414/2011
35. Mushtaq Khan,
Father's name not known,
Major,
B 113 Sipcot Housing Colony
Sipcot
Hosur - 635 126.
36. Dharmendra Saxena,
Father's name not known,
Major,
198, 18th Main, 4th Cross,
6th Block, Koramangala
India
Bangaluru- 560 095.
37. Manjunath.K.,
Father's name not known,
Major, No.64/A, 1st Main,
Subbanna Garden,
Marenahalli,
Bangaluru-560 040.
38. Reena Pandey,
Father's name not known,
Major,
F 95 Sector 41 Noida Dist
Gautam Buddha Nagar
Uttar Pradesh- 201303.
(By Sri.. Adv.)
Date of Institution of the suit : 30.03.2011
Nature of the suit : Permanent Injunction
Date of commencement of
recording of the evidence :
11 O.S.No.2414/2011
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced : 05.03.2015
Total Duration Years Months Days
: 03 09 03
(BHAIRAPPA SHIVALING NAIK)
XII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
J U D G M E N T
This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction against the defendants.
2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the 1st plaintiff is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at ICICI Centre, H.T.Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai 500020, India. The 1st plaintiff is a stock broker and a member of National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., (NSE) and Bombay Stock Exchange Limited (BSE) and it is also registered with SEBI under SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub- brokers) Regulations with Certificate of Registration No.INB230773037 (CM) and INF230773037 (F&O). The plaintiff 12 O.S.No.2414/2011 offers broking services to its clients through online portal www.icicidirect.com (hereinafter referred to as website). The website of the plaintiff provides a safe and convenient capital market access to all clients. In the process of availing internet broking services through the 1st plaintiff's website, the client needs to open a 3-in-1 account which consists of bank and demat accounts with ICICI Bank Ltd.,
3. The 2nd plaintiff is a Banking company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at the address as mentioned in the cause title. The 2nd plaintiff is one of the largest private banks in India, offering the whole gamut of banking services to its customers. Ms. Preethi Bharadwaj is duly authorised representative of the 1st plaintiff and Mrs.Harish Shrivastav is authorised representative of the 2nd plaintiff who are empowered and competent to sign and verify the pleadings for and on behalf of the respective plaintiffs to institute the suit.
13 O.S.No.2414/2011
4. The 1st plaintiff appoints sub-brokers in accordance with the relevant SEBI regulations and these sub-brokers would introduce the clients/public who is interested in buying and selling of the shares. The 1st plaintiff had appointed one Rajeev Bansal i.e., Sub-Borker who was registered as a Sub-Borker providing online trading services at National Stock Exchange of India and Bombay Stock Exchange Limited. The defendants are the customers of the 1st plaintiff who have opened their account along with a Demat account with the 2nd plaintiff for carrying out their buying and selling of shares with the first plaintiff way back during year 2004 itself. The defendants have been introduced by the sub-broker. The 1st plaintiff does not accept payment from its customers either through cash or by cheque and all trading activities is carried out only through the linked ICICI Bank account. The sub-broker clients give required directions to the sub-brokers and only upon such customer giving instructions to the sub-broker to utilize the amount out of such bank account 14 O.S.No.2414/2011 maintained with the 2nd plaintiff, the sub-broker would place the order through plaintiff No.1. Upon the death of the Sub-Broker, the defendants had approached the plaintiffs and alleged that they had issued cheque and securities to the e- sub-broker and is wife Mrs. Reena Bansal for doing their online trading of buying and selling of shares. As per the SEBI guidelines and a specific circular dated.27.8.2003, the stock broker and sub-broker cannot deal is cash transaction and the same is also informed by the pf1 to all its sub-brokers. Moreover, the plaintiffs provide the seamless facility wherein the amount specifically allocated towards trading in securities is required to be allocated to the linked bank account. The retail investors can a ail the services of the 1st plaintiff by registering either as direct clients of the 1st plaintiff or through its registered intermediaries i.e., Sub- brokers. The online trading account offered by first plaintiff, integrates the demat and bank account of clients. The payment is done directly by the 1st plaintiff centrally through online 15 O.S.No.2414/2011 instructions. The above method of settlement is done based on the power of attorney provided by the clients to the 1st plaintiff. The feature of online centralized settlement is the most critical feature of the 1st plaintiff as it is designed to remove any kind of possible fraudulent activities. The model is the same in case of clients registered through the 1st plaintiff's Sub-brokers, the only difference being that in case of such clients, the trading transactions are entered by the sub brokers on behalf of the clients. The multiple measures have been put in place by the 1st plaintiff to constantly and repeatedly alter the clients of the happenings in their accounts and solicit their response in case any discrepancy is observed as narrated in para-13 of the plaint. The said measures ensure that in case of any discrepancy, the anomaly is brought to their notice so as to assist them in taking timely action. The statements draw the attention of the clients to the details mentioned therein and also require them to revert within a specified time, normally 30 days.
