Bangalore District Court
Within 45 Days From The Date Of Raising ... vs No.2 Is Examined As D.W.1 And Got Marked ... on 23 October, 2020
1
Com.OS.No.2123/2017
IN THE COURT OF LXXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE,AT BENGALURU (CCH.83)
THIS THE 23rd DAY OF OCTOBER 2020
PRESENT:
SRI.DEVARAJA BHAT.M.,B.COM,LL.B.,
LXXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Com.O.S.No.2123/2017
BETWEEN:
M/s Advantech Industrial
Computing India Pvt.Ltd.,
Kasturi Plaza, No.3M-409,
3rd Main Road, East of
NGEF Layout,
Kasthurinagar, Bengaluru -
560 043, represented by
its Director - Sri. Vijay
Kumar B.N., aged 47
years.
: PLAINTIFF
(Represented by M/s Dawn
Legal Associates-
Advocates.)
AND
1. M/s INP Computer
Technology Pvt.Ltd.,
Sardar Nagar, Survey
No.141/2, Sardargali Road,
Saravali, Palghar - 401
501, Maharashtra.
2. Mr. Manoj Dubey,
Chairman & Founder of
DIN No. 03520158, M/s INP
2
Com.OS.No.2123/2017
Computer Technology
Pvt.Ltd., Sardar Nagar,
Survey No.141/2,
Sardargali Road, Saravali,
Palghar - 401 501,
Maharashtra.
3. Mr. Vijay Gopal Das
Jaiswal, Director, DIN
No.06929418, M/s INP
Computer Technology
Pvt.Ltd., Sardar Nagar,
Survey No.141/2,
Sardargali Road, Saravali,
Palghar - 401 501,
Maharashtra.
: DEFENDANTS
(Defendants No.1 to 3
represented by Sri.
S.A.Sami- - Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit 23.03.2017
Nature of the suit (suit on Suit for Recovery of Money
pronote, suit for declaration &
Possession, Suit for injunction
etc.)
Date of commencement of 12.12.2018
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment was 23.10.2020
pronounced
Duration Years Months Days
03 07 01
(DEVARAJA BHAT.M),
LXXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
3
Com.OS.No.2123/2017
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for the relief of recovery of Rs.1,14,36,794.50 with interest.
2. The Brief facts as narrated in the Plaint are as follows:-
The Plaintiff Company is a Company registered under the Central Excise for manufacture of excisable goods and is engaged in manufacturing, trading and supplying a comprehensive array of multiple input output extension Module, Programmable Automation Controller, Micro Computer, Server & Workstation, Mobile Data Terminal, Drive & Storage Device, Computer Cables & Connector etc., which are designed accurately by highly personnel by making use of top-notch quality raw materials and sophisticated technology set industry parameters, that the Defendant was their customer for a long time and built confidence and trust with them, that the Defendants purchased the said products from the Plaintiff as per the Purchase Order placed by the Defendants and the Defendants had to settle the payment within 45 days from the date of Invoice, that as per the Purchase Orders of the Defendants, the materials were supplied to the Defendants and after supply of materials, various individual invoices were raised as detailed in Para No.4 of the Plaint, for an amount of Rs.1,24,36,794.50, that as per the agreed terms of payment, the Defendants were supposed to clear all the Invoices of the Plaintiff within 45 days from the date of raising the Invoices, but 4 Com.OS.No.2123/2017 inspite of repeated follow ups and reminders both in writing and E-mails requesting the Defendants to settle the total overdue payment of Rs.1,24,36,794.50, the Defendants issued a Cheque for Rs.10,00,000/- only, which was dishonoured when presented to bank for encashment, with an endorsement "insufficient funds", that when the said fact was informed to the Defendants, they transferred a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- through RTGS on 21.10.2016, that for the balance amount, the Plaintiff got issued a Legal Notice dated 17.11.2016 to the Defendants calling upon them to settle the said amount of Rs.1,14,36,794.50 within 15 days, that the Defendants acknowledged receipt of the said Notice and assured that the same will be settled within one month as per mail dated 18.11.2016, but failed to make payment of the outstanding dues. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed this suit.
3. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have appeared in this case and filed written statement. The contentions of the Defendants 1 to 3 in their Written Statement are as follows:-
That the Defendants had introduced the Plaintiff to several other customers with whom the Plaintiff conducted business and claiming the amounts due by them from the Defendants, that they are not liable to pay any amount covered under the said transaction, that the Plaintiff has done the business with the said customer individually at its discretion without there being any involvement of these Defendants, that the Defendants are 5 Com.OS.No.2123/2017 due to the Plaintiff only a sum of Rs.45,00,946.71 and that they are ready and willing to pay the same and they are not liable to pay the false and frivolous amount of Rs.1,24,36,794.50 as claimed by the Plaintiff and therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit.
4. On the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed by my learned Predecessor-in-Office :-
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that the Defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,14,36,794.50 ps.
With interest at 18% per annum from the date of suit till its realization ?
OR In the alternative, do Defendants prove that they are liable to pay only Rs.45,00,946.71 Ps. to the Plaintiff ?
2. What order or decree ?
5. In order to prove the contentions of the Plaintiff, the Director of the Plaintiff Company Sri. Vijay Kumar is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.82.
6. In order to prove the contentions of the Defendants, Defendant No.2 is examined as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D.1 & D.2.
6Com.OS.No.2123/2017
7. During the course of trial, on 17.07.2019, the learned Advocate for the Defendants filed a Memo with three Cheques bearing Nos.690001, 690002 and 690003 dated 25.08.2019, 15.08.2019 and 28.07.2019 respectively for Rs.5,00,946.71, Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.25,00,000/- respectively drawn on Union Bank of India, towards payment of admitted amount as admitted in the Written Statement, without prejudice to the defence of the Defendants to contest rest of the claim of the Plaintiff and paid the said amount to the Plaintiff. Hence, the matter is proceeded further only about the rest of the claim of the Plaintiff.
8. I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for Plaintiff Sri.V. Ramesh and the learned Advocate for Defendants Sri. S.A.Sami. The Advocate for the Plaintiff has submitted his Written Arguments on 07.02.2020. The Advocate for the Defendants has submitted his Written Arguments on 15.02.2020.
9. My findings are as follows:-
Issue No.1 : In Affirmative Alternative Issue No.1 : Does not survive for consideration Issue No.2 : As per the final Order for the following reasons.7
Com.OS.No.2123/2017 REASONS
10. Issue No. 1: - In this suit, Plaintiff has claimed recovery of Rs.1,14,36,794.50/- from the Defendants. The Defendants have paid Rs.45,00,946.71/- to the Plaintiff, during pendency of this suit. The suit is proceeded only with regard to rest of claim. The Defendants in the Written Statement has contended that they had introduced the Plaintiff several other customers with whom the Plaintiff conducted business and the Plaintiff is claiming the amounts due by them from the Defendants which the Defendants are not liable to pay and the Defendants are not liable to pay any amount covered under the said transaction, and that the Plaintiff has done the business with the said customer individually at his discretion without there being any involvement of the Defendants.
11. However, during the cross-examination of PW.1 and also during the arguments of the learned Advocate for the Defendants, it is contended that the person who represented as Director of Plaintiff Company has no authority to institute the suit as well as depose on behalf the company and that the suit is also not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party i.e.,M/s One Up Infotech. It is to be noted here that any amount of evidence and arguments without any pleading cannot be taken into consideration. Hence, the said arguments cannot be accepted at all.
8Com.OS.No.2123/2017
12. However, for the sake of clarity, I now propose to discuss with the said facts.
13. The Learned Counsel for the Defendant has argued that PW-1 Sri Vijaya Kumar B.N., the Director of the Plaintiff Company was not duly authorized by the Plaintiff, that in the Ex.P.1, it is mentioned that he was appointed as Additional Director for holding the office until the conclusion of the next Annual General Meeting and he was authorized only for signing and filing of Income Tax return or any other documents with the Statutory Departments. The Defendants in their written statement did not challenge the directorship of the said person.
