Bangalore District Court
Yokogawa India Ltd vs Chandrashekhar Narasiah on 17 June, 2025
Com.OS.No.196/2021
KABC170004002021
IN THE COURT OF LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-86) (Commercial Court)
THIS THE 17th DAY OF JUNE 2025
PRESENT:
SRI.ARJUN. S. MALLUR. B.A.L.LL.B.,
LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Com.OS.No.196/2021
BETWEEN:
Yokogawa India Ltd
Through its Authorised Representative,
Plot No. 96,
Electronics City Hosur Road
Bengaluru-560100.
: PLAINTIFF
(Represented By Sri. Arjun Rao, Advocate.)
AND
1. Chandrashekhar Narasiah
1st Floor No. 233,
10th B Main, Kalyanangar,
Bengaluru-560032.
1
Com.OS.No.196/2021
2:M/S S N Infra,
Through Its Sole Proprietor,
Chandrashekhar Narasiah,
SM Arcade No. 9898/4, 2nd Main,
1st Cross, 3rd Floor KHM Block,
Ganganagar RT Nagar Post,
Bengaluru-560032
3:M/S S N Technologies
Through Its Sole Pro Mr Chandrashekhar Narasiah,
895/1 16th Main, 3rd Block
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-560010
: DEFENDANTS
(Represented By Sri. P.S. Mohan, Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit 25.02.2021
Nature of the suit (suit on
pronote, suit for declaration & Suit for recovery of money
Possession, Suit for injunction
etc.)
Date of commencement of 15.04.2024
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment was 17.06.2025
pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
04 03 23
(ARJUN. S. MALLUR)
LXXXV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
2
Com.OS.No.196/2021
JUDGMENT
Suit for direction to the defendants to pay compensation to the plaintiff at Rs.5,00,000/- and to pay damages sustained by the materials which were kept in storage conditions without being utilized and having deteriorated and for payment of a sum of Rs.1,44,88,979/- as damages with respect to payments made by the plaintiff to the sub-contractors for completing the works left by the defendants, direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.2,10,59,392/- being the cost of procuring new flow-meters and also to pay sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as damages suffered by the plaintiff at the hands of Kerala Water Authority.
2. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as under:-
The plaintiff is a wholly owned subsidiary of a Japanese MNC Yokogawa Electric Corporation, Tokyo. The plaintiff is primarily engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, supplying, engineering and industrial automation, solutions, goods and services. The defendant No.1 is the sole proprietor of defective Nos.2 and 3 engaged in the execution of civil works which were entrusted under the purchase order issued in this case.3
Com.OS.No.196/2021 Kerala Water Authority (KWA) is established under the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986 for development and regulation of water supply, waste water collection and disposal in the state of Kerala. KWA with the assistance of Japan International Corporation agency, Government of Japan, floated a tender dated 10.09.2013 for supply and installation of electromagnetic flow-meters with central data acquisition system which required bulk flow meters to be supplied, installed and commissioned at various locations across state of Kerala. The plaintiff being the successful bidder was accepted by KWA vide letter dated 04.03.2014 for the total amount of Rs.9,99,33,389/- for the purpose of supply and installation of the flow-meters at various locations across state of Kerala. Subsequently the KWA and plaintiff entered into an agreement dated 12.03.2014 for supply of flow-meters which required the plaintiff to furnish a performance security bank guarantee. A supplemental agreement dated 24.04.2017 was also entered between plaintiff and KWA and the quantities of the work and the amount was revised from Rs.9,99,33,389/- to Rs.10,44,04,905/-. The plaintiff was responsible for completion of the project which included supply and 4 Com.OS.No.196/2021 delivery of the flow meters with related materials and installation of flow-meters with all related works at various site locations.
(b) To undertake the said work the plaintiff issued purchase order bearing P.O.No.K0019/0012 dated 10.06.2015 in favour of defendant No.2 requiring defendant No.2 to install and commission flow-meters by constructing on site chambers at various locations across Kerala as per the bill of materials mentioned in the P.O. The contract value was at Rs.2.60 crores. The said PO came to be amended vide purchase order amendment dated 02.05.2016 and the price escalation of the contract value was revised from Rs.2.6 crores to Rs.3.30 crores.
Defendant No.2 being a sub-contractor was required to complete the works of installation and commission of the flow-meters at all the locations latest by 31.12.2016 which was in line with the deadline fixed by KWA on the plaintiff. While issuing the PO defendant No.2 was duly communicated by the plaintiff the works which were required to be executed and the deadline that was to be strictly adhered to as it was corresponding upon the obligation of the plaintiff to meet the deadline as per the 5 Com.OS.No.196/2021 agreement with KWA. In the minutes of meeting dated (MOM) 10.06.2014 held before issuance of P.O. the plaintiff shared the complete tender specifications with defendants and the defendants confirmed compliance to the work and contractual obligations and also agreed obtaining requiring Government approvals and coordination with KWA officials. For the purpose of installation of the flow-meters the plaintiff imported from its parent company bulk flow-meters and supplied the same to defendant No.2 to make use of installation and commission of the flow-meters at all 147 site locations across the State of Kerala. The scope of the work under the P.O. required the defendant to follow the obligations with respect to receipt of the materials despatched from YIL, unloading of items at respective locations, arranging stores with coordination with KWA officials, transporting of the items from stores to the site locations. Any damages which occurred during erection of the flow- meters or any theft of the any of the accessories was the responsibility of the vendor and arranging stores at Kottayam, Kasargod, Thrissur and Trivandrum for which the rents to be paid by the plaintiff. Thereafter a sub- lease agreement came to be entered under which the 6 Com.OS.No.196/2021 plaintiff undertook to pay the rents from 01.04.2016 till 31.05.2017. Thereafter the defendant was liable to pay the rents. The transportation charges for transporting the materials from Cochin to respective godowns at Kottayam, Kasargod, Thrissur and Trivandrum were to be borne by the plaintiff.