16 O.S.No.2414/2011
5. The defendant had informed the plaintiffs that though the defendants had given certain cheques to the sub- broker for trading in the securities, the said securities did not show in their account. The plaintiffs had investigated the issue and found that the cheque and transfer slip were paid by the defendants to the personal accounts of the late Sub-Broker which the plaintiffs are not aware of the said transfer and are totally outside the purview of plaintiff No.1. Only upon the defendants allegations made on 3.3.2011, the plaintiffs had come to know about the said payments made to the Sub-Broker and the defendants have failed to raise the grievances to the plaintiffs, which had occurred there to four years back. The plaintiffs also requested each of the defendants to give written complaints based on which the plaintiffs could initiate appropriate action. However the defendants have failed to do so. The plaintiffs did not at all accept trading instructions based on the cheque which are issued by the customer. The 1st plaintiff strictly goes by the 17 O.S.No.2414/2011 amounts lying in the account of the customer with the 2nd plaintiff and only to the extent of amounts which have been specifically allocated by such customer towards trading activities with the 1st plaintiff. The plaintiffs have specifically informed the sub- brokers and the customers, including the defendants that no trading will be done by the plaintiffs on behalf of the customers in respect of the cheque which are given by the customers to the sub-brokers. Both the plaintiffs send periodical reports to the customer of both the amounts credited and lying in the bank account as well as the details of the trading account to the customer. Inspite of all the above being brought to the notice of the defendants about all those facts and also the fact that the plaintiffs are not responsible for the acts of the said broker, which were done in his personal capacity and not either for and on behalf of the plaintiffs. The defendants along with their henchmen came to the 2nd plaintiff's branch offices at Koramangala, Infantry Road and M.g.Road on 28.3.2011 and 18 O.S.No.2414/2011 29.3.2011 and started protesting in front of the branches. The defendants indulged in several illegal acts including threatening the employees of the 2nd plaintiff and the defendants have also refused to let the customers of the 2nd plaintiff to enter the said branches. Upon the officials of the 1st plaintiff coming to the said branches, the defendants proceeded the threaten even e employees of the 1st plaintiff if their demands were not fulfilled. The plaintiffs tried to inform the local police about the said illegal acts of the defendants. Despite the presence of the police, the defendants on 29.3.2011 at M.G.Road branch of the 2nd plaintiff indulged in acts of vandalism and proceeded to deface the sign boards of the 2nd plaintiff and they also proceeded to write defamatory words and slogans on the advertisements as well as the sign boards of the 2nd plaintiff. The defendants have also pasted several other defamatory posters defaming the plaintiffs. Most of the defendants are highly educated and despite the same are proceedings to take law into their own hands and are indulging 19 O.S.No.2414/2011 in illegal acts. The defendants proceeded to lower the shutters of the main door of the M.G.Road branch of the 2nd plaintiff and proceeded to shut the entrance of the said branch and did not permit the employees and customers who were inside to come out and neither did they permit the customers to enter the branch illegally. The plaintiffs have sought to lodge the complaint. However the jurisdictional police refused to register complaint coming under pressure from the defendants. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their employees, members, representatives, servants, agents, supporters or anyone claiming through or under them from demonstrating or carrying out protests, meetings, dharnas, blockades, gehrao, picketing shouting slogans or any other form of protest within a radius of 500 meters of the plaintiffs' offices and branches in Bengaluru and other ancillary relief of permanent injunction as prayed in the plaint against the defendants.
20 O.S.No.2414/2011
6. In response to the suit summons, the defendants 1 to 21, 23, 29, 30,33,34,36 and defendant -25 appeared through their learned counsel. Except defendant No.25, none of the defendants has contested the claim of the plaintiffs by filing their written statements.
7. Defendant No.25 has denied each and every allegation made in the plaint. In turn, it is submitted that the husband of the defendant No.25 visited the 2nd plaintiff Bank to know the details of amount in the account after receiving/getting information about the death of the Sub-Broker Sri.Rajiv Bansal from the plaintiffs only two times, but not on 28th & 29th with prior appointment. There is Tripartite Agreement between the plaintiff Broker, Sub-Broker/Bansala and defendant No.25 which has brought them together. The plaintiff introduced the Sub- Brokers and created link between them and the defendants. The defendant No.25 or her husband has not given any instructions to the Sub-Broker for utilizing the amount or for trading. The 21 O.S.No.2414/2011 husband of the defendant No.25 went to the plaintiffs to make enquiry asking them as to know there is trading without any instructions that to not on the alleged dates.
8. Defendant No.25 has admitted that some of the defendants and other investors did approach the plaintiff after the death of their Sub-Broker / Rajeev Bansal on February 2011 and informed the plaintiff to settle the securities, cheque and cash through the Sub-Broker / AP of ICICI and his second wife Smt.Reena Bansal, who was sitting in the office and used to give advise to the customers in the office of the 1st plaintiff for investments in the IPO's and not for doing any on line trading as submitted by the 1st plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff was never displayed in the office conspicuously to be read and understood by the customer of the 1st plaintiff. In the letter of confirmation executed by the Sub-Broker of ICICI Web Trade Limited late Mr.Rajeev Bansal, in Para 2 of the letter at page No.1 the Sub- Broker clearly and explicitly submits that (a) "I hereby confirm 22 O.S.No.2414/2011 that only on the written request of the client, I, facilitate order entry for clients. Orders are placed only after proper communication is received from the client for the same and an audit trial is maintained. I confirm that I promptly inform clients about the execution /non-execution of their orders". In the letter of Confirmation executed by the Sub-Broker of ICICI Web Trade Limited late Mr.Rajeev Bansal, in Para 7 of the letter at page No.2, the Sub-Broker clearly and explicitly submits that
(b) "I hereby confirm that I do not transfer clients funds/securities to our own accounts or one clients funds/securities to the account of another" and Sub-Broker of the 1st plaintiff has grossly, willfully and deliberately violated all the covenants contained in the letter of confirmation executed by the Sub-Broker of the 1st plaintiff and that has been kept on silently watched by the 1st plaintiff without any care or concern to protect the interest of the investors.
