Bangalore District Court
Sri.M.G.Srinivas vs M/S Channakeshava Electricals on 7 September, 2022
1 Com.O.S.No.476/2022
In the Court of LXXXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge (CCH-85 Commercial Court) Bengaluru
Dated this the 7th day of September 2022
Present : Smt.H.R.Radha, B.A.L., L.L.M.
LXXXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
(CCH-85 - Commercial Court)
Bengaluru
Com.O.S.No.476/2022
Plaintiff Sri.M.G.Srinivas, aged about 52 years,
S/o M.S.Gopal Krishna, Proprietor of M/s
Mantech Engineers, No.48/B, 11th cross 1st
Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru - 560 010
(By Sri.S.Chenna Krishna, Advocate)
Vs
Defendant M/s Channakeshava Electricals, Naruganhalli
village, Gulur Hobli, Tumkur Taluk & District,
represented by its proprietor,
Mr.N.C.Channakeshava
(By Sri.M.R.Nagabhushana Advocate)
Date of Institution 25.03.2022
Nature of the Petition For recovery of money
Date on which the First
Case Management Hearing 26.07.2022
took place
2 Com.O.S.No.476/2022
Date of commencement of 08.08.2022
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment 07.09.2022
pronounced
Time taken for disposal Years Months Days
1) Total duration 00 05 13
2) From the date of First
Case Management Hearing 00 01 12
LXXXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
(CCH-85 Commercial Court), Bengaluru
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for recovery of Rs.29,55,000/- from the defendant being the balance with interest and notice charges towards supply of goods with cost and further interest at 18% p.a.
2. The plaintiff's case in brief is that he is the proprietor of M/s Mantech Engineers carrying on the business of supply of generator sets, accessories and other electrical items. Based on 3 Com.O.S.No.476/2022 the order placed by the defendant, a proprietary concern carrying on electrical business, he supplied 2 generator sets worth Rs.27,75,000/- under invoice No.ME/063/18-19 dated 29.12.2018 and 2 AMF panel boards worth Rs.29,00,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/- respectively under invoices No.067/18-19 and ME/079/18-19 dated 16.01.2019 and 30.03.2019. The defendant having received and acknowledged the same, made part payment of Rs.38,00,000/- and issued cheque bearing No.393941 dated 10.02.2019 drawn on Axis Bank, Tumkur branch for Rs.20,00,000/- promising that it would be honoured on presentation. However, the said cheque was returned unpaid on 16.02.2019 and 11.04.2019 as the drawer's signature differed. His legal notice dated 25.04.2019 was delivered to the defendant on 30.04.2019 but payment was not made. The defendant is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. amounting to Rs.9,30,000/- from 30.03.2019 upto the date of suit and notice charges of Rs.25,000/-. He has also filed C.C.No.2962/2019 on the file of IV ACCM/SCCH-6, Bengaluru U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
4 Com.O.S.No.476/2022
3. The defendant has filed the written statement admitting that he placed order for supply of 2 sets of 500KVA generator and 2 set of sensing AMF panel boards in December 2018 for Rs.58,00,000/-; his cheque bearing No.393941 of Axis Bank, Tumkur branch was returned twice with endorsement "drawer signature differs" and the plaintiff has filed C.C.No.2962/2019 U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in connection with the same but contends that the plaintiff has not supplied 2 sensing AMF panel boards in spite of repeated reminders. He had given blank cheque bearing No.393941 of Axis Bank, Tumkur branch to the plaintiff as security at the time of placing the order. To escape from the liability to supply the AMF panel boards and to harass him, the plaintiff presented the said cheque twice though it was returned with endorsement "drawer signature differs". The suit is time barred and this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the same; and he has already paid Rs.58,00,000/- to the plaintiff in the following manner:
(i) Rs.6,00,000/- through RTGS on 15.12.2018
(ii) Rs.10,00,000/- through RTGS on 19.12.2018
(iii) Rs.3,00,000/- on 29.12.2018 by fund transfer
(iv) Rs.5,00,000/- through RTGS on 20.03.2019
(v) Rs.13,00,000/- through NEFT on 07.01.2019
(vi) Rs.5,00,000/- through RTGS on 17.01.2019 5 Com.O.S.No.476/2022
(vii) Rs.4,00,000/- on 20.03.2019 through RTGS and
(viii) The balance of Rs.10,00,000/- by cash.