14. Order XXIX Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code uses the term "Corporation" which will naturally include companies within its definition.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1996 (6) - S.C.C. - 660 = A.I.R. - 1997 - S.C. - 3 (United Bank of India vs. Naresh Kumar) has held at Para No.10 as follows :-
"It cannot be disputed that a company like the bank can sue and be sued in its own name. Under Order VI Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code a pleading is required to be signed by the party and its 9 Com.OS.No.2123/2017 pleader, if any. As a company is juristic entity it is obvious that some person has to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company. Order XXIX Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, therefore, provides that in a suit by or against a corporation the Secretary or any Director or other Principal Officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case might sign and verify on behalf of the company. Reading Order VI Rule 14 together with Order XXIX Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure it would appear that even in the absence of any formal letter of authority or power of attorney having been executed a person referred to in Rule 1 of Order XXIX can, by virtue of the office which he holds, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation. In addition thereto and dehors, Order XXIX Rule 1 as a company is a juristic entity, it can duly authorise any person to sign the plaint or the written statement on its behalf and this would be regarded as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Order VI Rule 14. A person may be expressly authorized to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company, for example by the Board of Directors, passing a resolution to that effect or by a power of attorney being executed in favour of any individual. In absence thereof and in cases where pleadings have been signed by one of its officers a Corporation can ratify the said action of its officer in signing the pleadings. Such ratification can be expressed or implied. The Court can on the basis of the evidence on record, and after taking all the circumstances of the case, specially with regard to the conduct of the trial, come to the conclusion that the corporation had ratified the act of signing of the pleading by its officer"
16. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has used the terms "Company" and "Corporation"
10Com.OS.No.2123/2017 interchangeably.
17. Coming to the present case, the Plaintiff has specifically pleaded in the cause title of the plaint that the Plaintiff Company is represented by its Director Sri. Vijay Kumar B.N. The Defendants in their written statement have not specifically denied that the PW-1/Sri. Vijay Kumar B.N. is not the Director of the Plaintiff Company. Ex.P.1 is also produced by the Plaintiff to corroborate the said contention. This being so even if there is no express resolution to prove the authority of PW-1 in filing the present suit, by virtue of Order XXIX Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, PW- 1 being the Additional Director of the Plaintiff Company was competent to sign the pleadings and depose about the facts of the case and no express authority is in fact required. Furthermore, the Plaintiff Company has never disputed or challenged the acts of PW-1 since the day of the filing of this suit till today and thereby has impliedly ratified his acts and conducts with regard to the conduct of the trial. Hence, the argument advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Defendant that the suit is not filed by duly authorized person is without any merits and the same stands rejected.
18. So far as the arguments relating to non-joinder of necessary party i.e., M/s One Up Infotech, is concerned, it is to be noted that the Defendants have not raised this plea in their 11 Com.OS.No.2123/2017 Written Statement. No issue is framed about non-joinder of necessary party. Only during the course of arguments, this issue is raised. As per Order 1 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, all objections on the ground of non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties shall be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement unless the ground of objection has subsequently arisen, and any such objection not so taken shall be deemed to have been waived. Hence, the said objection even if raised at the time of arguments, it is deemed to have been waived by the Defendants. Hence, the said arguments of the learned Advocate for the Defendants cannot be accepted.
19. The learned Advocate for the Defendants has argued that the claim made under Ex.P.33, 35 and 36, the Defendants are not liable to pay any amount to the Plaintiff. Ex.P.33 is a sales invoice dated 17.12.2017 in respect of supply to M/s One Up Infotech for Rs.2,84,493/-. Ex.P.35 is a sales invoice dated 19.01.2016 in respect of supply to M/s One Up Infotech for Rs.8,88,429/-. Ex.P. 36 is a sales invoice dated 31.12.2015 in respect of supply to M/s One Up Infotech for Rs.49,67,560/-.
20. In respect of the entire claim, the Plaintiff has produced the several correspondence between the parties. The said correspondence is arranged in chronological order for better 12 Com.OS.No.2123/2017 understanding. Ex.P. 76 is the Email dated 26.11.2015 sent by the 2nd Defendant to M/s One Up Infotech. Ex.P.77 is the Email dated 12.01.2016 sent by the 2 nd Defendant to M/s One Up Infotech. Ex.P.82 is the Email dated 29.03.2016 sent by the 3 rd Defendant to the Plaintiff. Ex.P. 72 and 78 are the Email dated 21.04.2016 sent by the 2nd Defendant to Plaintiff. Ex.P.81 is the Email dated 21.06.2016 sent by the 2nd Defendant to Sri. Swarup Dey. Ex. P.12 and 13 are the Email dated 30.06.2016 sent by Mr. Jenny Chen to Mr. Gireesh. Ex.P.37 to 43 are the Email correspondence between the Plaintiff and Defendants for follow up for payments.