23 O.S.No.2414/2011
9. Defendant No.25 further submits that none of the defendants or the customers hade made any such allocation of funds to the linked bank account for the purpose of trading and as such there was no scope for the Sub-Broker / AP or the facilitator to do any trading on behalf of any of the defendants. When the defendants had not allocated any funds to the linked bank account to commit their funds / investments / securities then the Sub-Broker of the plaintiffs cannot execute any order to bur or sell any securities in the trading account of the customers of the 1st plaintiff and the Sub-Broker cannot place any order for committing the funds of the customers. As per the application of ICICI Web Trade Limited addressed to the Membership of the National Stock Exchange Ltd., Mumbai dated 12.07.2004 to appoint late Mr.Rajeev Bansal as their Sub-Broker, in the last para of Page 2 of 3 ICICI has clearly and categorically submitted that "We, M/S ICICI Web Trade Limited do hereby agree and bind myself/ourselves to be responsible for all deals, 24 O.S.No.2414/2011 acts, of commission and omission, quotations made and transactions effected, if any, by Mr.Rajeev Bansal. Further in 1st para in page 3 of 3 ICICI Web Trade Ltd. submits that "We undertake and agree to ensure that the Authorized Person shall comply with all Rules, Bye-laws, Regultions and Circulars issued by the Exchange from time to time.
10. It is further submitted that the defendants were asked to open the account in the 3-in 1 account opening documents wherein a Sub-Broker of the 1st plaintiff was included without giving the choice of being the direct client even through the name of the system was ICICIdirect.com. The defendants were made to sign in all the places marked (x) in the applications in different versions given to different persons. The plaintiff is deliberately not submitting about the written order to be placed by the client for its settlement as per the Letter of Confirmation executed by the Sub-Broker and the undertaking given by the 1st plaintiff to the National Stock Exchange in pursuance to the Letter of 25 O.S.No.2414/2011 Confirmation executed by the Sub-Broker of 1st plaintiff. This is the main issue before the clients, brought before this court by the plaintiffs and to be proved by the plaintiffs only for adjudication of the same by this court. The role of the Sub- Broker is only that of a facilitator and nothing more. The plaintiff has not produced the documentary evidence in support of their submissions as made in made 13 of the plaint regarding multiple measures as averred therein. The defendants had never given any order in writing to buy or sell securities for them as required by the Letter of Confirmation given by the Sub-Broker of the 1st plaintiff. When all the defendants had their own trading accounts opened with the plaintiffs there was no separate need for any other sort of trading. If the defendants were to really wanted trading in their accounts they would have certainly given the written order to buy or sell securities as required by the Letter of Confirmation executed by the Sub-Broker of 1st plaintiff or the Sub-Broker should have insisted from the clients 26 O.S.No.2414/2011 for such an order in writing as required by the Letter of Confirmation executed by none other than the Sub-Broker himself. The plaintiffs have concealed the truth with intent to deceive the defendants. The plaintiffs are making blatant lies before the court through their false affidavit. The 2nd plaintiff being a banker records and registers entries in the accounts of the clients/customers almost daily and there is no chance or scope for the instruments to miss the eyes, ears, senses, consciousness of the staff sitting in the respective counter of the plaintiff bank. The defendants made their written complaints for which the plaintiff replies in the negatives saying that the limitation period is over and they do not have any claim and if any such claims are made they will not be entertained by the plaintiffs. The defendants after knowing the intrinsic character of the plaintiffs realized the true intentions, colour and character of the plaintiffs, the motives behind such stupid reply by the plaintiff have been approaching and taken up the issue and 27 O.S.No.2414/2011 the matter before NSE of India Limited, the Securities Exchange Board of India and the RBI, who are licensing authorities for the plaintiff to decided in the matter of issue. The submissions of the plaintiff is only to direct the issue from its subject of the defendants order in writing to buy or sell any security in their trading, banking and demat accounts, as required by the Letter of Confirmation executed by the Sub-Broker of the 1st plaintiff and the same has been collected by the 1st plaintiff only and in turn the 1st defendant has made their own submission saying that the 1st plaintiff will ensure that the Sub-Broker will comply with all the rules and regulations, circulars etc., of the NSE of India Ltd., and SEBI and the plaintiff will own the responsibility for all the acts, omission, commissions, etc., of their Sub-Broker. The so called list produced by the plaintiff in document No.5 is in no way connected with the dates, of the so called trades made unauthorisedly by the Sub-Broker in the account of the defendants. The defendants had never given any sort of 28 O.S.No.2414/2011 instructions to the plaintiffs; The cheque were collected by the plaintiffs Sub-Broker for investments in the IPOs. (Public Officer of Equities by the Companies for raising the Equity capital). When the customers/defendants had not given any order to buy or sell securities in writing, where is the question of periodical reports to the customers about any credit or the balances lying in the account of the customers. The plaintiffs primary duty and responsibility is to check, keep, inform, act and then sent the