Bangalore District Court
Sri.L.Vijayaraghavan vs M/S.Focus Edu Care Pvt on 27 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016
-: PRESENT: -
SRI.M.G.KUDAVAKKALIGER, B,Com., LL.M.,
XXX Addl.City Civil Judge,
Bangalore.
O.S.NO.1586/2013
PLAINTIFF : Sri.L.Vijayaraghavan,
S/o Sri.K.Lakshminarasimhan,
C/o sri.Kuppuswamy, No.8,
1st Cross, Nagappa Road,
Sheshadripuram,
Bengaluru-560 020.
(By Pleader Sri.V.C.
Chandan, Adv.)
/VS/
DEFENDANT: 1. M/s.Focus Edu Care Pvt.
Ltd., Reg.off.at East Wing,
3rd Floor, Forbes Building,
Charanjit Pai Marg, Fort,
Mumbai-400 001. Rep. by its
Managing Director.
2.M/s.Focus Edu Care Pvt.
Ltd., No.119/1, 2nd Floor,
Srinidhi Complex, Off Sampige
Road, Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru-560 003.
Rep.by its Branch Manager.
(By Pleader Sri.SJS,Adv.)
*****
2 O.S.NO.1586/2013
DATE OF INSTITUTION 26-02-2013
NATURE OF THE SUIT (Suit on Suit for
Pronote, Suit for declaration and Recovery of
Possession, Suit for injunction, etc.) money.
DATE OF THE COMMENCEMENT 16-02-2016
OF RECORDING OF THE EVIDENCE
DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGEMENT
WAS PRONOUNCED 27 -10-2016
TOTAL DURATION YEAR/S MONTH/S DAY/S
:
3 8 1
(M.G.KUDAVAKKALIGER),
XXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE.
3 O.S.NO.1586/2013
JUDGEMENT
1. Plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,75,179/- together with interest at 12% p.m. from the date of suit till the date of realization and cost.
2. The following are the brief and relevant facts leading to the plaintiff's case:
That the defendant No.1 is a Pvt. Limited Company established for the purpose of educating students by offering carrier oriented courses in various fields having its registered office at Mumbai. The defendant No.2 is a branch at Bengaluru carrying on the business under the guidelines of defendant No.1. The Managing Director of defendant No.1 and the Branch Manager of the defendant No.2 are in charge and are responsible for the day today affairs of their business. Since the plaintiff was transacting with the branch at Bengaluru, defendant No.1 being the head office is made as a party to the suit. The plaintiff has completed his Masters Degree under various Universities and has M.A., M.C.M., 4 O.S.NO.1586/2013 M.B.A. and L.L.M. to his credit. The plaintiff is a lecturer by profession originated to Bengaluru to earn his bread and butter. The defendant No.2 seeing the education qualification and his teaching, appointed him as a visiting faculty for M.B.A. under the Independent Contractor Agreement dtd.16-8-2011 and confidentiality contract dtd.31- 8-2011 and requested the plaintiff to teach topics covering Banking, MBA Course, CA entrance exam and Mercantile Law subject (CA-CPT) and Intellectual property rights for Clinical Research Course. As per the Independent Contractor Agreement dtd.16-8-2011 the defendant No.2 agreed to pay Rs.700/- per hour for the service performed by him every month. Such being the state, the plaintiff started conducting classes in the month of September 2012 as per their instructions and conducted classes for nearly 51 hours in the month of September, 99 hours in the month of October, 89 hours in the month of November and 56hours in the month of December 2012. Defendant No.2 because of some administration problem expressed its inability to pay to its 5 O.S.NO.1586/2013 employees their remuneration in the month of October 2012 and assured to pay the same as soon as the defendant No.1 appoints any competent person to its branch. The defendant No.2 out of 295 hours of teaching by the plaintiff, they have paid only Rs.32,200/- towards the classes conducted for 51 hours at the rate of Rs.700/- per hour out of Rs.35,700/- in the month of September 2012 by way of cheque after deducting tax at source, but have failed to clear the remaining outstanding fee aggregating to a sum of Rs.1,70,800/- to the plaintiff towards the classes for the remaining 244 hours in the months of October, November and December 2012 conducted by the plaintiff. In spite of repeated requests, demands and issuance of notice dtd.7-1- 2013, the defendants have not cleared the outstanding dues of Rs.1,70,800/-. The defendants have willfully evaded to pay the amount and without any justification, the defendants have withheld the said balance amount. Hence, defendants are liable to pay interest at 12% p.a. from the date of last default i.e. 31/12/2012 till the date of filing of the suit. Now, the 6 O.S.NO.1586/2013 defendants are totally liable to pay Rs.1,75,179/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file this suit and requested to decree the suit with costs.