21. Before instituting this suit, the Plaintiff has sent a Legal Notice to the Defendants as per Ex.P.44 on 17.11.2016, wherein the Plaintiff has taken similar contentions taken in the Plaint and after giving details of the various transactions he has claimed for a sum of Rs.1,14,36,794/-. Ex.P.46 is the reply Email sent by the Defendants on 18.11.2016 wherein it is mentioned as follows:-
"We confirm that we have to pay the outstanding amount to Advantech India. There is no confusion in that. We urge to provide 30 days time to clear entire outstanding. We would like to have a seamless and healthy business association with Advantech."
22. Therefore, the Defendants have not disputed or denied the 13 Com.OS.No.2123/2017 claim made by the Plaintiff in Ex.P.44. The DW.1 during his cross-examination has deposed that they have not disputed the claim of the Plaintiff for the payment made under Ex.P.44 and that they have not sent any separate reply to the Plaintiff denying the claim of the Plaintiff put-forth in Ex.P.44. They have unequivocally admitted the claim of the Plaintiff and prayed time to clear the said entire outstanding. It is to be noted that they have not admitted the portion of the claim of the Plaintiff made in Ex.P.44. However, in the Written Statement, they have admitted only a portion of the suit claim and they paid the said admitted amount during the pendency of the suit. According to the Defendants, they are not liable to pay the amounts due from M/s One Up Infotech.
23. On a combined reading of the above-mentioned emails along with Ex.P.46, there is an admission of the entire liability by the Defendants. The Plaintiff has also furnished the Certificate as required under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act on 12.12.2018.
24. Sections 4 and 6 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 provide for legal recognition of electronic records and their use in Government and its agencies. Section 10-A of the said Act specifically provides for validity of contract through electronic means and accordingly provides that such contract shall not be 14 Com.OS.No.2123/2017 deemed to be unenforceable solely on the ground that such electronic form or means was used for that purpose. Section 12 of the said Act provides for acknowledgment of receipt including in an automated manner. Section 13 of the said Act provides for time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic records. Upon careful consideration of all these provisions, it is seen that electronic records have been provided with full legal recognition.
25. Under the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 particularly Section 10-A, an electronic contract is valid and enforceable, which states as follows:-
"Section 10-A: Validity of contracts formed through electronic means:- Where in a contract formation, the communication of proposals, the acceptance of proposals, the revocation of proposals and acceptances, as the case may be, are expressed in electronic form or by means of an electronic record, such contract shall not be deemed to be unenforceable solely on the ground that such electronic form or means was used for that purpose."
26. E-Contracts can be entered into through modes of communication such as e-mail, internet and fax. The only essential requirement to validate an E-Contract is compliance with the necessary pre-requisites provided under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
15Com.OS.No.2123/2017
27. The evidenciary value of e-contracts can be well understood in the light of the Sections 85A, 85B, 88A, 90A and 85C deals with the presumptions as to electronic records whereas Section 65B relates to the admissibility of electronic record. In the present case, as already mentioned, the Plaintiff has furnished the Certificate as required under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
28. Formation of contracts online via emails has been recognized and given validity to by the Indian courts time and again. In the decision reported in 2010(1) - SCALE - 57 (Trimex International FZE Limited, Dubai vs. Vendata Aluminium Ltd.), the parties thoroughly agreed to the terms of the contract via emails. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the validity of this contract and further held as follows:-
"Once the contract is concluded orally or in writing, the mere fact that a formal contract has to be prepared and initiated by the parties would not affect either the acceptance of the contract so entered into or implementation thereof, even if the formal contract has never been initiated."
29. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after going through the various E-mails exchanged between the parties including an E-mail attaching the draft contract, which remained unsigned, opined as follows:-
16Com.OS.No.2123/2017 "44. From the materials placed, it has to be ascertained whether there exists a valid contract with the arbitration clause. It is relevant to note that on 15-10-2007 at 4.26 p.m. the petitioner submitted a commercial offer wherein Clause 6 contains the arbitration clause i.e. "this contract is governed by Indian law and arbitration in Mumbai courts". At 5.34 p.m. though the respondents offered their comments, as rightly pointed out by Mr K.K. Venugopal, no comments were made in respect of the "arbitration clause". It is further seen that at 6.04 p.m., the petitioner sent a reply to the comments made by the respondent. Again, on 16-10-2007 at 11.28 a.m., though the respondents suggested certain additional information on the offer note, here again no suggestion was made with regard to the arbitration clause...........".
30. Therefore, the correspondence through email can be considered as a valid binding agreement/contract between the parties. Further, in another decision reported in (1999) 1 - S.C.C. - 1 (Rickmers Verwaltung GNBH vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.), a similar issue arose for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the said case, the parties were at loggerheads over the construction to be placed on the correspondence between them. The appellant was submitting that a concluded contract had come into existence and that though no agreement had been formally signed between the parties, yet the contemporaneous correspondence exchanged between them went to show that a binding contract came into existence. On a construction of the various 17 Com.OS.No.2123/2017 documents placed before the court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following binding principles which would guide adjudication herein :-
"In this connection the cardinal principle to remember is that it is the duty of the court to construe correspondence with a view to arrive at a conclusion whether there was any meeting of mind between the parties, which could create a binding contract between them but the Court is not empowered to create a contract for the parties by going outside the clear language used in the correspondence, except insofar as there are some appropriate implications of law to be drawn. Unless from the correspondence it can unequivocally and clearly emerge that the parties were ad idem to the terms, it cannot be said that an agreement had come into existence between them through correspondence. The Court is required to review what the parties wrote and how they acted and from that material to infer whether the intention as expressed in the correspondence was to bring into existence a mutually binding contract. The intention of the parties is to be gathered only from the expressions used in the correspondence and the meaning it conveys and in case it shows that there had been meeting of mind between the parties and they had actually reached an agreement, upon all material terms, then and then alone can it be said that a binding contract was capable of being spelt out from the correspondence.
From a careful perusal of the entire correspondence on the record, we are of the opinion that no concluded bargain had been reached between the parties as the terms of the standby letter of credit and performance guarantee were not accepted by the respective parties. In the absence of acceptance of the standby letter of credit and performance 18 Com.OS.No.2123/2017 guarantee by the parties, no enforceable agreement could be said to have come into existence. The correspondence exchanged between the parties shows that there is nothing expressly agreed between them and no concluded enforceable and binding agreement come into existence between them. Apart from the correspondence relied upon by the learned single Judge of the High Court, the fax messages exchanged between the parties, referred to above, go to show that the parties were only negotiating and had not arrived at any agreement. There is a vast difference between negotiating a bargain and entering into a binding contract. After negotiation of bargain in the present case, the stage never reached when the negotiations were completed giving rise to a binding contract. The learned single Judge of the High Court was, therefore, perfectly justified in holding that Clause 53 of the Charter Party relating to Arbitration had no existence in the eye of law, because no concluded and binding contract ever came into existence between the parties. The finding recorded by the learned single Judge is based on a proper appreciation of evidence on the record and a correct application of the legal principles. We find no merit in this appeal. It fails and is dismissed with costs."
31. Therefore, by considering the above emails exchanged between the parties,n there is an Electronic Contract between the parties and the Defendants admitted the liability to pay the entire claim of the Plaintiff mentioned in Ex.P.44 and hence, the various arguments and the points raised /challenged during the course of cross-examination of PW.1 cannot be accepted at all. Though there may be transactions with M/s One Up Infotech, 19 Com.OS.No.2123/2017 the Defendants cannot shirk their liability to pay the suit claim as per the Electronic Contract formed under various emails. Hence, the Defendants are liable to pay the claim of the Plaintiff after deducting the amount paid during the pendency of the suit. Hence, the Defendants are liable to pay Rs.69,35,847.79 (Rupees Sixty Nine Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Seven and Paise Seventy Nine only) to the Plaintiff with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. The interest at 18% per annum is considered as just and proper by taking into account of the present bank rate and trade practice. Accordingly I answer this Issue in 'Affirmative' and in view of the payment during the pendency of the suit by the Defendants, the alternative issue does not survive for my consideration.
32. Issue No.2: Therefore, we proceed to pass the following Order.
ORDER The Suit of the Plaintiff is decreed.
The Defendants No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.69,35,847.79 (Rupees Sixty Nine Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Seven and Paise Seventy Nine only) to the Plaintiff with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till realisation.
The Defendants are directed to pay the cost of the suit to the Plaintiff.
20Com.OS.No.2123/2017 Draw decree accordingly.
The Office is directed to send copy of this judgment to Plaintiff and Defendants to their email ID as required under Order XX Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act.
[Dictated to the Judgment Writer, typed by her directly on the computer, transcribed by her, verified and pronounced in the open court on 23rd day of October 2020].
(DEVARAJA BHAT.M.), LXXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 Sri. Vijay Kumar LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 Certified True Copy of the Resolution passed at the Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Plaintiff dated 30.11.2013.
Ex.P.2 Certificate of Incorporation dated 19.07.2012 Ex.P.3 to P.11 9 Invoices dated 22.04.2016, 19.01.2016, 03.03.2017, 16.12.2015, 25.05.2016, 03.03.2017, 29.06.2016 and 30.06.2016.
Ex.P.12 & 13 E-mail correspondence dated 30.06.2016 21 Com.OS.No.2123/2017 Ex.P.14 Sales Invoice dated 30.05.2016 Ex.P.15 E-Sugam Ex.P.16 Sales Invoice dated 05.05.2016 Ex.P.17 E-Sugam Ex.P.18 Sales Invoice dated 10.06.2016 Ex.P.19 E-Sugam Ex.P.20 Sales Invoice dated 25.05.2016 Ex.P.21 E-Sugam Ex.P.22 Sales Invoice dated 31.05.2016 Ex.P.23 E-Sugam Ex.P.24 Sales Invoice dated 13.06.2016 Ex.P.25 E-Sugam Ex.P.26 Sales Invoice dated 30.06.2016 Ex.P.27 Sales Invoice dated 29.06.2016 Ex.P.28 E-Sugam Ex.P.29 Sales Invoice dated 30.06.2016 Ex.P.30 E-Sugam Ex.P.31 Sales Invoice dated 16.06.2016 Ex.P.32 E-Sugam Ex.P.33 Sales Invoice dated 17.12.2015 Ex.P.34 E-Sugam Ex.P.35 Sales Invoice dated 19.01.2016 Ex.P.36 Sales Invoice dated 30.12.2015 Ex.P.37 to 43 E-mail correspondence Ex.P.44 Office Copy of Legal Notice dated 17.11.2016 Ex.P.45 Postal Acknowledgement Ex.P.46 E-mail correspondence Ex.P.47 to 58 12 DTDC Courier Delivery Challans Ex.P.59 to 70 12 Acknowledgements issued by DTDC Ex.P.71 Indemnity issued by DTDC, Bengaluru Ex.P.72 E-mail sent by DW.1 to Oneup Infotech dated 20.11.2015 Ex.P.73 E-mail sent by DW.1 to the Plaintiff dated 12.01.2016 22 Com.OS.No.2123/2017 Ex.P.74 E-mail sent by DW.1 to the Plaintiff dated 21.04.2016 Ex.P.75 E-mail sent by DW.1 to the Plaintiff dated 12.04.2019 Ex.P.76 Record showing the DW.1 is the Director in Kore Soft Technology Pvt.Ltd.
Ex.P.77 to 80 Four E-mail sent by the Defendants Ex.P.81 E-mail from DW.1 to Sri. Swaroop Dey dated 21.06.2016 Ex.P.82 E-mail from 3rd Defendant to Mr. Derren Chen of Plaintiff dated 29.03.2016 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:
D.W.1 Sri. Manoj Keshav Dubey LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D.1 Ledger Account Extract maintained by the Defendants showing payments made to the Plaintiff and also balance amount due from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2016 Ex.D.2 Ledger Account Extract maintained by the Defendants showing payments made to the Plaintiff and also balance amount due from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 (DEVARAJA BHAT.M.), LXXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, BENGALURU.23
Com.OS.No.2123/2017 23.10.2020 P : By VS D.1 to 3 : by SAS For Judgment The Judgment is pronounced in Open Court today. The operative portion of the said judgment is as follows:-
ORDER The Suit of the Plaintiff is decreed.The Defendants No. 1 to 3
jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.69,35,847.79 (Rupees Sixty Nine Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Seven and Paise Seventy Nine only) to the Plaintiff with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till realisation.
The Defendants are directed to pay the cost of the suit to the Plaintiff.
Draw decree accordingly.
The Office is directed to send copy of this judgment to Plaintiff and Defendants to their email ID as required under Order XX Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act.
(Vide my separate detailed
Judgment dated 23.10.2020)
(Typed as per my dictation).
24
Com.OS.No.2123/2017
(DEVARAJA BHAT.M.),
LXXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, BENGALURU.