written orders if any by the customers for such so called credits and balances. Without production of a valid written order to buy or sell securities by the clients the rest of the things have no place and makes no sense. There was no occasion or opportunity for the defendants to bring anything to the notice of the plaintiffs because the Sub-Broker was asking the defendants over phone to collect the monthly return on the investments of the defendants claimed to have been invested in the IPOs, and had kept on making the defendants to believe him 29 O.S.No.2414/2011 and the same was being supported by the executives of the plaintiffs for those 3 to 4 years. The plaintiffs are expected and duty bound with their responsibility to produce the written order to buy or sell securities given by the customers/clients/ defendants in this case and nothing more as required by the Letter of Confirmation executed by Sub-Broker of the plaintiffs and given to the plaintiffs only as the plaintiffs have only brought him and appointed as their Sub-Broker to deal with the customers who have opened their accounts and registered with the plaintiffs. Otherwise, the Sub-Broker of the plaintiffs is a stranger to the defendants. The defendants, who had immense faith and trust in the goodwill and popularity established by the frequent and repeated advertisements and publicity campaign made by them unusually to impress and attract the customers, defendants have placed their deposits/ investments and securities with the plaintiffs. Infact, the 1st plaintiff has given an undertaking in writing addressed to the NSE of India Limited 30 O.S.No.2414/2011 in their application dated 12.07.2004 for appointment of their Sub-Broker, saying that " We, M/S ICICI Web trade Ltd. do hereby agree and bind myself / ourselves to be responsible for all deals, acts, of commission and omission, quotations made and transactions effected, if any, by Mr.Rajeev Bansal and further "We undertake and agree to ensure that the Authorized Person shall comply with all Rules, Bye-laws, Regulations and Circulars issued by the Exchange from time to time. As such, the plaintiffs cannot say that they are not responsible for the acts of the said broker, which are done in his personal capacity and not either and on behalf of the plaintiffs, is a clear unfortunate indication of the plaintiffs audacious unwillingness to respect their own undertaking given at their own fee will, through a Board Resolution of the 1st Plaintiff Company and to maintain their good will and reputation in the business circles. When the plaintiff did not bother to take care and show any concern to protect the interest of the defendants when they approached the plaintiffs 31 O.S.No.2414/2011 between the third week of February to third week of March, the defendants were left with no alternative to protest for the plaintiffs decent response of giving copies of the customers / defendants written order to buy or sell securities as primarily required by the Letter of Confirmation and other documents as narrated in the written statement. The defendants were not left with any other alternative except to take up the matter with the licensing authorities has been wrongly submitted by the plaintiffs as has been threatened, to gain sympathy of this court. Otherwise, there is no truth in the submission of the plaintiff. The defendants along with their henchmen came to the 2nd plaintiffs branch offices at Koramangala, Infantry Road and M.G.Road and started protesting in front of the branches on 28.03.2011 and 29.03.2011 and started protesting in front of the branches as admitted by the defendants.
32 O.S.No.2414/2011
11. Defendant No.25 has further submitted that the defendants never wanted to take law into their hands, but they wanted only the legal documentary evidences in support of the fraudulent entries made by the plaintiffs contrary to the Letter of Confirmation executed by the Sub-Broker of the plaintiffs and the undertaking given by non other than the 1st plaintiff themselves on their own and not at the instance of the defendants. If at all the 2nd plaintiff does not want the defendants as its clients, then the 2nd defendant should legally settle the accounts of the defendants and request them to close the accounts with them. The defendant did not want to be their clients any more once their accounts are legitimately and lawfully settled to the satisfaction of the clients. Otherwise, so long as the defendant's accounts are not settled, the 2nd defendant cannot ask for any injunction to keep its own clients away. The plaintiffs have not filed any documentary evidence of their so called attempts made by them for any sort of settlements with 33 O.S.No.2414/2011 the defendants. The defendants want only legitimate and documentary evidence based settlement of their accounts and the defendants definitely do not require and unjust, illegal or coercive demands as has fraudulently submitted by the plaintiffs. The defendants have better works to do and they are not interested in any sort of threats and defamation against any one any where at any time. All the defendants are peaceful and law abiding citizens and they do not believe and pursing in any of this kind of life. It is extremely bad, sad and unfortunate that the defendants got caught in the hands of the ominous plaintiffs and has to come out decently. The plaintiffs for obtaining favourable order by misrepresentation of facts to mislead this court created imaginary story. If the plaintiffs are so much serious, if they really have public respect, reputation, brand name and image let them decently produce the documentary evidences in support of the defendants order or instructions given in writing to settle the disputes once and for all across the table by giving appoint of one 34 O.S.No.2414/2011 day for one client instead f making this kind of crocodile dramatic tears before the court.