(c) Upon receiving the materials the defendant No.2 took possession of the same and stored the same at various godowns across Kerala including Kasargod, Kochi and Trivandrum. Defendant No.2 entered into two lease agreements with the godowns or warehouse owners in Kerala for the purpose of storing the materials. The defendant No.1 entered into a rental agreement dated 01.09.2016 with respect to the warehouse at Trivandram for 11 months in which it was agreed that the materials would be kept in the godown and the defendant would be at liberty to sub lease the premises to the plaintiff for removal of the goods and it was also agreed that if the defendant fails to pay the monthly rents then it would be lawful for the landlord to terminate the rental premises and take possession of the premises and the landlord would also be entitled to recover the rents which fell in 7 Com.OS.No.196/2021 arrears with interest at 10% p.a. It was also agreed between the defendants and the landlord that if the godown was still required after expiry of 11 months the lessee can continue in possession subject to increase of the rent by 10% every year. Likewise under the similar terms and conditions the defendant No.3 also entered into a lease agreement with the landlord of the warehouse situated at Kasargod dated 27.03.2017. The plaintiff also entered into a sublease agreement with defendant No.1 through defendant No.3 for the warehouses situated at both Trivandrum and Kasargod with conditions as narrated in para 18 of the plaint. As per the said conditions the obligation for the plaintiff to pay the rents for the godowns was only up to 31.05.2017 and the defendant No.2 was required to complete the installation of flow- meters latest by 31.05.2017. As per the terms of the sub- lease agreement the rents were to be borne solely by the defendants and there was no liability on part of the plaintiff to pay rents.
(d) The defendant No.2 commenced execution of installation and commission of the flow meters at the site locations from 16.05.2015. it is alleged that from the very 8 Com.OS.No.196/2021 beginning the defendant No.2 repeatedly defaulted in fulfilling its contractual obligations and repeatedly defaulted in meeting the schedules for completions of various works under the project. That the plaintiff time and again reminded defendant No.2 to adhere to the agreed timelines. However the defendant responded in an evasive and non committal manner and acted in a blatant disregard of the contractual obligations and was giving misrepresentations and false promises repeatedly delaying installation of the flow-meters at various site locations and was only able to complete the commission and installation of flow-meters at 62 site locations out of 147 site locations. The defendant No.2 though continuously failed to complete the installation at all site locations it continued to remain in possession of the materials supplied by the plaintiff and therefore the defendant were liable to pay the rents at their own costs for storage of the materials. Having not completed the installations as per schedule defendants are liable to return the materials back to the plaintiff. As regards to the site locations at Kochi it is alleged that defendant No.2 failed to install the flow-meters at most of the site locations even though the defendant No.2 took possession 9 Com.OS.No.196/2021 of the materials and transported the same near the site locations. The materials supplied by the plaintiff still continues to remain unused and unutilized at the site locations in Kochi. In this regard a meeting came to be held at Bengaluru between plaintiff and defendant No.2 in which MOM was signed by both parties on 01.07.2019 for meeting certain commitments with respect to completion of the pending works and also return of the materials to the plaintiff. The details of the MOM dated 01.07.2019 is given in a tabular form in para 23 of the plaint. The defendant No.1 was personally present in the said meeting and has signed the MOM on behalf of defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 specifically agreed the consensus ad-idem reached between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 and the defendant No.2 was obligated to return the materials in the delivered conditions from its warehouses by 15.07.2019 and 22.07.2019 at Kasargod and Trivendrum respectively. There was further agreement that any lapses in terms of the quality or the quantity due to storage conditions would be rectified at the cost of defendant No.2. Further it was agreed that the remaining work left incomplete by defendant No.2 would be completed by engaging other contractors at the risk of 10 Com.OS.No.196/2021 defendant No.2. Further it was agreed that any payments to be made to defendant No.2 shall be only after reconciliation of accounts and after return of all the materials to the plaintiff from defendant possession in as delivered conditions. It is submitted that the reconciliation of accounts was permissible only when all the materials were returned by the defendant. It is further submitted that the defendants also failed to abide by the obligations under the MOM dated 01.07.2019 and also failed to return the materials supplied by the plaintiff in the defendants possession. It is submitted that the defendants are in wrongful custody and the materials supplied by the plaintiff for execution of the work under the KWA project which is in complete breach of the contractual terms and obligation of defendant No.1. The plaintiff addressed several communications in the form of emails calling upon the defendants to abide by the obligations of the MOM meeting dated 01.07.2019 but the defendants failed to do so.
(e) The plaintiff carried out a project progress review meeting with defendant No.2 on 04.02.2020 wherein the obligations of the defendant No.2 under the 11 Com.OS.No.196/2021 MOM dated 01.07.2019 were discussed and reiterated. The owner of the warehouse in Kasargod on 24.01.2020 permitted the plaintiff to conduct a preliminary inspection of the materials lying in the warehouse at payment of Rs.5,00,000/- as the rent due by the defendant No.1 and only physical verification was allowed without any functional check of the flow-meters lying in the said warehouse. The defendant No.1 vide email dated 07.02.2020 assured the plaintiff that they would be making payments towards balance rents with respect to the warehouse but it was once again a false promise which was never fulfilled and the plaintiff had to bare the expenses of paying the rents. Further upon enquiry the plaintiff found that the defendant had made only partial payments towards the rents with respect to the warehouses because of which the land owners were refusing to release the materials to the custody of the plaintiff. As per the terms of the sublease agreement dated 20.03.2017 the plaintiff was only required to pay the rents till 31.05.2017 which the plaintiff had duly complied and thereafter plaintiff was not responsible for making payments of any rents. It is submitted that it was entirely the responsibility of defendants to take release of 12 Com.OS.No.196/2021 the materials kept in the godowns and handover the same to the plaintiff. Further it was brought to the notice of the plaintiff that as the defendants had failed to pay the rents the owner of the warehouse in Trivandrum had shifted some of the materials lying in the said warehouse to other warehouses which were in three different places. The plaintiff immediately reached out to all the three warehouse owners in Trivandrum and facilitated a settlement agreement between said warehouse owners and defendant No.2 so that the arrears in rent could be cleared by defendant No.2 and materials would be returned to the plaintiff. It was further agreed that upon payment of the arrears of rent the concerned warehouse owners would extend all support to the defendant No.2 to shift the material from the warehouses. However the defendants once again fails to adhere to its obligations and the materials continued to lie in the said warehouses without being used. The plaintiff on 07.05.2020 addressed a letter to the defendants complaining about the breach of obligations under the P.O. as well as the MOM dated 01.07.2019 and inordinate delay in installation and commissioning of the flow-meters and also non payment of money to the sub-contractors, dues to the warehouse 13 Com.OS.No.196/2021 owners and also defendant No.2 failing to return the materials supplied by the plaintiff and further called upon defendant No.2 to return the materials and complete all pending activities within 15 days from the date of the said letter. In response the defendant No.2 addressed two letters dated 13.05.2020 and 04.07.2020 stating that due to certain non payments by the plaintiff defendant No.2 was facing cash crunch and wrongly contended that it is the responsibility of the plaintiff to take possession of the materials by paying the arrears of rent even thought the obligation on part of defendant No.2 to do so. The plaintiff again addressed another letter dated 13.07.2020 stating that plaintiff has paid whatever the amounts that has been due under the purchase orders and reiterated that reconciliation of accounts is possible only when the plaintiff receives the materials in as delivered conditions and any set off to be made on account of shortage in quantity and quality of materials in issue. The plaintiff once again called upon the defendant No.2 to return the materials and complete all pending activities. In response the defendant No.2 again addressed two letters dated 03.08.2020 and 05.09.2020 by way of email once again falsely contending that because of Covid lock down it is 14 Com.OS.No.196/2021 not possible to return the materials to which the plaintiff replied by letter dated 17.08.2020 stating that the lock down had no bearing on the failure on part of the defendant in meeting the contractual obligations and only to escape from its liabilities the defendant is banking on the covid situation and that the defendant was again called upon to return the materials and complete the activities pending so far.