3. After registration of the suit, suit summons was issued to the defendants. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants have put appearance through their advocate and filed their written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff as false and contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be rejected. The suit of the plaintiff is baseless, frivolous and devoid of merits and the same is not sustainable. The defendant has admitted the averments made at plaint para No.3 and denied that the plaintiff has completed his master degree under various universities and calls for the plaintiff to put strict proof of the same. The defendant has also admitted para No.5 of the plaint that defendant No.2 by seeing the educational qualification and ability of the plaintiff in teaching appointed him as a visiting faculty for MBA under 7 O.S.NO.1586/2013 independent contract agreement dtd.16-8-2011 and confidentiality contract dtd.31-8-2012 and also agreed to pay to the plaintiff an amount of Rs.700/- per hour for the services performed by him every month, but denied that the plaintiff has conducted nearly 51 hours in the month of September, 99 hours in the month of October, 89 hours in the month of November and 56 hours in the month of December 2012. The defendants have denied the averments made at para No.7 of the plaint and partly admitted the averments made at para No.8 that out of 295 hours of teaching by the plaintiff, they have paid only Rs.32,200/- towards the classes conducted for 51 hours at the rate of Rs.700/- per hour out of Rs.35,700/- in the month of September 2012 by way of cheque after deducting tax. The defendants have denied that they have failed to clear the remaining outstanding fee aggregating to a sum of Rs.1,70,800/- to the plaintiff towards the classes conducted for the remaining 244 hours in the months of October, November and December 2012 conducted by the plaintiff. 8 O.S.NO.1586/2013 The plaintiff has created his cock and bull story for the purpose of this case. The defendant further contended that the agreement made between the plaintiff and the defendant expired on 16-8-2012 itself. So conducting classes after the expiry of the agreement does not arise at all. Thereafter, the agreement was not at all renewed by the defendant. The plaintiff also stopped to come to conduct the classes since the agreement has expired and not been renewed. Till the expiry of the said agreement, the entire fee for the classes conducted by the plaintiff is paid up to date by the defendant. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected. No notice has been served on the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendant is not liable to pay any amount as claimed by the plaintiff. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file this suit. Hence, it is requested to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
4. On the basis of the rival contentions taken by the respective parties in the above pleadings of both the parties, the 9 O.S.NO.1586/2013 following issues have been framed by my predecessor in office, for disposal of the case:
1. Whether plaintiff proves that he has conducted classes totally for 295 hours in defendant No.2 institution?
2. Whether plaintiff further proves that defendant No.2 has paid for 51 hours classes conducted and failed to clear the remaining out-
standing fee of the plaintiff aggregating for a sum of Rs.1,70,800/- towards the classes conducted for remaining 244 hours?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as prayed?
4. What order or decree?
5. In order to substantiate the case made out by the plaintiffs, plaintiff has entered into the witness box and filed his affidavit evidence as P.W.1 and got marked as many as 7documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.7. In order to rebut the case of the plaintiff, defendants have cross examined the P.W.1. Though the defendants have filed their written statement they have not entered in to the witness box and hence, the evidence of defendants taken as nil and closed defendant's side evidence. Case posted for arguments.