12. Defendant No.25 further submitted that the license given by the RBI to the 2nd plaintiff to do business with the public and the defendants and the defendants and their families will be put to unjustifiable hardships, losses and damages and honouring the frauds committed by the 2nd plaintiff to their own clients of their hard head earned lifetime savings and investments. The submissions of the plaintiffs are motives, designed schemed and intended to harm and damage the innocent and gullible investor with the 2nd plaintiff. The plaintiffs are not able to control their guilt of cheating and fraud played by them on the honest, sincere and gullible investors and scared to faces the defendants morally and ethically. Otherwise they would not have resorted to this kind of injunction which no other banker has chosen so far in the Indian Banking History. Therefore, all the submissions of the plaintiffs which are dramatically and specifically built up against 35 O.S.No.2414/2011 the defendants to get over the fraud and cheating committed by them through their criminal breach of Trust and in criminal Connivance and nexus between the plaintiffs and their Sub- Broker/AP late mr.Rajeev Bansal. There is no cause of action as alleged by the plaintiffs either on 28.3.2011 or on 29.3.2011 as on those days, neither of the defendants had visited the schedule premises and hence causing damage and defuse the schedule property by this defendant does not arise and therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
13. On the basis of the pleadings the following issues have been formulated:-
ISSUES
1) Do the plaintiffs prove that the defendants agitation causing interference in the peaceful possession and working and also ingress and egress of the company by the employees of the company?
2) Do the plaintiffs prove that, they
are entitled for the relief of
36 O.S.No.2414/2011
permanent injunction against the
defendants?
3) What order or decree?
14. In order to substantiate their claim, plaintiff No.1 got examined as its Senior Manager and Channel Manager as P.W. 1 & 2 and Manager of plaintiff No.2 and an employee of plaintiff No.2 are got examined as P.Ws.3 and 4 and adduced documentary evidence from Ex.P1 to Ex.P16.
15. It is pertinent to note here that though the plaintiffs got examined P.W.1 partly and further examination-in-chief of P.W.1 was deferred for want of documents on 20.04.2013, yet P.W.1 could not turn up for his further examination-in-chief. As such the evidence of P.W.1 is expunged. Infact the defendant No.25 has cross-examined P.Ws.2 to 4 , but failed to adduce any evidence in support of her defence inspite of sufficient opportunity and the evidence on behalf of the defendant No.25 was taken as nil and posted for arguments on 23.9.2014. 37 O.S.No.2414/2011 Thereafter no representation has been made on behalf of defendant No 25. Hence after having heard the counsel for the plaintiff, this case is posted for Judgment on merits.
16. My findings on the above said issues are as under:
Issue No.1: In the Negative Issue No.2: In the Negative Issue No.3: As per final order for the following:-
/REASONS/
17. Issues No.1 & 2:- Both the issues being interlinked with each other, in order to avoid repetition of discussions, are taken up together for consideration.
P.W.2 the Channel Manager of plaintiff No.1 Company and P.W.3 the Manager of the plaintiff No.2 company have reiterated the averments made in the plaint in the course of their examination-in-chief. Whereas it is evident from the cross- examination of P.W.2 that he came to know about the incidents only by records and from his senior officers. He was not an eye 38 O.S.No.2414/2011 witness for those incidents in dispute. The defendant No.25 is the customer of plaintiff bank with branch Infantry road i.e., 3 in 1 account. Admittedly, defendant No.25 has got a right to come to their bank for enquiry about her account as a customer. P.W.2 does not know the date of death of Sub- broker by name late Rajeev Bansal. The sub-broker is appointed by ICICI securities Ltd. by knowing his antecedents and after getting clearance from Stock Exchange, Security Exchange Board of India. There is a transaction between defendant No.25 and their bank and they were sending particulars of her account through SMS and E-mail but he has not produced any documents to that effect.
18. On the other hand, it reveals from the cross-
examination of P.W.3 that, she was also not present at the time of alleged incident at bank. The CD subsequently produced was not produced at the time of filing of the suit. The said Raju Bansal was authenticated broker of ICIC security who is no 39 O.S.No.2414/2011 more. P.W.3 is unable to identify by seeing the photos who were customers of their bank. The defendants are account holders of the plaintiff bank. The plaintiffs have not lodged any complaint against defendants. They met the police people and were intending to lodge complaint. But the police people were not received the same. Their authority was not approached their higher authority to lodging complaint.
19. P.W.4 is said to be one of the employees of plaintiff No.2 who has deposed that he has been working in the company of plaintiffs from past eight years and he was working in the branch of plaintiff No.2 on 29.3.2011. The defendants along with their henchmen, came to the premises of plaintiff No.2 situated in M.G.Road, Bengaluru and indulged in acts of vandalism and proceeded to deface the sign boards of the 2nd plaintiff and they also proceeded to write defamatory words and slogans on the advertisement boards as well as the sign boards of the 2nd plaintiff. The defendants further proceeded to lower the 40 O.S.No.2414/2011 shutters of the main door of the M.G.Road branch of the 2nd plaintiff and proceeded to shut down the entrance of the said branch and did not allow the employees and customers who were inside to come out and neither did they allow the customers to enter the branch thereby disrupted the business of the plaintiffs. Besides, the defendants threatened to intensify their actions and further disrupt the banking activities of the 2nd plaintiff at all branches across the Karnataka. The defendants also threatened the plaintiff that they will spread defamatory stories and messages about the plaintiffs including in the media. The said acts of the defendant have resulted in irreparable loss to the plaintiff including huge financial and reputational loss. Whereas, it is elicited from the cross-examination of P.W.4 that he has not produced any documents to show that he was working as on 29.3.2011. He is unable to identify the person who was present in the alleged incident as it was mob. As deposed by P.W.4, the account holders were the persons 41 O.S.No.2414/2011 constituted the mob on the alleged dates, but he is unable to identify those account holders individually.