4. Based on the above, this court has framed the following :
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has supplied the defendant, two sets of AMF panel boards under invoice No:ME/067 and ME/079 dated 16.09.2019 and 30.03.2019 respectively?
2. Whether the defendant proves that he has already paid Rs.58,00,000/- to the plaintiff?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that cheque bearing No.393941 dated 10.02.2019 was issued by the defendant towards payment of the amounts due?
4. Whether the defendant proves that the suit is time barred?
5. Whether the defendant proves that this court has no territorial jurisdiction?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.20,00,000/- being the balance towards the goods supplied and Rs.9,30,000/- towards interest at 18% p.a. from 30.09.2019 till the date of suit?
7. What Order or Decree?6 Com.O.S.No.476/2022
5. The plaintiff is examined as Pw1; he has filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and got marked Ex.P1 to P12. The plaintiff confronted documents to defendant's witnesses and got marked Ex.P13 and P14 through Dw1, and Ex.P15 and P16 through Dw2.
6. The proprietor of the defendant and his witness are examined as Dw1 and Dw2 respectively; they have filed affidavits in lieu of examination in chief and Dw1 has got marked Ex.D1 to D8 and Ex.D1(a) to D8(a).
7. Heard arguments.
8. My findings on the above issues are :
Issue No.1: In the affirmative Issue No.2: In the negative Issue No.3: In the affirmative Issue No.4: In the negative Issue No.5: In the negative Issue No.6: Partly in the affirmative Issue No.7: As per the final order for the following 7 Com.O.S.No.476/2022 REASONS
9. From the pleadings and evidence on record, it is undisputed that the plaintiff is the proprietor of M/s Mantech Engineers carrying on business of supply of generator sets, accessories and other electrical items. The defendant is also a proprietary concern carrying on electrical business. Dw2 Mr.Nagaraj, is a friend of the defendant. As the proprietor of Bhuvaneshwari Electrical in Bhadravathi. Dw2 had business transaction with the plaintiff and he introduced the defendant to the plaintiff.
10. Issue No.1: Pw1 states that the defendant placed order for supply of 2 generator sets and 2 sensing AMF panel boards. He accordingly supplied the same for Rs.58,00,000/- under three invoices No.ME/063/18-19 dated 29.12.2018, ME/067/18-19 dated 16.01.2019 and ME/079/18-19 dated 30.03.2019.
11. The defendant does not dispute approaching the plaintiff for supply of 2 generator sets and 2 sensing AMF panel boards or the plaintiff agreeing to supply the same for Rs.58,00,000/- but contends in para 2 of the written statement that the plaintiff 8 Com.O.S.No.476/2022 supplied two 500KVA generator sets and not the sensing AMF panel boards.
12. Therefore, to discharge the burden of proving the supply of goods to the defendant including the two sensing AMF panel boards, the plaintiff relies on Ex.P9 to P11 and P14. Ex.P8 is the tax invoice bearing No.ME/063/18-19 dated 29.12.2018 regarding supply of one quantity of 500KVA generator worth Rs.27,75,000/- including GST. Ex.P10 is the tax invoice No.ME/079/18-19 dated 30.03.2019 relating to supply of one sensing AMF panel board.
13. Under Ex.P9, the invoice No.ME/067/18-19 dated 16.01.2019 one generator of 500 KVA and a sensing AMF panel board are shown to have been supplied to the defendant. If AMF sensing panel board was not sent along with the second generator, nothing prevented the defendant to write to the plaintiff immediately with regard to the same. The written statement as well as Dw1's affidavit evidence do not offer any explanation for not doing so.
9 Com.O.S.No.476/2022
14. Ex.P13 was confronted to Dw1 during cross examination and admitted by him. This letter would show that the defendant had placed order for procuring these materials to execute the contract work of Tumkur City Corporation. In Ex.P13, letter dated 22.04.2019, the defendant after lapse of three months from the date of Ex.P9 for the first time claims that he had received only the 500KVA generator set but not the AMF panel.