10 O.S.NO.1586/2013
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
7. On the basis of the evidence both oral and documentary and other materials., I record my findings to the above issues as follows:
Issue No.1: In the affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the affirmative.
Issue No.3: In the affirmative.
Issue No.4: As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NOS.1 TO 3: All these issue Nos.1 to 3 are interlinked, discussion on one issue has its direct bearing on the discussion on another issue. In view to avoid repetition of discussion and facts of evidence, I am going to consider all these points jointly.
9. It is the brief facts of the plaintiff's case is that the defendant No.1 is a Pvt. Limited Company established for the purpose of educating students by offering carrier oriented courses in various fields having its registered office at Mumbai. The defendant No.2 is a branch at Bengaluru 11 O.S.NO.1586/2013 carrying on the business under the guidelines of defendant No.1. The Managing Director of defendant No.1 and the Branch Manager of the defendant No.2 are in charge and are responsible for the day today affairs of their business. Since the plaintiff was transacting with the branch at Bengaluru, defendant No.1 being the head office is made as a party to the suit. The plaintiff has completed his Masters Degree under various Universities and has M.A., M.C.M., M.B.A. and L.L.M. to his credit. The plaintiff is a lecturer by profession originated to Bengaluru to earn his bread and butter. The defendant No.2 seeing the educational qualification and his teaching, appointed him as a visiting faculty for M.B.A. under the Independent Contractor Agreement dtd.16-8-2011 and confidentiality contract dtd.31-8-2011 and requested the plaintiff to teach topics covering Banking, MBA Course, CA entrance exam and Mercantile Law subject (CA-CPT) and Intellectual property rights for Clinical Research Course. As per the Independent Contractor Agreement dtd.16-8-2011 the defendant No.2 agreed to pay Rs.700/- per hour for the 12 O.S.NO.1586/2013 service performed by him every month. Such being the state, the plaintiff started conducting classes in the month of September 2012 as per their instructions and conducted classes for nearly 51hours in the month of September, 99 hours in the month of October, 89 hours in the month of November and 56hours in the month of December 2012. Defendant No.2 because of some administration problem expressed its inability to pay to its employees their remuneration in the month of October 2012 and assured to pay the same as soon as the defendant No.1 appoints any competent person to its branch. The defendant No.2 out of 295 hours of teaching by the plaintiff, they have paid only Rs.32,200/- towards the classes conducted for 51 hours at the rate of Rs.700/- per hour out of Rs.35,700/- in the month of September 2012 by way of cheque after deducting tax at source, but have failed to clear the remaining outstanding fee aggregating to a sum of Rs.1,70,800/- to the plaintiff towards the classes for the remaining 244 hours in the months of October, November and December 2012 13 O.S.NO.1586/2013 conducted by the plaintiff. In spite of repeated requests, demands and issuance of notice dtd.7-1-2013, the defendants have not cleared the outstanding dues of Rs.1,70,800/-. The defendants have willfully evaded to pay the amount and without any justification, the defendants have withheld the said balance amount. Hence, defendants are liable to pay interest at 12% p.a. from the date of last default i.e. 31/12/2012 till the date of filing of the suit. Now, the defendants are totally liable to pay Rs.1,75,179/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file this suit and requested to decree the suit with costs. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants have put appearance through their advocate and filed their written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff as false and contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be rejected. The suit of the plaintiff is baseless, frivolous and devoid of merits and the same is not sustainable. The defendant has admitted the averments made at plaint para 14 O.S.NO.1586/2013 No.3 and denied that the plaintiff has completed his master degree under various universities and calls for the plaintiff to put strict proof of the same. the defendant has also admitted para No.5 of the plaint that defendant No.2 by seeing the education qualification and ability of the plaintiff in teaching appointed him as a visiting faculty for MBA under independent contract agreement dtd.16-8-2011 and confidentiality contract dtd.31-8-2012 and also agreed to pay to the plaintiff an amount of Rs.700/- per hour for the services performed by him every month, but denied that the plaintiff has conducted nearly 51 hours in the