(f) Taking note of the defendant activities and their utter disregard plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 17.10.2020 calling upon the defendants to fulfil their obligations as per the POs and MOM dated 01.07.2019. To the said notice the defendant No.2 issued a reply dated 04.11.2020 falsely stating that there was no liability to pay any of the rents and whatever the works that were entrusted under the PO have been duly completed and that the plaintiff is responsible to take possession of the unused materials lying in the warehouses by paying the rents and no obligation is on the defendant to pay any arrears of rent. It is submitted that there has been inordinate delay on part of the defendants in executing the works as per the PO and in-spite of several reminders 15 Com.OS.No.196/2021 and extensions of the deadlines for completion of the works the defendants have miserably failed to perform their contractual obligations which has resulted in severe losses to the plaintiff. It is submitted that because of the conduct of the defendants the plaintiff has been made liable to pay damages to KWA under the agreement and further the KWA had threatened to terminate the contract which required the plaintiff to execute the project through other contractors by installing the flow-meters at all the required site locations.
(g) During the pendency of the suit a Court Commissioner came to be appointed for visiting the spot where the materials were stored and submit a report and accordingly the Court Commissioner conducted the inspection in the presence of both plaintiff and defendant and submitted his report to the Court. Based upon the report of the Court Commissioner the plaintiff got amended the plain and inserted para Nos.40(a), 44(a) and (b). In the amended pleadings it is contended that in- spite of having received substantial payments and custody of the materials the defendants have failed to complete the work because of which KWA imposed liquidated 16 Com.OS.No.196/2021 damages on the plaintiff to a tune of 10% of the contract value amounting to Rs.1 crore. To avoid the same the plaintiff had to employ sub-contractors and get the work executed under the project to which the plaintiff had to pay a sum of Rs.56,97,714/- against the invoices raised by them. As per the purchase orders raised by the new sub-contractors the plaintiff also had to make payment of Rs.87,91,265/- which the defendants are liable to make good. It is submitted that the plaintiff has totally remitted amount to a tune of Rs.1,12,21,087/- to the defendants against the invoices raised by them. Whatever the payments that were due to the defendants have been duly paid by the plaintiff but in-spite of it the defendants has not completed their obligations.
(h) By way of the amendment the plaintiff would further contend that the report of the Court Commissioner upon inspection of the materials clearly disclosed that the defendant have failed to store the materials in a proper manner and have not maintained the same properly and the materials having got exposed to the environment it has become useless. As the materials are highly sensitive equipments they would be in working condition only if 17 Com.OS.No.196/2021 stored properly and the defendants having not properly stored and maintained the equipments they are no longer fit for intended purpose because of which the plaintiff had to once again import the materials for completion of the project under KWA which resulted in increase in cost of the equipment by nearly 35% and the plaintiff had to import the same materials afresh by inuring purchase cost of Rs.2,10,59,392/- which defendants are liable to pay as damages. The plaintiff further contends that the failure on part of the defendants in performing the contractual obligations, failing to install the flow-meters and failing to return the flow-meters has resulted in huge set back to the plaintiff in completing its contract with KWA which has also resulted in KWA issuing a termination notice to the plaintiff dated 01.02.2022 and therefore the defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiff for the entire contract value which is in excess of Rs.10 crores and is liable to pay 10% of it as liquidated damages amounting to Rs.1 crore. Hence the Suit.
3. The defendants filed their written statement contending that the suit is frivolous, vexatious, speculative liable to be dismissed as it is filed only to 18 Com.OS.No.196/2021 harass the defendants and avoid making payments due to the defendants. It is submitted that the entire claim of the plaintiff is misconceived based on no documents and only to extract money illegally from the defendants. It is submitted that in-spite of repeated request made over emails the plaintiff has failed to provide purchase orders for mechanical joints, transport, battery recharging, solar panel redesigning approvals and also has failed to make payments for the completed works. It is submitted that the plaintiff has based the suit on purchase orders dated 10.06.2015 and 02.05.2016 but another purchase order dated 11.05.2018 has not been produced by the plaintiff with an ulterior motive. It is submitted that as per the purchase order dated 10.06.2015 services of the defendants was availed by the plaintiff for arranging warehouses, interacting with labours, unions, public representatives, officials, loading and unloading of materials, permission from the concerned authorities for installation, payments to be made to the contractors for completion of work, arranging of JCB and other heavy vehicles and also for installation for flow-meters. As per the PO the plaintiff was required to provide all the required materials for installation of the flow-meters but 19 Com.OS.No.196/2021 some of the materials provided were not suitable for the site conditions for which the plaintiff had requested the defendant to purchase the materials from local distributors assuring to make payments for the same. It is submitted that the plaintiff made payments till 2018 and abruptly stopped making payments without any reasons and the plaintiff has not made any payments for the works undertaken by the defendants. It is submitted that the plaintiff has also not made any payments for the warehouse rents after 2017 though he was required to make the payments. It is submitted that the plaintiff has also issued purchase orders dated 27.05.2016 and 20.09.2016 for extra works for which no payments has been made by the plaintiff. It is submitted that as on 20.05.2018 the plaintiff was due in a sum of Rs.32,46,250/- of which the plaintiff has made only 70% payment and the balance 30%is still remaining due. It is submitted that as per the minutes of the meeting (MOM) dated 14.02.2019 plaintiff has on its own agreed to make payments for warehouse rents and arrange for contractors further installations. It is submitted that the plaintiff to avoid its liability has deliberately not produced the MOM dated 14.02.2019. It is submitted that even after the said 20 Com.OS.No.196/2021 MOM plaintiff has not made any payments. It is submitted that in the joint inspection of the materials done during September 2019 at Trivandrum and on 24.01.2020 at Kasargod the plaintiff did not find any major defects with the materials and had undertaken to make payments as per the MOM but have made any payments since 2018. It is submitted that the schedule work is entirely labour oriented requiring payment of cash on daily basis which was well within the knowledge of plaintiff but in-spite of it since end of 2018 the plaintiff has stopped making any payments. It is submitted that the defendants have no objection to the plaintiff to take over all the materials by paying the required warehouse rents and also dues payable to the defendants which amounts to Rs.55 lakhs.