15. Ex.P11 is the statement downloaded from the dashboard of Income Tax portal and the plaintiff has filed Ex.P12, certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in support of the same. Ex.P11 speaks about payment of CGST and SGST of Rs.9,533.88 each in respect of Ex.P10 and Rs.2,21,186.43 each in respect of Ex.P9 and the recipient name is shown as N.C.Chennakeshava, Contractor i.e. the defendant.
16. Pw1 states that he has produced the invoice cum delivery note with the defendant's acknowledgment for having received 2 sets of sensing AMF panel boards, in another case and can produce the same before this court. The defendant's learned counsel argues that since the plaintiff has failed to produce the 10 Com.O.S.No.476/2022 same, adverse inference with regard to supply of goods under Ex.P9 and P10 should be drawn.
17. As discussed earlier, Ex.P8 and P9 are the invoices which speak about supply of one 500KVA generator each thereunder on 29.12.2018 and 16.01.2019. Though the defendant's acknowledgment is not found on Ex.P8 and P9, he admits receiving the two generators. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the defendant's argument insisting of drawing of adverse inference with regard to supply of AMF sensing panel board under Ex.P9. Because there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the defendant objected with regard to not receiving the panel board under Ex.P9 or made such endorsement thereon.
18. Ex.P4 is the plaintiff's notice dated 25.04.2019 wherein there is a categorical statement with regard to supply of two generators and two sensing AMF panel boards. Ex.P5 evidences the fact that it was sent through RPAD. Ex.P6 is the plaintiff's letter to the postal department to know the status of service of notice as the acknowledgment was not received. 11 Com.O.S.No.476/2022
19. Ex.P7 is the postal acknowledgment evidencing due service of Ex.P4 on the defendant, who does not dispute his address as appearing thereon. Dw1's cross examination reveals that he has not even replied the plaintiff's notice disputing or denying the claim regarding supply of two AMF sensing panel. The cost of two generators and two AMF sensing panels was admittedly Rs.58,00,000/-.
20. As per Ex.P8, cost of 500KVA generator to be Rs.27,75,000/- including GST. The defendant agrees that he has received two 500 KVA generators.
21. In the written statement the defendant specifically contends that he has paid Rs.58,00,000/- in all to the plaintiff on 15.12.2018, 19.12.2018, 29.12.2018, 07.01.2019, 17.01.2019 and 20.03.2019.
22. It is not the defendant's case that the money was paid in advance. That apart, Dw1 admits that the letter at Ex.P14 speaks about payment of GST by the plaintiff for having supplied the goods to him. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the plaintiff supplied one 500 KVA generator under Ex.P8, the 12 Com.O.S.No.476/2022 second generator and one sensing AMF panel board under Ex.P9; and another AMF sensing panel under Ex.P10, i.e. goods worth Rs.58,00,000/- to the defendant and even paid GST for the same as reflected in Ex.P11. Therefore, the issue for consideration is answered in the affirmative.
23. Issue No.2: According to the plaintiff, the defendant has paid a sum of Rs.38,00,000/- and issued Ex.P1 for payment of the balance. On the other hand, the defendant specifically contends in para 2 of the written statement that he has paid Rs.58,00,000/- on different dates i.e. Rs.6,00,000/- through RTGS on 15.12.2018; Rs.10,00,000/- through RTGS on 19.12.2018; Rs.3,00,000/- on 29.12.2018 by way of funds transfer; Rs.5,00,000/- on 20.03.2019 through RTGS; Rs.13,00,000/- on 07.01.2019 through NEFT; Rs.5,00,000/- through RTGS on 17.01.2019; Rs.4,00,000/- on 20.03.2019 and balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- by cash.
24. Pw1 admits during cross examination that the defendant paid advance of Rs.6,00,000/- on 15.12.2018 by RTGS as evidenced from Ex.D1(a). He also admits receiving Rs.10,00,000/- by RTGS on 19.12.2018 as evidenced from 13 Com.O.S.No.476/2022 Ex.D2(a), Rs.13,00,000/- on 07.01.2019 as evidenced from Ex.D5(a), Rs.5,00,000/- on 17.01.2019 as evidenced from Ex.D6(a) and another Rs.5,00,000/- from Bhuvaneshwari Electrical on 20.03.2019 on behalf of the defendant as evidenced from Ex.D8(a). The admitted payments, thus, add upto Rs.39,00,000/- and not Rs.38,00,000/- as claimed by the plaintiff.