month of September, 99 hours in the month of October, 89 hours in the month of November and 56hours in the month of December 2012. The defendants have denied the averments made at para No.7 of the plaint and partly admitted the averments made at para No.8 that out of 295 hours of teaching by the plaintiff, they have paid only Rs.32,200/- towards the classes conducted for 51 hours at the rate of Rs.700/- per hour out of Rs.35,700/- in the month of 15 O.S.NO.1586/2013 September 2012 by way of cheque after deducting tax. The defendants have denied that they have failed to clear the remaining outstanding fee aggregating to a sum of Rs.1,70,800/- to the plaintiff towards the classes conducted for the remaining 244 hours in the months of October, November and December 2012 conducted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has created his cock and bull story for the purpose of this case. The defendant further contended that the agreement made between the plaintiff and the defendant expired on 16-8-2012 itself. So conducting classes after the expiry of the agreement does not arise at all. Thereafter, the agreement was not at all renewed by the defendant. The plaintiff also stopped to come to conduct the classes since the agreement has expired and not been renewed. Till the expiry of the said agreement, the entire fee for the classes conducted by the plaintiff is paid up to date by the defendant. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected. No notice has been served on the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendant is not liable to pay 16 O.S.NO.1586/2013 any amount as claimed by the plaintiff. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file this suit. Hence, it is requested to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
10. In order to substantiate the case made out by the plaintiffs, plaintiff has entered into the witness box and filed his affidavit evidence as P.W.1 and got marked as many as 7 documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.7. In order to rebut the case of the plaintiff, defendants have cross examined the P.W.1. Though the defendants have filed their written statement they have not entered in to the witness box and hence, the evidence of defendants taken as nil and closed defendant's side evidence. Case posted for arguments.
11. In so far as documentary evidence is concerned, Ex.P.1 is the Independent Contract of Agreement, Ex.P.2 is the Confidentiality Contract. Ex.P.3 is the IDBI Bank statement summary from 1-10-2012 to 31-12-2012, Ex.P.4 is the copy of legal notice, Ex.P.5 & 6 are the postal acknowledgements and 17 O.S.NO.1586/2013 Ex.P.7is the Copy of External Faculty Register for MBA and Clinical Research.
12. The plaintiff has entered into the witness box filed his affidavit evidence reiterating all the averments made in the plaint and deposed that the plaintiff having 4 Master Degrees to his credit appointed as a Professor in the defendant's two institutions run by defendant No.1 company under Independent Contractor Agreement dtd.16-7-2011 and Confidentiality Contract dtd.31-2-2011. Plaintiff used to engage classes to Banking, MBA courses, CA entrance exam, Mercantile Law subject and intellectual property right for clinical research courses. As per the independent contractor agreement, the defendant No.2 agreed to pay an amount of Rs.700/- per hour for the service performed by the plaintiff. As per the instructions, plaintiff has conducted in all 295 hours of teaching up to December 2012, but defendant No.2 has paid Rs.32,200/- for 51 hours towards the classes conducted in the month of September 2012 by deducting income tax out of Rs.35,700/- and defendant No.2 is liable to 18 O.S.NO.1586/2013 pay the money for remaining 244 hours of teaching engaged by the plaintiff for the month of October, November and December 2012, there was a balance of Rs.1,70,800/-. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of money.
13. The learned counsel for the defendant has vehemently cross- examined the plaintiff with regard to the work undertaken by the plaintiff as per the Independent Contractor agreement and the services of teaching rendered in the defendant No.2 institution. It is the main defence of the defendant that Independent contract concludes on 16-8-2012. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any remuneration for subsequent period. Hence, defendant company is not liable to pay any remuneration to the plaintiff. On careful perusal of the Independent Contractor Agreement, Clause 1, 2, 4 appears to be material, which runs as under:
1. Services: Independent contractor agrees to provide services as a Visiting Faculty for MBA. The KRAs for the job role of the Independent Contractor are enclosed as per Annexure I and the Independent Contractor agrees to provide the services in accordance with the KRA's enlisted.