(b) It is submitted that delay in completing the schedule work was on account of various reasons namely, the site conditions which required rock chipping, realignment of pipes, size variations of the pipes, union issues, labour issues, public issues of the local area, official permissions, flooding, payment issues by the plaintiff and non-issue of purchase orders for extra materials and works. It is submitted that there has been no deliberate delay on part 21 Com.OS.No.196/2021 of the defendants in completion of the works and whatever the delay alleged is beyond the control of the defendant. It is submitted that the payments as per the purchase order for the materials supplied have not been released by the plaintiff. It is submitted that the defendant has done the schedule work as per the requirements. It is further submitted by the defendants that as per the 2016 PO there were nearly 49 conditions and the most important condition was that the plaintiff has to make payments for the completed works and for the supply of materials which the plaintiff failed to comply but only expected the defendants to finish the work on its own costs. It is submitted that in the joint inspections done during the month of August 2019 and January 2020 some minor defects were noticed in the materials which the defendant had agreed to rectify at its costs. It is submitted that though the plaintiff was liable to pay the rents the defendant has paid rents of Rs.5 lakhs for the purpose of joint inspection. Further as per the MOM dated 15.02.2019 the plaintiff had agreed to make payments to the warehouse owners.
(c) It is submitted that defendant No.2 was required to 22 Com.OS.No.196/2021 complete the installation at the site locations latest by 31.05.2017 but could not complete it due to various factors. It is also submitted by the defendants that the plaintiff was satisfied with the work of the defendants for which they released a new PO in 2018 and had the plaintiff not been satisfied they would not have released a new purchase order. It is submitted that the plaintiff has suppressed all the material facts only to avoid payments for the completed works to the defendants. It is submitted that the defendants have completed the schedule work as per the agreement. The plaintiff has failed to provide purchase orders for the mechanical joints and failed to make payment of Rs.65 lakhs due to the defendant and make payments for the extra works done by the defendants and also did not provide approvals for solars at the installation sites. It is submitted that the plaintiff had called upon the defendants to complete the work only in 62 sites out of the 147 sites and the defendants have duly completed installation and commission of flow meters at 62 sites for which the plaintiff has not made the complete payments. It is submitted that the plaintiff is only referring to the MOM dated 01.07.2019 by suppressing the earlier MOM dated 23 Com.OS.No.196/2021 15.02.2019 in which the plaintiff agreed to make payments for the warehouse owners and also agreed to engage other contractors on their own interest in completion of the project. It is submitted that the plaintiff has no basis whatsoever to withhold the payments and there is no clarity with regard to the payments that are due to the defendants. It is submitted that the defendants have issued several emails requesting for issuance of the purchase orders and releasing of the pending payments but the plaintiff without any reason has declined the same. It is submitted that on account of delay in payments made by the plaintiff the defendants had to avail loan from the banks for the purpose of completing the works allotted to them. The defendants submit having suitably replied to the letters, emails sent by the plaintiff and also for the legal notice and has reiterated that there is no delay on part of the defendants in completing the works and whatever delay has caused the plaintiff alone is responsible for it. The defendants submit that the plaintiff is due to pay a sum of Rs.55 lakhs which includes 30% of the balance amounts that was with the plaintiff due to the defendants and for mechanical joints, battery charging, binding, installation of flow-meters and transportation 24 Com.OS.No.196/2021 and also liable to pay the rents to the various warehouse owners amounting to Rs.25,20,000/-. It is submitted that there has been no breach on part of the defendants in completing the projects and therefore no liability accrues on the defendants to pay the damages whatsoever much less the amount as alleged in the plaint. It is submitted that the plaintiff is liable to pay outstanding amount of Rs.55 lakhs apart from the rents that are liable to be paid and hence the defendants seeks for dismissal of the suit with costs and a direction to the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.55 lakhs towards arrears of payments due to the defendants and also arrears of rents in favour of the defendants.
4. The plaintiff has filed a written statement to the counter claim contending that the counter claim of the defendant is untenable as it is not supported with proper pleadings, there is no proper reliefs claimed and all the requirements of Order XVIII Rule 6A of CPC has not been met and therefore the counter claim of the defendant cannot be entertained. It is submitted that the counter claim is not presented as per the requirements of law and there is no description of the cause of action for the 25 Com.OS.No.196/2021 counter claim when it arose and how the defendant is liable to claim a sum of Rs.55 lakhs from the plaintiff. The plaintiff has made a para wise completed denial of the averments of counter claim and contended that the averments of counter claim would only constitute a defence to the plaint averments and it does not constitute a counter claim as required under law and on these grounds sought for rejecting the counter claim with costs.
5. In reply to the amendment of plaint pleadings and insertion of paras 40(a), 44(a) and (b) the defendants have filed an additional written statement contending that there is no cause of action for the suit and the report of the Commissioner is no evidence in the eye of law and no claim for damages based on the report of the complainant can be sustained. The defendants contend that the plaintiff without knowledge and consent of the defendant have entrusted the work to other contractors for which the defendant cannot be made liable to pay the amounts. The defendants have categorically denied all the averments of the additional pleadings and has sought for rejection of all the claims.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings the following 26 Com.OS.No.196/2021 issues and additional issues have been framed:
ISSUES
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that 1 st defendant failed to complete its contractual obligations under P.O.No.K0019/0012 dated 10.06.2015 and amended purchase order dated 02.05.2016?
2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that he is entitle to recover a sum of Rs.1,44,88,979/- towards payment made by plaintiff to sub-contractors engaged by him to complete the incomplete work of defendants and thereby defendants are liable to pay the same?
3) Whether the plaintiff further proves that he is entitle to recover another sum of Rs.2,10,59,392/- by way of damages by defendants in respect of the cost of procuring new flow meters?
4) Whether the plaintiff further proves that he suffered Rs.1,00,00,000/-
from its principle contractor in pursuance of default committed by defendants in fulfilling their contractual obligations?
27Com.OS.No.196/2021
5) Whether defendants prove that plaintiff is due to them Rs.55,00,000/- towards arrears of payment and plaintiff is liable to pay the same to the defendants?
6) Whether defendants further prove that plaintiff also agreed to clear the arrears of rent due to the owner and take back all the materials failed to pay the rent to the concerned owner?
7) What order or decree?
7. The authorized representative of the plaintiff filed affidavit by way of evidence as P.W.1 and has got marked documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-39. The defendant No.1 for himself and defendants No.2 and 3 has examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked documents at Ex.D.1 to D.19.
8. As mentioned above the Court Commissioner came to be appointed during the pendency of the proceedings to conduct inspection of the warehouses and report regarding the state of conditions of the materials kept in the warehouses and the Court Commissioner has submitted the report to that effect with required 28 Com.OS.No.196/2021 photographs.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing for the defendant. Both counsels have also submitted their written arguments. Perused the entire material on record.
10. My answer to the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.4 : In the Negative.
Issue No.5 : In the Negative.
Issue No.6 : In the Negative.
Issue No.7 : As per final order for the following.
REASONS
11. ISSUE No.1: The authorized representative of the plaintiff filed his affidavit evidence reiterating the plaint averments. He has got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.39. Ex.P.1 is the letter of acceptance issued by KWA dated 04.03.2014. Ex.P.2 is the agreement between the 29 Com.OS.No.196/2021 plaintiff and KWA dated 12.03.2014 for supply of flow- meters. Ex.P.3 is the supplemental agreement dated 24.04.2017. Ex.P.4 is the purchase order issued to defendant No.2. Ex.P.5 is the amended PO where the value of the contract has been increased. Ex.P.6 is the MOM dated 10.06.2014 prior to issue of purchase order to defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 is also a signatory to the MOM representing defendant Nos.1 to 3. Ex.P.7 comprises of the various test certificates pertaining to flow-meters delivered to defendant No.2 along with respective delivery challans which are duly signed by defendant No.2. for having received the materials. Ex.P.8 and P.9 are the rental agreements entered into between defendant No.2 and respective warehouse owners dated 20.03.2017. Ex.P.10 is sub-lease agreement dated 20.03.2017. Though counsel for defendant No.2 objected to marking of the documents and there exhibits were marked subject to objection, subsequently neither in the cross examination of P.W.1 nor in the course of arguments or in the written arguments it is demonstrated as to what is the objection with respect to this exhibit. Ex.P.11 is the schedule of various works completed by defendant No.1. Ex.P.12 are the series of email communications exchanged between 30 Com.OS.No.196/2021 the plaintiff and defendants for the period 04.01.2016 to 18.03.2020 with respect to work executed by defendant No.2 under the contract. Ex.P.13 is the MOM dated 07.02.2019. Ex.P.14 is the email dated 04.02.2020 addressed to defendant No.2. Ex.P.15 is the physical inspection report dated 24.01.2020. Ex.P.16 is the email dated 03.02.2020 sent to defendant No.1 in which the plaintiff has highlighted the mismatch in the quantity of the materials as seen from the preliminary inspection report and defendant No.1 being called upon to pay the arrears of rent in respect of Kasargod and Trivandrum warehouses. Ex.P.17 is the copy of email dated 07.02.2020 addressed by defendant No.1 to plaintiff. Ex.P.18 to P.20 are the settlement agreements dated 23.08.2019 entered into between defendant No.2 and Sri. Mohanan, Smt. Reshma S and Sri.Johnny D in which defendant No.2 agreed to pay the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.1.90 lakhs, Rs.0.75 lakhs and Rs.1.15 Lakhs respectively but has failed to do so. Ex.P.21 is the letter dated 07.05.2020 addressed by plaintiff to defendant No.2. Ex.P.22 and P.23 are the letters dated 13.05.2020 and 04.07.2020 by defendant No.2 to the plaintiff. Ex.P.24 and P.26 were the letters dated 31 Com.OS.No.196/2021 13.07.2020 and 17.08.2020 by plaintiff to defendant No.2. Ex.P.25 and P.27 are the letters dated 03.08.2020 and 05.09.2020 addressed by defendant No.2 to the plaintiff. Ex.P.28 is the legal notice dated 17.10.2020 sent to defendant No.2 and Ex.P29 is the reply given by defendant No.2 dated 04.11.2020. Ex.P.30 is the summary with respect to accounts reflecting amounts paid to defendant No.2 and to be received from him. Ex.P.31 comprises of copies of invoices submitted from defendant No.2 to the plaintiff. Ex.P.32 comprises of invoices regarding payments made to subcontractors Dixon and Kairali. Ex.P.33 is the table showing payments made to new sub-contractors. Ex.P.34 are the copies of the purchase orders issued by plaintiff in favour of new sub-contractors. Ex.P.35 comprises of the photos taken during inspection by Court Commissioner. Ex.P.36 are the documents with respect to amount incurred towards import of raw materials. Ex.P.37 is the details of flow- meters found to be in possession of defendant No.2 that are tot he replaced along with other details. Ex.P.38 is the terms and conditions of contract between plaintiff and KWA. Ex.P.39 is the termination notice dated 01.02.2022 issued by KWA to the plaintiff.