25. There is no whisper in the written statement or in the affidavit of Dw1 with regard to payment by Mr.Nagaraj of Bhuvaneshwari Electrical and Mr.Vasanth on the defendant's behalf. Pw1 categorically denies having received Rs.3,00,000/- by RTGS from Bhuvaneshwari Electrical on behalf of the defendant on 29.12.2018 as per Ex.D3(a) or Rs.2,00,000/- on 29.12.2018 from one Mr.Vasanth on behalf of the defendant as per Ex.D4(a) or Rs.4,00,000/- from Mr.Nagaraj by way of account transfer on behalf of the defendant as per Ex.D7(a).
26. According to Pw1, Mr.Nagaraj of Bhuvaneshwari Electrical and Mr.Vasanth made payments on 29.12.2018 and 20.03.2019 in respect of their personal transaction and not relating to the suit transaction or on behalf of the defendant. When Ex.P15 and 14 Com.O.S.No.476/2022 P16 were confronted, Dw2 Mr.Nagaraj, the proprietor of Bhuvaneshwari Electrical admits to have purchased DG set with AMF panel worth Rs.20,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.04.2018 as per Ex.P15 by paying 10% to 20% of cost as advance and the balance in installments.
27. Ex.P16 is Dw2's email dated 15.01.2020 to the plaintiff with regard to placing order for goods worth Rs.56,50,000/- by paying advance of Rs.34,00,000/-. This email also speaks about Dw2 assuring payment Rs.5,00,000/- on the next day through NEFT and issuing post dated cheques for payment within 15 days from the date of dispatch of the material.
28. Mr.Vasanth is not examined to speak to the effect that he made payment on behalf of the defendant towards this transaction. Under these circumstances and having regard to absence of specific plea in the written statement that Dw2 Mr.Nagaraj, Proprietor of Bhuvaneshwari Electrical and Mr.Vasanth made payment on behalf of the defendant by RTGS and NEFT on behalf of the defendant, no reliance can be placed upon the entries at Ex.D3(a), D4(a), D7(a) and D8(a). Nor can the evidence of Dw1 and Dw2 in that behalf can be looked into. 15 Com.O.S.No.476/2022
29. It is pertinent to note that the written statement as well as Dw1's affidavit are silent with regard to the date of alleged cash payment of Rs.10,00,000/- to the plaintiff. For the first time during Pw1's cross examination an attempt is made to introduce the date of alleged cash payment as 19.12.2018. Pw1 categorically denies the same.
30. Therefore, the burden of proving the alleged cash payment lies heavily upon the defendant. However, he has not adduced convincing, cogent and acceptable evidence to prove that he had cash of Rs.10,00,000/- as on 19.12.2018. That apart, Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act limits the cash transaction from a person to Rs.2 Lakhs per day in respect of a single transaction. Thus, post demonetization, payment above Rs.2,00,000/- by cash in a single transaction cannot be made.
31. The written statement as well as Dw1's affidavit are silent about the date on which alleged cash payment was made and Pw1 too categorically denies receiving such payment from the defendant on 19.12.2018. Although Dw2 has filed affidavit stating that the defendant paid Rs.10,00,000/- in cash, the evidence elicited during cross examination demonstrates that 16 Com.O.S.No.476/2022 Dw2 neither has personal knowledge of the alleged payment nor witnessed the same. Therefore, the defendant's contention that Rs.10,00,000/- was paid by cash to the plaintiff cannot be believed.
32. For the forgoing reasons, the issue for consideration is answered in the negative holding that the defendant paid only a sum of Rs.39,00,000/- to the plaintiff towards the goods supplied under Ex.P8 to P10 and not the entire amount of Rs.58,00,000/- as contended.
33. Issue No.3: There is no dispute that the cheque at Ex.P1 bearing No.393941 of Axis Bank, Tumkur branch belongs to the defendant; and C.C.2962/2019 U/s 138 of N.I.Act filed by the plaintiff with regard to its dishnour is pending on the file of 4 th ACMM and SCCH-6, Bengaluru.
34. Pw1 states that Ex.P1 dated 10.02.2019 was issued by the defendant towards payment of balance amount of Rs.20,00,000/- assuring to honour the same on presentation, but it was dishonoured twice as per Ex.P2 and P3 for the reason of difference in the drawer's signature. Dw1 states that Ex.P1 17 Com.O.S.No.476/2022 was a blank unsigned cheque issued as security at the time of placing the purchase order.
35. The learned counsel for the defendant argues that the plaintiff has filled up Ex.P1 and presented the same to the bank without the defendant's knowledge and by forging the signature. The defendant admittedly has not taken any action against the plaintiff alleging forgery inspite of receiving the notice at Ex.P4 with regard to the dishonour of cheque. Nor has he issued reply contending that Ex.P2 was a unsigned blank cheque issued towards security. No reasons are forthcoming from the written statement as well as the evidence of Dw1 for not doing so.
36. It is relevant to note that neither in the written statement nor in Dw1's affidavit there is any allegation against the plaintiff forging the defendant's signature. Further, a perusal of the defendant's signatures on the Vakalathnama filed in this case, the written statement, statement of truth, the affidavit evidence as well as the deposition, it is seen that the manner of its execution is the same as the signature on Ex.P1 and no two signatures of Dw1 appear the same. Under these 18 Com.O.S.No.476/2022 circumstances, it can be safely concluded that Ex.P1 bearing No.393941 dated 10.02.2019 was issued by the defendant. Accordingly, the issue for consideration is answered in the affirmative.
37. Issue No.4: The learned counsel for the defendant strongly argues that the transaction is of the year 2018 and the suit for recovery of money is filed beyond three years from the date of transaction and therefore, it is time barred. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the suit is in time as the invoice does not provide for fixed period of credit and therefore, it is filed within three years from the date of delivery of goods as provided under Article 14 of the Limitation Act.
38. Admittedly, the defendant approached the plaintiff for supply of goods on 15.12.2018 and as per Ex.P8 to P9 the generators and AMF panels were supplied on 29.12.2018, 16.01.2019 and 30.03.2019. The defendant has paid Rs.39,00,000/- on various dates starting from 15.12.2018 to 20.03.2019 and the same amounts to acknowledgment of 19 Com.O.S.No.476/2022 liability as provided under Sec.19 of the Limitation Act in respect of the goods supplied by the plaintiff.
39. In so far as the claim relating to recovery of the amount due towards the supply made under Ex.P9, the suit ought to have been filed within three years by 15.01.2022 and in respect of Ex.P10 it should have been filed on or before 29.03.2022. Since the suit is filed on 25.03.2022, the claim for recovery of money due towards the supply under Ex.P9 is well within time.
40. Therefore, the question is whether the suit in relation to recovery of money towards goods supplied is in time?
41. In RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION (SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 3 OF 2020 dated 10.01.2022), the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings. If balance period of limitation is remaining as on 03.10.2021, the same to be available with effect from 01.03.2022. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period 20 Com.O.S.No.476/2022 between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
42. It is also clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. Therefore, the suit is well within time and the issue for consideration is answered in the negative holding that the defendant has failed to establish the contention that the suit is time barred.
21 Com.O.S.No.476/2022
43. Issue No.5: This issue is answered in the negative by order dated 05.08.2018 and the same is extracted here below for easy reference:
"It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is a proprietor carrying on business of supply of generators and other electrical items in Bengaluru and the defendant is also a proprietary concern carrying on business in Naruganhalli, Guluru Hobli of Tumkur Taluk and District. The goods were supplied from Bengaluru. Thus a part of cause of action has arisen in Bengaluru.
Considering that as per plaint averments and suit documents part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and the transaction is commercial in nature and the subject matter of the dispute is of more than the specified value, I do not find any merit in defendant's argument that this court has no jurisdiction.
Sec.20(c) of CPC applies to the facts of the case and not Sec.20(a) or (b). Therefore, Issue No.5 is answered in the 22 Com.O.S.No.476/2022 negative holding that this court has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit."
44. Issue No.6: The learned counsel for the plaintiff fairly concedes that there is no agreement between the parties regarding rate of interest and argues that the transaction being commercial in nature, the plaintiff should be awarded 18% interest as the plaintiff has paid the GST at that rate towards supply of goods. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant argues that it is for the service provider to pay the GST and the plaintiff cannot be awarded interest at 18% in the absence of agreement.
45. The plaintiff is into business of supplying generators and allied products. The defendant is also into the same business. His letter at Ex.P13 would show that the generators and AMF panels were procured for executing the contract work of Tumkur City Corporation and payment was made in installments. The defendant's cheque was dishonoured and inspite of receiving the plaintiff's notice he failed to pay the balance amount and forced the plaintiff to approach the court, spend his valuable time and money. Therefore, I am of the opinion that even in the 23 Com.O.S.No.476/2022 absence of contract the plaintiff is entitled for interest at 10%, in the nature of penalty for the delay from 31.03.2019 to the date of suit.
46. As per the findings on issue No.2, the defendant has paid Rs.39,00,000/- to the plaintiff and therefore he is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.19,00,000/-. The interest on the balance amount at 10% p.a. from 31.03.2019 upto the date of suit works out to Rs.5,66,832.88, rounded of to Rs.5,66,833/-. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.24,66,833/- (Rs.19,00,000+Rs.5,66,833) from the defendant with current and future interest at 10% p.a., cost of the proceedings and notice charges of Rs.25,000/-. Accordingly, the issue for consideration is answered partly in the affirmative.
47. Issue No.7: In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part with cost.
The plaintiff is entitled to Rs.24,66,833/- with interest at 10% p.a. 24 Com.O.S.No.476/2022 from the date of suit till the date of realization and notice charges of Rs.25,000/- from the defendant.
Draw decree accordingly.
Issue copy of the judgment to the parties through email as provided U/o XX Rule 1 of CPC if email ID is furnished.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of September 2022) (H.R.Radha) LXXXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH-85 Commercial Court), Bengaluru ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
Pw1 M.G.Srinivasa List of documents marked for the plaintiff:
Ex.P1 Cc of Cheque dated 10.02.2019
Ex.P2 & P3 Cc of Cheque return memos
Ex.P4 Cc of Notice dated 25.04.2019
Ex.P5 Cc of Postal receipt
25 Com.O.S.No.476/2022
Ex.P6 Cc of the letter
Ex.P7 Cc of Postal acknowledgment 22.05.2019
Ex.P7 to P10 Cc of Tax Invoices
Ex.P11 Computer printout of GST receipt
Ex.P12 Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act
Ex.P13 Cc of letter dated 22.04.2019
Ex.P14 Cc of letter dated 09.08.2022
Ex.P15 Tax Invoice
Ex.P16 Email communication
List of witnesses examined for the defendant:
Dw1 N.C.Channakeshava Dw2 Nagaraj
List of documents marked for the defendant:
Ex.D1 Canara Bank's statement of accounts extract Ex.D1(a) Relevant entry in Ex.D1 Ex.D2 Axis Bank's statement of accounts extract Ex.D2(a) Relevant entry in Ex.D2 Ex.D3 Canara Bank's statement of accounts extract Ex.D3(a) Relevant entry in Ex.D3 Ex.D4 UCO Bank's statement of accounts extract Ex.D4(a) Relevant entry in Ex.D4 Ex.D5 Axis Bank's statement of accounts extract Ex.D5(a) Relevant entry in Ex.D5 Ex.D6 Bank of Baroda's statement of accounts extract Ex.D6(a) Relevant entry in Ex.D6 26 Com.O.S.No.476/2022 Ex.D7 Canara Bank's statement of accounts extract Ex.D7(a) Relevant entry in Ex.D7 Ex.D8 Canara Bank's statement of accounts extract Ex.D8(a) Relevant entry in Ex.D8 (H.R.Radha) LXXXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH-85 Commercial Court), Bengaluru