2. Term: This agreement shall be effective as of the year and date first above written from 16th August 2011 to 16th August 2012.
3. .....19 O.S.NO.1586/2013
4. Payments: Independent Contractor will be paid an amount of Rs.700/- per hour for the services performed for the customer every month. The necessary income tax will be deducted at the time of the payment.
14. On careful perusal of the above culled out clauses, it is quite clear that service of the plaintiff was engaged by the defendant company as a Visiting Faculty for MBA, the payment will be paid an amount of Rs.700/- per hour for the services performed for the customer every month after deducting necessary income tax as TDS at the time of payment. Clause-2 of the Independent Contractor Agreement discloses that this agreement shall be effective as of the year and the date first above written from 16th August 2011 to 16th August 2012. But, on careful perusal of the copy of the Attendance Register for the external faculty for MBA and Clinical Research Courses which has been marked as per Ex.P.7 without any objections of the defendant discloses that the plaintiff has served up to 20th December 2012 on hourly basis and HOD has supervised and endorsed the timings for which the faculty members have taken classes on hourly basis has been mentioned. Defendant has not raised any objections 20 O.S.NO.1586/2013 to the contents of the Attendance Register extracted and produced before this Court and marked as per Ex.P.7. On careful perusal of the entire materials noted in the External Faculty month wife Attendance Register for the year 2012 from September 2012 to December 2012, which bears the signatures of all the External Faculty Members including the plaintiff for MBA and Clinical Research Courses. Timing From and To which the classes has been engaged and Number of Hours, Courses, Topic covered has been noted by the HOD. It clearly goes to show that defendant company has engaged the services of plaintiff up to 20-12-2012 and as per the number of hours mentioned in the plaint. For that defendant company is liable to pay as per the agreed rates per hour. No doubt, Independent Contractor Agreement at Clause No.2 contains Term of Agreement which shall be effective as of the year from 16-8-2011 to 16-8-2012, but the company allowed the plaintiff to engage classes up to 20th December 2012 and obtained the services of the plaintiff. In this way, defendant company impliedly extended the term of the 21 O.S.NO.1586/2013 Independent Contractor Agreement up to 20th December 2012. Hence, defendant company is liable to pay the arrears of remuneration at the rate of Rs.700/- per hour for 244 hours after deducting prescribed TDS. On careful perusal of the entire contents of the Independent Contractor Agreement, there is no contract between the plaintiff and defendant company to complete the prescribed syllabus within the stipulated time. Therefore, now the defendant is not authorized to restrict his payment up to 16-8-2012 only, as it has engaged the service of the plaintiff and impliedly consented to teach on hourly basis up to 20th December 2012. Defendant company is liable to pay for the same.
15. As contemplated under law, after the institution of the suit, suit summons came to be issued to the defendants, though defendants appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement and cross-examined P.W.1, but they have not led any evidence on their behalf. Hence, the claim of the plaintiff remained unshattered as defendants have not stepped into the witness box to substantiate their 22 O.S.NO.1586/2013 contentions taken in the written statement. I have carefully scrutinized the materials placed before me and I am of the view that absolutely, there is no ground to disbelieve or discard the evidence produced by the plaintiff on record. Hence, there are no reasons to disbelieve the evidence on the side of the plaintiff. In view of the oral and documentary evidence on record, there is no hurdle to accept the evidence of P.W.1, hence I accept the same and hold that the plaintiff has established his case. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, plaintiff has established the liability of the defendants to pay the suit claim of Rs.1,75,179/- as on the date of suit.