32Com.OS.No.196/2021
12. Against the evidence of the plaintiff the defendant No.2 for himself and on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 3 examined as D.W.1 reiterating the averments made in written statement and got marked documents at Ex.D.1 to D.19. Amount them Ex.D.1 to D.4 are marked through the cross examination of P.W.1. Ex.D.1 is the purchase order confronted to P.W.1 dated 11.02.2018 which P.W.1 deposes to be a conversion from one accounting system to another and there is no change in the values. Ex.D.2 is the consultancy agreement between defendant No.3 and plaintiff. Ex.D.3 is the MOM dated 22.08.2018. Ex.D.4 is the mail dated 07.03.2019 sent by plaintiff. Ex.D.5 are the series of emails sent by defendant to plaintiff requesting for payments. Ex.D.6 and D.7 are the purchase order dated 27.05.2016 and 20.09.2016. Ex.D.8 is the letter of KWA to plaintiff. Ex.D.9 is the letter dated 20.07.2015. Ex.D.10 is the statement showing the payments due from the plaintiff. Ex.D.11 is the confirmation of MOM dated 15.02.2019. Ex.D.12 is the payment reminder sent to the plaintiff. Ex.D.13 pertain to various mails with respect site conditions and approvals. Ex.D.14 are the mails with respect to approvals. Ex.D.15 33 Com.OS.No.196/2021 is the letter dated 02.02.2020 along with Annexure I and simple mortgage deed. Ex.D.16 are the mails with respect to rents and approval of warehouses. Ex.D.17 are the series of letters starting from 04.11.2019 addressed to the plaintiff. Ex.D.18 are the series of mails and letters exchanged between plaintiff and defendants. Ex.D.19 is the letter dated 02.02.2020.
13. It is the specific plea of the plaintiff that the defendants did not adhere tot he contractual obligation stipulated under the purchase order and amended purchase order dated 10.06.2015 and 02.05.2016. The purchase order and amended purchase order were for installation and commission of flow-meters at 147 site location in the state of Kerala. Among them the defendants have completed work at 62 locations which is also partially. Though the defendants contend that the plaintiff asked to stop the work after 62 locations, to substantiate the same nothing is placed on record in evidence. The series of letters and email communications produced at Ex.D.17 and D.18 no where stipulates that after awarding the contract the plaintiff restricted the defendants to undertake work only at 62 sites. The terms 34 Com.OS.No.196/2021 and condition of the purchase order at Ex.P.4 and P.5 requires installation and commission of 147 flow-meters. The additional purchase order marked in the cross examination of PW1 as Ex.D.1 is also for installation and commission of flow-meters at 147 locations. Hence the contentions of the defendants that scope of work was limited by the plaintiff only to 62 locations is totally unfounded and unsustainable.
14. During the cross examination D.W.1 has consistently deposed and also contended in the written statement that the scope of work was limited to engaging of labor, getting approvals from authorities for installation. The said contention is totally contrary to the terms and conditions of the POs and the scope of work as stipulated under Ex.P4, P5 and Ex.D.1. The scope of work of the defendants includes receipt of material supplied by plaintiff, storing them at the warehouses, transporting them to site location and use of the same for the purpose of installation and commissioning of them. It is clearly evident from the plea taken by the defendants in the written statement that defendants have not adhered to all these requirements. It is also contended by the 35 Com.OS.No.196/2021 defendants that KWA has certified and accepted the work executed by the defendants and the same is also certified by the plaintiff. To substantiate the same the defendants rely upon to Ex.D.8 and D.9 the letters dated 11.05.2015 and 20.07.2015. Ex.D.8 refers to letter of plaintiff to KWA to inspect and approve the installing of pre-cast chambers. Ex.P.9 is the letter by KWA approving the same. These letters no where approves and certifies the work done by defendants. Though the defendants have obtained the required approvals for the site locations nevertheless no iota of evidence is forthcoming for defendants having fully completed installation at 62 locations as contended and commissioned the same successfully. The plaintiff has been able to satisfactorily prove that defendants have failed to perform their contractual obligations under the PO's stipulated at Ex.P.4 and P.5. Accordingly I answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
15. ISSUE No2:- The plaintiff contends that as the defendants failed to complete the installation and commission of all the flow-meters it had to engage sub- contractors Dixon and Kairali to complete the work for 36 Com.OS.No.196/2021 which the plaintiff had to pay them a sum of Rs.1,44,88,979/-. The defendants have denied the same in their written statement. During the cross examination of PW1 it is elicited that consent of defendant No.2 was not obtained prior to awarding/engaging sub-contractors. It is suggested in the cross examination of PW1 that under the tripartite agreement consent of defendant No.2 is mandatory for engaging sub-contractors. However no such agreement is placed on record in evidence. The defendants have also produced any evidence to infer that consent of defendant No.2 was mandatory before engaging subcontractors.
16. The plaintiff in the course of evidence has produced Ex.P.32 and P.34 with respect to invoices raised by the subcontractors, the amount paid to them and the purchase orders issued by plaintiff to the sub-contractors. Ex.P.33 are the purchase orders issued tot he subcontractors and Ex.P.34 are the invoices raised by the sub-contractors and the payments made by the plaintiff to them which is evident from Ex.P.32. These documents have remained unscathed during the cross examination of PW1 and defendants have made no attempt to cross 37 Com.OS.No.196/2021 examine PW1 on these documents. The sum total of the payments made as per Ex.P.32 would indicate that the plaintiff has incurred an expense of Rs.1,44,88,979/- for payment to sub-contractors to complete the work. The defendants become jointly and severally liable to pay the same as it was only on account of default committed by defendants in fulfilling the contractual obligations under the PO's at Ex.P.4 and P.5. Accordingly I answer Issue No.2 in the Affirmative.
17. ISSUE Nos.3 and 6:- The plaintiff contends that as the defendants failed to clear the arrears of rent due to the warehouse owners and take back the materials and return them to the plaintiff it was left stored in improper place and not maintained properly, all the materials were rendered useless and could not be used by the sub- contractors for completion of work. This resulted the plaintiff having required to import once again the materials from its parent company for which it had to incur lot of expenses and therefore the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,10,59,392/- as damages. Per contra it is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff was obligated to pay the rents, which it did not do 38 Com.OS.No.196/2021 and it was the sole responsibility of plaintiff to clear the arrears of rent and take back all the materials.
18. This appears to the actual bone of contention between the parties for which they are at logger heads. The plaintiff has produced the rental agreements dated 01.09.2016 and 27.03.2017 at Ex.P.8 and P.9. On perusal of these agreements it is amply clear that obligation to pay rents is solely upon the defendants. Pursuant to these agreements there was a MOM dated 01.07.2019 at Ex.P.13 which also stipulates that it is the responsibility of defendants to clear the arrears of rent and take back the materials and hand over the same to plaintiff. The defendants contend that there was another MOM dated 15.02.2019 in which it was agreed that plaintiff would pay the arrears of rent and take back the materials. The defendants rely upon Ex.D.11 which is mail attaching MOM dated 15.02.2019. But the MOM is not tendered in evidence. Hence the contention of defendants that it was the responsibility of plaintiff to take back the materials remains unsubstantiated through cogent and satisfactory evidence. The plaintiff has produced Ex.P.18 to P.20 which are the settlement agreements that were brokered with 39 Com.OS.No.196/2021 warehouse owners and defendant No.2. Under Ex.P.18 a settlement agreement was entered with warehouse owner Mohanan and defendant No.2 dated 2308.2019. Under this agreement it was agreed that defendant No.2 shall pay a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- and take out the materials. Likewise Ex.P.19 a settlement agreement was entered with warehouse owner Smt.Reshma S wherein defendant No.2 was required to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- and take back the materials. Likewise Ex.P.20 a settlement agreement was entered with warehouse owner Jhonny D wherein defendant No.2 was required to pay a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- and take back the materials. The defendant No.2 has defaulted under these agreements. No evidence is led before the Court for having complied with the settlement agreements.
19. During the proceedings Court Commissioner was appointed to conduct spot inspection of the godowns/warehouses at Kasargod and Trivandrum and report on the as is condition of materials. The Court Commissioner visited the warehouses and held inspection and submitted report with photographs of the materials kept in the premises. The Court Commissioner report 40 Com.OS.No.196/2021 manifests that materials have been kept in open, having become rusted and some even been damaged. It is also reported that some of the materials have also expired. The report of Court Commissioner is substantiated with the photographs appended to it. The defendants have not filed any objection to the Commissioner report. The defendants have not made any attempt to summon and examine/cross-examine Court Commissioner on his findings. Therefore the report of the Court Commissioner has remained unchallenged.
20. The plaintiff in the course of evidence has produced series of documents at Ex.P.36 with respect to import of flow-meters. Ex.P.36 comprises of the invoices and packing list with respect to import of flow-meters from China to India. The sum total of these invoices, cost of packing and delivery would all amount to Rs.2,10,59,392/-. In the course of cross examination of PW1 no attempt is made by defendants to deny the same. It was entirely the responsibility of defendants to clear the arrears of rent and take back the materials which they have failed to do so. There was no obligation on the plaintiff to clear the arrears of rent due to the warehouse 41 Com.OS.No.196/2021 owner and take back the materials. In fact DW1 admits in evidence that upon clearing arrears of rent in part the warehouse owner permitted inspection of materials. Joint inspection of material in the warehouse is an admitted fact. This is evident from the inspection report at Ex.P.15 dated 24.01.2020 which has remained uncontroverted. Hence for the aforesaid reasons I answer Issue No.3 in the Affirmative and Issue No.6 in the Negative.
21. ISSUE No.4:- The plaintiff has contended that because of the delay in completion of the work by defendants the KWA being the principal contractor issued termination notice at Ex.P.39 and plaintiff had to suffer losses which is quantified at Rs.1,00,00,000/-. In support of the said contention except the termination notice at Ex.P.39 no other document is tendered in evidence. The contention of the plaintiff is not supported by any cogent and satisfactory evidence. It is brought out in the evidence of PW1 that KWA has not terminated the contract with it. Therefore saddling defendants to pay Rs.1,00,00,000/- as damages to plaintiff for their default in performing contractual obligation will not arise. Accordingly I answer Issue No.4 in the Negative.
42Com.OS.No.196/2021
22. ISSUE No.5:- The defendants contend that plaintiff is due in a sum of Rs.55,00,000/- towards arrears and are liable to pay the same. The defendants have raised a counter claim to that effect. At the outset the claim of defendants cannot be treated as counter claim as it does not have all the strappings of a plaint as mandated under the provision of Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC. Without proper pleadings, without a description of course of action the claim of the defendants cannot be treated as counter claim in law.
23. The defendants to substantiate their claims have produced Ex.D.10 the statement of payment details from plaintiff and Ex.D.12 the payment reminder sent to plaintiff. Ex.D.10 refers to payments made to defendants to the extent of Rs.32,46,250/-. Ex.D.12 the payment reminder no where states the plaintiff is due in a sum of Rs.55,00,000/-. The plaintiff has produced the payments details made to defendants at Ex.P.30 which is an uncontroverted document, which states that against total invoice of Rs.1,47,88,160/- raised by defendants the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.1,12,21,087/- and has withheld a sum of Rs.35,67,073/- which is as per terms 43 Com.OS.No.196/2021 and conditions of the PO's at Ex.P.4 and P.5. Hence there arises no liability on part of plaintiff to make any payment to defendants. Accordingly I answer Issue No.5 in the Negative.
24. ISSUE No.7:- For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following.
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part with costs.
The defendant Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,44,88,979/-
(Rupees One Crore Forty Four Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Nine Only) towards payments made to the sub-contractors engaged to complete the incomplete work of the defendants.
The defendants No.1 to 3 are also jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,10,59,392/- (Rupees Two Crores Ten lakhs Fifty Nine 44 Com.OS.No.196/2021 Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Two Only) as damages towards the costs incurred for procurement of new flow-meters.
The claim of plaintiff for damages of Rs.1,00,00,000/- suffered at the hands of the principal contractor is rejected.
The counter claim of defendants is also rejected.
Draw decree accordingly.
Office to send soft copy of the judgment to respective parties on their email if furnished.
[Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me then pronounced in the Open Court, dated this the 17th day of June 2025] (ARJUN. S. MALLUR) LXXXV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
PW-1 Sri.K Sridharan
45
Com.OS.No.196/2021
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF Ex.P.1 True copy of the letter of acceptance dated 04.03.2014 issued by KWA.
Ex.P.2 True copy of the agreement dated 12.03.2014 between the plaintiff and KWA for the supply and installation of Electromagnetic Flow Meters with Central Data Acquisition System.
Ex.P.3 True copy of the Supplemental Agreement dated 24.04.2017.
Ex.P.4 True copy of the Purchase order
P.O.No.K0019/0012 dated 10.06.2015
issued by the plaintiff in favour of
Defendant No.2.
Ex.P.5 True copy of the PO amendment dated
02.05.2016.
Ex.P.6 True copy of the MoM dated 10.06.2024.
Ex.P.7 Copy of the Test certificates and True copy
of the delivery challans of the materials supplied to the defendant No.2 by the plaintiff.
Ex.P.8 True copy of the deed of rental agreement dated 01.09.2016 in respect of the godown/warehouse situated at Trivandrum. Ex.P.9 True copy of the deed of rental agreement dated 27.03.2017 in respect of the godown / warehouse situated at Kasargod.
Ex.P.10 True copy of the sub-lease agreement dated 20.03.2017. (marked subject to objection and relevancy) Ex.P.11 True copy of the schedule for completion of various works under the scope of work by 46 Com.OS.No.196/2021 the defendant No.1.
Ex.P.12 True copies of the communications exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendants for the period 04.01.2016 to 18.03.2020 regarding the performance of work under the contractual obligations of Defendant No.2.
Ex.P.13 Original MoM dated 01.07.2019 signed between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 at Bengaluru.
Ex.P.14 True copy of the email dated 04.02.2020 addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant No.1.
Ex.P.15 Original physical inspection report dated 24.01.2020.
Ex.P.16 True copy of the email dated 03.02.2020 addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant No.1 highlighting the mismatch in quantity of the materials as evidenced in the preliminary inspection report and intimating the defendant No.1 to pay the balance arrears of rent in respect of the Kasargod and Trivandrum warehouse.
Ex.P.17 True copy of the email dated 07.02.2020 addressed by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff.
Ex.P.18 Copy of the settlement agreement dated 23.08.2019 entered into between the defendant No.2 and one Shri Mohanan whereby the defendant No.2 had agreed to pay the arrears in rent to the tune of Rs.1.9 lakhs as final settlement, but failed to do so.
Ex.P.19 Copy of the settlement agreement dated 23.08.2019 entered into between 47 Com.OS.No.196/2021 defendant No.2 and one Smt.Reshma S whereby the defendant No.2 had agreed to pay the arrears in rent to the tune of Rs.0.75 lakh as final settlement, but failed to do so.
Ex.P.20 Copy of the settlement agreement dated 23.08.2019 entered into between defendant No.2 and one Shri Johny D whereby the defendant No.2 had agreed to pay the arrears in rent to the tune of Rs.1.15 lakh as final settlement, but failed to do so.
Ex.P.21 True copy of the letter dated 07.05.2020 addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant No.2. (marked subject to objection and relevancy) Ex.P.22 True copy of the letter dated 13.05.2020 addressed to the plaintiff by the defendant No.2.
Ex.P.23 True copy of the letter dated 04.07.2020 addressed to the plaintiff by the defendant No.2.
Ex.P.24 True copy of the letter dated 13.07.2020 addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant No.2.
Ex.P.25 True copy of the letter dated 03.08.2020 addressed by the defendant No.2 to the plaintiff.
Ex.P.26 True copy of the letter dated 17.08.2020 addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant No.2.
Ex.P.27 True copy of the email dated 05.09.2020 addressed by the defendant No.2 to the plaintiff.
Ex.P.28 True copy of the legal notice dated 48 Com.OS.No.196/2021 17.10.2020 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant No.2.
Ex.P.29 True copy of the reply dated 04.11.2020 addressed by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff.
Ex.P.30 The summary sheet reflecting the accounts payable / receivable from / to the defendant No.2, apart from the adjustment in respect of the materials in issue.
Ex.P.31 True copies of the invoices submitted by the defendant No.2 to the plaintiff.
Ex.P.32 True copy of invoices in regard to payment made to new subcontractors.
Ex.P.33 Table showing the amount paid to new subcontractors along with details.
Ex.P.34 True copies of the purchase orders issued by the plaintiff in favour of new subcontractors.
Ex.P.35 Photographs taken by the representative of plaintiff during the Commissioner inspection.
Ex.P.36 Documents in respect the amount for import of Flow meters.
Ex.P.37 Table showing flow meters in the possession of the defendants which will have to be replaced along with details. Ex.P.38 Terms and Conditions of Contract between the plaintiff and KWA.
Ex.P.39 Termination notice dated 01.02.2022 issued by the KWA to plaintiff.
49Com.OS.No.196/2021 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT D.W.1 Sri. Chandrasekhar LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT Ex.D.1 Purchase order dated 11.05.2018 Ex.D.2 Consultancy agreement Ex.D.3 MOM dated 22.08.2018 Ex.D.4 Email dated 07.03.2019 Ex.D.5 Printouts of series of emails requesting for payments (page 41 to 82).
Ex.D.6 & Purchase orders dated 27.05.2016 & 7 20.09.2016.
Ex.D.8 Copy of the letter to KWA from plaintiff. Ex.D.9 Copy of the letter dated 20.07.2015 from KWA. (back side of Ex.D.8) Ex.D.10 Statement containing payment details from plaintiff.
Ex.D.11 Confirmation of MoM dated 15.02.2019. Ex.D.12 Copy of the payment reminder sent to plaintiff.
Ex.D.13 Series of mails with respect to site condition and approvals. (page 114 to 143) Ex.D.14 Mails regarding the approvals. (page 144 to
190) Ex.D.15 Printout of the letter dated 02.02.2020 along with annexure I and simple mortgage deed. (page 191 to 195) Ex.D.16 Mails with respect to rents and approval of 50 Com.OS.No.196/2021 warehouse. (page 196 to 221) Ex.D.17 Copies of various letters addressed to the plaintiff from 04.11.2019 onwards. (page 222 to 236) Ex.D.18 Series of various mails and letters exchanged between plaintiff and defendants. (page 240 to 376) Ex.D.19 Letter dated 02.02.2000.
Ex.D.5 Printouts of series of emails requesting for payments (page 41 to 82).
Ex.D.6 & Purchase orders dated 27.05.2016 & 7 20.09.2016.
Ex.D.8 Copy of the letter to KWA from plaintiff. Ex.D.9 Copy of the letter dated 20.07.2015 from KWA. (back side of Ex.D.8) Ex.D.10 Statement containing payment details from plaintiff.
Ex.D.11 Confirmation of MoM dated 15.02.2019. Ex.D.12 Copy of the payment reminder sent to plaintiff.
Ex.D.13 Series of mails with respect to site condition and approvals. (page 114 to 143) Ex.D.14 Mails regarding the approvals. (page 144 to
190) Ex.D.15 Printout of the letter dated 02.02.2020 along with annexure I and simple mortgage deed. (page 191 to 195) Ex.D.16 Mails with respect to rents and approval of warehouse. (page 196 to 221) Ex.D.17 Copies of various letters addressed to the plaintiff from 04.11.2019 onwards. (page 222 to 236) Ex.D.18 Series of various mails and letters exchanged between plaintiff and defendants. (page 240 to 376) 51 Com.OS.No.196/2021 Ex.D.19 Letter dated 02.02.2000.
(ARJUN. S. MALLUR) LXXXV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
52