20. As noted supra, Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 exhibited by P.W.1 cannot be looked on account of expunging the evidence of P.W.1. Now Ex.P8 to Ex.P16 are left for taking into consideration so far the claim of the plaintiffs made as against the defendants, particularly, defendant No. 25. Ex.P8 the Certificate of Registration discloses that the securities and Exchange Board of India certificate had granted Certificate of Registration to the Sub-Broker by name Rajeev Bansala as a Stock-Broker, ICICI WEB TRADE LTD., Ex.P9 the Stock Broker and Sub- Broker Agreement entered into by the Stock Broker on 25.4.2005 with M/s. ICICI WEBSITE LTD., the Board of National Stock Exchange. As per the terms of the Agreement that Sub-Broker was deemed to include his heirs, executors, administrators and legal representatives. The said Stock-Broker was holding a certificate of Registration granted under Rule 4 of 42 O.S.No.2414/2011 the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Rules, 1992. The said Sub-Broker is desirous of affiliating to the Stock Broker and is hereby eligible for making an application for seeking recognition of the stock exchange and for grant of a certificate of registration under Rule-5 of the said Rules. Accordingly the Stock-Broker and Sub-Broker are required to enter into an Agreement with each other specifying the scope of their authority & responsibility in relation to the business of dealing in securities between them. Further the Stock-Broker agreed that he should not resort to unfair means of weaning away the clients of the Sub-Broker. On termination of the Agreement by the Stock-Broker, it shall be the duty of the Stock-Broker to collect and forward registration certificate of the Sub-Broker and Stock-Broker through the Stock-exchange along with all the fees in arrears in respect of the Sub-Broker's registration as required under Par-II of schedule III of SEBI (Stock-Broker and Sub-Broker) Regulations 43 O.S.No.2414/2011 1992 and the Sub-Broker agreed to co-operate with the Stock- Broker in carrying out the said duty. In the event of surrender of the Sub-Broker registration, the afficiliating broker shall ensure that investors/general public is informed about surrender of registration of the Sub-Broker. A public advertisement to that effect shall be required to be issued by the Stock-Broker in a local newspaper where the Sub-Broker's registered office, Head Office/Corporate office is situated and another in English daily newspaper with wide circulation.
21. The said Sub-Broker Rajeev Bansal entered into another Stock-Broker and Sub-Broker Agreement on 24.6.2005 with M/s.ICICI WEB TRADE LIMITED. The Sub-Broker and Stock-Broker are bound by the terms of the said Agreement. As per the terms, when the Stock-Broker has terminated the Agreement with the Sub-Broker, the Stock-Broker shall inform the relevant stock exchange and such Agreement should forth with stand terminated.
44 O.S.No.2414/2011
22. As per Clause-9 of the said Agreement at Ex.P10, the Stock-Broker and the Sub-Broker shall be entitled to terminate the Agreement without giving any reasons to the other party after giving notice in writing of not less than one month to the other party at its respective address mentioned therein. Provided however in the event of the Sub-Broker terminating the Agreement and/or termination of the Sub-Broker by the Stock- Broker, for any reason whatsoever, all his clients shall be deemed to be the direct clients of the Stock-Broker and all clauses in the tripartite Agreement between the Stock-Broker, the Sub- Broker and client governing the client and Stock-Broker shall continue to be in force as it is, unless any client intimates to the Stock-Broker or the Stock-Broker intimates to the client his intention to terminate the Agreement by giving a notice in writing of not less than one month. The plaintiffs authorised P.W.2 and other officials to represent the plaintiffs in the matter 45 O.S.No.2414/2011 pertaining to the deceased Sub-Broker Mr.Rajeev Bansal at Bengaluru as per Ex.P11 to Ex.P13.
23. The plaintiff is very much relying on photographs at Ex.P15 to show that the defendants herein on 29.3.2011 at M.G.Road branch of the 2nd plaintiff indulged in the acts of vandalism and proceeded to deface the sign boards of the 2nd plaintiff and they also proceeded to write defamatory words and slogans on the advertisements as well as the sign boards of the 2nd plaintiff etc., as alleged in the plaint as against the defendants. The plaintiffs are very much relying on the oral evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 in support of their claim. Whereas, the oral evidence of these witnesses has been falsified by their own cross-examination. Infact, none of the witnesses of the plaintiffs is direct witness to the alleged incident. Admittedly, neither P.W.2 nor P.W.3 was present at the office of the 2nd plaintiff as on the alleged dates of incident. None of the witness is able to identify any of the defendants as there was huge mob 46 O.S.No.2414/2011 present at the office of the 2nd plaintiff on the alleged date as reflecting in photographs at Ex.P15. Both the photographs reflect the presence of some mob and police at the office premises. But nothing can be gathered from such piece of evidence to believe the version of P.W.2 to P.W.4 so far as instant case of the plaintiffs is concerned.
24. After analyzing the evidence on record, it is proved before the court that plaintiffs 1 and 2 are companies incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act 1956 and the 1st plaintiff appoints Sub-Broker in accordance with Rules & Regulations of SEBI who would induce the clients like defendants who were interested in buying and selling of shares. The defendants had opened necessary account with the 2nd plaintiff to do on line trading, buying and selling of the shares. The deceased Rajeev Bansal was registered as a Sub-Broker. It is also a fact that the defendants are the customers of the 1st plaintiff who have not only opened their Account along with Demat account with 47 O.S.No.2414/2011 the 2nd plaintiff for carrying out their buying and selling of shares with the first plaintiff way back during year 2004 itself. The defendants have been introduced by the sub-broker. According to the 1st plaintiff being registered broker, was not accepting payment from its customers either through cash or by cheque and all trading activities were carried out only through the linked ICICI Bank account. It is the sub-broker who would place the order through plaintiff No.1 on behalf of the clients like defendants. The defendants being customers of the plaintiffs were dealing through the said Sub-Broker, but upon the death of Sub-Broker the defendants had approached the plaintiffs stating that they had issued cheque and securities to the deceased-Sub- Broker and his wife have took their on-line trading for buying and selling of shares. According to plaintiffs, to make payment or settle their transaction in the securities market, online clients of the 1st plaintiff do not have to provide physical cheque/transfer slip to the 1st plaintiff or any 3rd party and such payment should 48 O.S.No.2414/2011 be done directly by the 1st plaintiff centrally through online instructions. Though the plaintiffs adopted multiple measures to alert its customers about the happenings in their accounts and solicit their response but no such documentary evidence is placed before the court by the plaintiffs so as to take into consideration. As alleged by the plaintiffs, the defendants had failed to raise their grievances arising out of their transaction with the late Sub-Broker within reasonable time and they made delay about 3-4 years. The plaintiff requested the defendants to give written complaint so as to initiate appropriate action against the concerned, but the defendants failed to do so. Defendants knew about the status of their accounts online. Inspite of knowing all these aspects of the transaction of defendants with the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs are not responsible for the acts of the deceased Sub-Broker which was done in his personal capacity, the defendants along with their henchmen alleged to have come to the 2nd plaintiffs' branch 49 O.S.No.2414/2011 offices on 28.3.2011 and 29.3.2011 and started protesting in front of the branches and also they indulged in several illegal acts including threatening the 2nd plaintiff and also refused to let the customers of the 2nd plaintiff to enter the said branches. Upon the officials of the 1st plaintiff coming to the said braches, the defendants proceeded to threat even the employees of the 1st plaintiff if their demands were not fulfilled. However absolutely there is no evidence at all to show that the alleged incident had occurred at the said branches/offices of the plaintiffs on the alleged two dates so as to take into consideration.
25. The specific defence of the defendant No.25 is that the defendants and other investors approached the plaintiff after the death of their Sub-Broker Rajeev Bansal in the month of February 2011 and informed that they had deposited their securities, cheque and cash through the said Sub-Broker and his wife who used to give advices to them in the office of the 1st plaintiff in investments. As per the Agreements between the 50 O.S.No.2414/2011 Sub-Broker and the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are responsible for the acts of their Sub-Broker (inter-meddler). The defendants in good faith acted on the advice of the said Sub-Broker alone. The defendant No.25 has only denied that none of the defendants including her husband and herself had visited the offices of the 2nd plaintiff either on 28.3.2011 or on 29.3.2011 as alleged by the plaintiffs. According to defendant No.25, the defendants collectively went there to question the illegal acts of the plaintiffs of not giving the primary documents required by the defendant as customers of the plaintiffs but the defendants have not done any illegal acts seeking clarifications, asking for documents, protesting and shouting before the plaintiffs for want of the documents required by the defendants to establish the genuineness of the entries unauthorisedly made their personal trading, demat and bank accounts which does not legally amount to illegal activities.
51 O.S.No.2414/2011
26. Looking to the facts and circumstances surrounding the real dispute in controversy between the parties to the suit, the defendants being customers/clients/investors to the plaintiffs through Sub-Broker were having every right to know their accounts with the plaintiffs operated through Sub-Broker immediately after the death of late Rajeev Bansal, due to apprehension of loosing their funds invested with the plaintiffs through the Sub-Broker. The plaintiffs being Stock-Brokers are bound to give not only the accounts of their customers, but also settle the dispute arising on the death of their Sub-Broker as per the terms of Agreement entered into in between the plaintiffs and late Rajeev Bansal the Sub-Broker. The plaintiffs being responsible and recognized companies were expected to safeguard the interest of not only these clients, but also general public. Looking to the conduct /approach of both the plaintiffs, they tried their level best not only to deny the funds invested by the defendants as their customers through Sub-Broker, but also 52 O.S.No.2414/2011 shown their irresponsibility to furnish necessary documents pertaining to the dealings of the defendants with them through their Sub-Broker. Looking to the facts and circumstances surrounding the claim of the defendants being customers of the plaintiffs, they were having every right to approach the plaintiffs and to get the necessary documents for taking up further action in accordance with law as against the funds invested through deceased Sub-Broker against all the concern. Due to inaction on the part of the plaintiffs, the defendants being law abiding citizens of the country have rightly approached and demanded the plaintiffs for settlement of their accounts as of right.
27. It is settled principle of law that right to freedom and speech and expression is guaranteed under the Constitution of India but the same is subject to reasonable restrictions as enshrined under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The defendants are nothing but customers of the plaintiffs and they have invested their heard earned money with the plaintiffs 53 O.S.No.2414/2011 through the Sub-Broker. On account of denial of their investments by the plaintiffs, the defendants being left with no remedy were collectively approached the plaintiffs requested for furnishing the details of their accounts. Except bald pleading, nothing is placed on record by the plaintiffs to prove any sort of threat by the defendants when approached the plaintiffs either on the alleged dates or otherwise. None of the witnesses of plaintiffs has stated about any sort of interference by the defendants either with the ingress or egress of the customers and employees of plaintiffs or causing any sort of injury or interference with their business activities and the facts and circumstances of the case in which the defendants were defaming the plaintiffs in any manner as alleged in the plaint.
28. The counsel for the plaintiff is relying on various decisions in support of his arguments.
29. In AIR 2002 NOC 17 (Calcutta) in Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd., Vs. Grindlays Bank Employees' 54 O.S.No.2414/2011 Association and Others, wherein the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held that:
"When the case of the plaintiff Bank as stated in the application for injunction established that the demonstration of the defendants unions and its members has in fact prevented the transaction of the normal business by the Bank it would definitely fall within the purview of S.36-AD(1) of the Banking (Regulation) Act. Therefore,, a Civil Court is quite competent to enquire into these allegations and if it is prima facie proved that the defendants are guilty of such acts, can pass an appropriate order of injunction."
30. Besides, the counsel for the plaintiffs has referred a case reported in Vidya Sagar Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Servies Vs. Vidya Sagar Hospital Employees Union ( MANU/Ex.D/1245/2005) wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has laid down that:
55 O.S.No.2414/2011
"The defendants or their employers have no business or cause to cause inconvenience, harassment or to extend threats to plaintiff his employees and cause obstruction to these or others who may visit the plaintiff. Such conduct on the part of the employees of the defendants for the redressal of their grievance to put pressure indirectly and disrupt the functioning of the plaintiff is not permissible nor can be permitted in the present facts and circumstances.
Considering the facts, the defendants cannot be allowed to disrupt the activities, functioning, ingress and egress of visitors and the patients and create nuisance by raising slogans near the hospital where patients need peace and solitude. The right of the defendants to have a peaceful demonstration can be vouched safely, if they are allowed to hold peaceful demonstration without making such nuisance which will disrupt the solitude and peace of patients and the willing workers, if they are allowed to do it at a 56 O.S.No.2414/2011 distance of 200 meters from the boundary of the premises of the plaintiff."
31. Whereas as discussed supra, in the absence of evidence about any sort of threat on the part of the defendants at the premises of the plaintiffs in the instant case, it cannot be said that the defendants were indulged in any sort of illegal activities. None of the defendants is either employees or Union of employees, but the defendants are well educated and law abiding citizens of the country. The plaintiffs being Banking companies cannot prevent its customers approach for redressal of their grievances in accordance with law by way of filing the suit for permanent injunction against them. At the same time, the defendants are at liberty to agitate their grievances in rightful manner. None of the customers of the plaintiffs can take law into his/her hands causing any sort of damages/nuisance either to the plaintiffs or to the general public at large. When the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the defendant's agitation was / is 57 O.S.No.2414/2011 causing interference in to the peaceful possession and working and also ingress and egress of either the customers or the employees of the company and then, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. Hence I answer both the issues in the Negative.
32. Issue No.3:- In view of my findings on the issues No.1 and 2 and the reasons stated therein, in the result, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Draw up a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 5th day of March 2015.) (BHAIRAPPA SHIVALING NAIK) XII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore 58 O.S.No.2414/2011 A N N E X U R E I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff' side :
P.W.1: Mr.S.Naveen Kumar
P.W.2: Abhishek Sanjay Deshpande
P.W.3: Neethu Sreedhar
P.W.4: Satyanarain
(b)Defendant's side : N I L
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff' side :
Ex.P1: Authority Letter
Ex.P2: Notarized copy of account
opening form of defendant
No.10
Ex.P3: Notarized copy of account
opening form of defendant
No.19
Ex.P4: Notarized copy of account
opening form of defendant
No.9
Ex.P5: Notarized copy of Circular
Issued from NSE of India
Ltd.
59 O.S.No.2414/2011
Ex.P6: Notarized copy of Letter of
Confirmation
Ex.P7: Certified copy of the Letter
Ex.P8: Certificate of Registration
Ex.P9 & 10: 2 Certified copy of
Agreement in between
stockbroker and sub-broker
with one of NSC and one of
BSC
Ex.P11: Letter of Authority
Ex.P12: Copy of Resolution
Ex.P13: Copy of the Authorization
Letter in favour of Preethi
Bharadwaz and Mamatha
Sheety
Ex.P14: General Power of Attorney
executed by company
authorizing P.W.3 to give
evidence in this case
Ex.P15: 8 photos
Ex.P16: CD
(BHAIRAPPA SHIVALING NAIK)
XII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
60 O.S.No.2414/2011
(Judgment pronounced in open court)
The suit of the plaintiffs is
dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw up a decree accordingly
(vide Judgment passed)
XII ACCJ;Bangalore
61 O.S.No.2414/2011