16. In the instant case, the contesting defendants have not rebutted the claim of the plaintiff and hence, the claim of the plaintiff remained unshettered, perhaps the defendants might have conceded the case made out by the plaintiff. Hence, as per the provisions of Sec.114 of the Indian Evidence Act, an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendants as defendants purposely not cross-examined the 23 O.S.NO.1586/2013 P.W.1 and not stepped into the witness box to substantiate their contentions taken in the written statement. As the counsel for the defendant has not cross-examined the plaintiff and defendant not entered into the witness box to give his evidence to protest the claim of the plaintiff, adverse inference can be drawn against the defendants. Accordingly, adverse inference has drawn against the defendants. The principles evolved by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyadhara Vs.Mankik Rao and others1, is squarely applicable the present facts and circumstances of the case, which runs as under:
(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872, S.114 -Adverse inference - Party to suit - not entering the witness box- Give rise to inference adverse against him.
Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-
examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct. In the instant case defendant no.1 alleged that the sale deed, executed by defendant No.2 in favour of the plaintiff, was fictitious and the whole transaction was a bogus transaction as only Rs.500/- were paid as sale consideration to defendant No.2. But, this 1 AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 1441 24 O.S.NO.1586/2013 plea was not supported by first defendant as he did not enter into the witness box. He did not state the facts pleaded in the written statement on oath in the trial Court and avoided the witness box so that he may not be cross-examined. This, by itself is enough to reject the claim that the transaction of sale between second defendant and the plaintiff was a bogus transaction.
17. On careful perusal of the principles evolved by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted in the above ruling and with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case, even though the defendants have appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement, but defendants have not entered in to the witness box to substantiate their contentions taken in the written statement, hence, the suit of the plaintiff remained unchallenged. The cross-examination advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant is quite formal in nature and not in a position to sake the credence of the evidentiary value of the Chief-Examination of P.W.1. The factual allegations made by the plaintiff have been remained intact and unshattered. The suit of the plaintiff is well within time and prima-facie 25 O.S.NO.1586/2013 not barred by Law of Limitation. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to decree the suit. Hence, I answer Issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative.
18. In the instant case, the plaintiff has claimed interest at 12% p.a. on the outstanding balance amount. However, this Court is empowered to award future rate of interest from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the decreetal amount as per the prevailing rates of interest on the bank deposits under various nationalized banks as per the rules and regulations made by the Reserve Bank of India. Under the Interest Act, the party is entitled to claim interest at the 'current rate of interest' which expression is defined in Clause(b) of Sec.2 of the Interest Act, it means that, the highest of the maximum rates at which interest may be paid on different classes of deposits by different classes of schedule banks in accordance with the direction given or issued to the banking companies generally by the Reserve Bank of India under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Therefore, if the rate of interest is awarded to the plaintiff 26 O.S.NO.1586/2013 at the rate of 12% p.a. on the balance amount from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the entire decreetal amount, it appears to be reasonable and it would meet the ends of justice. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of suit till realization on principal amount i.e. 244 hours x 700/- per hour = Rs.1,70,800/-.
19. ISSUE NO.5: In view of the discussions and reasons stated above and my answers to the above issues, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs.
Plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.1,75,179/-(Rupees One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Nine only) with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.1,70,800/- from the date of suit till realization.27 O.S.NO.1586/2013
The defendants are jointly and severally directed to pay the decreetal amount within two months from the date of this judgment.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer on computer, transcribed thereof, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this THE 27th DAY OF OCTOBER 2015).
(M.G.KUDAVAKKALIGER).
XXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE.28 O.S.NO.1586/2013
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF/S:
P.W.1 L.Vijayarghavan.
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS/S:
-NIL- DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF/S:
Ex.P.1 Independent Contract of Agreement,
Ex.P.2 Confidentiality Contract.
Ex.P.3 IDBI Bank statement summary from
1-10-2012 to 31-12-2012,
Ex.P.4 Copy of legal notice,
Ex.P.5 & 6 Postal acknowledgements
Ex.P.7 Copy of External Faculty Register
for MBA and Clinical Research.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANTS/S:
-NIL-
(M.G.KUDAVAKKALIGER),
XXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE.