Bangalore District Court
Prasanna K vs Winfoware Technologies Limited on 10 March, 2026
KABC010321602024
IN THE COURT OF THE LIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, (CCH-60).
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2026.
PRESENT :
Sri. SOMASHEKARA A., B.A.L., LL.M.,
XV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
C/c LIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
O.S. No.8850/2024
PLAINTIFF Mr.Prasanna K
S/o K.N.Krishna Rao
Aged about 53 years
r/at E-405, Mantri Elegance
behind Shoppers Stop N.S.Palya
Bannerghatta Road
Bengaluru
(By Sri.A.M., Advocate)
V/s
DEFENDANT Winfoware Technologies Limited
Office at No.25, 1st Floor,
1st main, 3rd Block, 3rd Block,
3rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar
2 O.S.No.8850/2024
Bengaluru
Also R/at No.48, 2nd Floor,
1st main, 2nd Block, 3rd Stage,
Basaveshwaranagar
Bengaluru
(defendant placed Ex-parte)
Date of institution of the suit : 12.12.2024
Nature of the suit : Money Suit
Date of commencement of :
27.10.2025
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment :
was pronounced. 10.03.2026
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
01 02 28
(Somashekara A.)
LIX ACC & SJ : Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,80,600/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of due till realization.
Judge sign 3 O.S.No.8850/2024
2. Briefly, the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant company is a public company incorporated on 20.08.1998 and registered with the Registrar of Companies, Bangalore. The defendant company is engaged in providing IT solutions using emerging technologies such as cloud computing, communication systems, media solutions, defense technologies and other technological services. The defendant company is represented by its Director, Sri. Srikumar Narayan.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was offered employment by the defendant company as a Project Manager with an annual salary of Rs.15,00,000/-, consisting of a fixed component of Rs.12,00,000/- and a variable performance incentive of Rs.3,00,000/-, under an Offer Letter dated 01.05.2022. The plaintiff joined the services of the defendant company and worked diligently for nearly ten months without any performance issues.
4. According to the plaintiff, though he worked continuously, the defendant company failed to pay the salary from August 2022 Judge sign 4 O.S.No.8850/2024 onwards. Whenever the plaintiff raised the issue regarding non- payment of salary, the defendant company assured him that the salary dues would be cleared after receipt of payments from its clients. Believing the assurances given by the defendant company, the plaintiff continued to work.
5. The plaintiff has further contended that during February 2023 he requested Loss of Pay leave from 02.02.2023 to 28.02.2023 on the advice of the HR Department. Subsequently, when the plaintiff demanded his salary dues from August 2022 onwards, the defendant company acknowledged the outstanding dues through email dated 27.02.2023 but failed to make payment. Thereafter, the plaintiff submitted his resignation on 03.03.2023 requesting settlement of his outstanding salary dues and issuance of service documents.
6. Despite repeated communications, the defendant company failed to clear the outstanding salary. The plaintiff also noticed discrepancies in Form-16, PF remittances and TDS deductions. After issuing legal notice and repeated requests, the Judge sign 5 O.S.No.8850/2024 defendant company failed to settle the dues. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking recovery of Rs.7,80,600/-, being the outstanding salary due to him.
7. After service of summons, the defendant failed to appear before the court and contest the matter. Accordingly, the defendant was placed ex-parte. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and produced documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. Since the defendant remained ex-parte, there was no cross- examination of PW-1.
8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the pleadings, oral evidence and documents placed on record. The following points arise for my consideration:
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant company is liable to pay the outstanding salary amount of Rs.7,80,600/- as claimed in the suit?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest as claimed?
3) What order?
Judge sign 6 O.S.No.8850/2024
9. My answer to the above points are as under;
Point Nos.1 and 2 are in the Affirmative Point No.3: as per the final order for the following;
REASONS
10. Point Nos.1 and 2: The plaintiff has entered the witness box as PW-1 and reiterated the averments made in the plaint in his chief-examination affidavit. The oral testimony of PW-1 remains unchallenged, since the defendant has not chosen to appear before the court and cross-examine the witness. Hence, the testimony of PW-1 remains unrebutted.
11. The plaintiff has produced Ex.P1, which is the extract of the defendant company from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) records. This document establishes the existence and legal status of the defendant company and confirms that the defendant is a registered corporate entity. Ex.P2 is the Offer Letter dated 01.05.2022 issued by the defendant company to the plaintiff appointing him as a Project Manager with an annual salary of Judge sign 7 O.S.No.8850/2024 Rs.15,00,000/-. This document clearly establishes the contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant company and the agreed remuneration payable to the plaintiff. Ex.P3 consists of email communications dated 01.02.2023 regarding the request made by the plaintiff for Loss of Pay leave and the acknowledgment by the defendant company. This document shows that there were official communications between the plaintiff and the defendant company during the subsistence of employment.
12. Ex.P4, the email communication dated 27.02.2023, assumes considerable significance. In the said email, the defendant company has acknowledged that there were issues relating to billing and receipt of funds from clients and has stated that the payment to the plaintiff would be released once funds are received. This email clearly amounts to an admission by the defendant company regarding the existence of salary dues payable to the plaintiff. Ex.P5 consists of various email communications exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendant company during March 2023 to October 2023 relating to resignation, settlement of dues and exit formalities.
Judge sign 8 O.S.No.8850/2024 These documents further corroborate the version of the plaintiff that he was repeatedly requesting the defendant company to settle his outstanding salary.
13. Ex.P6 and Ex.P12 are email communications dated 02.01.2024, 06.01.2024 and 11.01.2024 wherein the plaintiff has requested the defendant company to facilitate the return of the company laptop and completion of exit formalities. These documents demonstrate the bonafide conduct of the plaintiff in attempting to comply with company procedures and obtain settlement of dues.
14. Ex.P7 is the bank statement of the plaintiff which shows that the salary was credited only for the period May 2022 to July 2022. The absence of salary credits thereafter lends support to the claim of the plaintiff that the salary from August 2022 onwards remained unpaid. Ex.P8 is the office copy of the legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant demanding settlement of outstanding salary dues. Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 are postal receipts evidencing dispatch of the said notice.
Judge sign 9 O.S.No.8850/2024
15. Ex.P11 is the reply notice issued by the defendant company. However, the defendant company has not entered appearance in the present suit nor placed any evidence to substantiate the contents of the reply notice. Ex.P13 is the email communication through which the defendant company forwarded Form-16 to the plaintiff. The said document further shows that the defendant company itself had treated the plaintiff as its employee during the relevant financial year. Ex.P14 is the certificate issued under Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, certifying the electronic records produced by the plaintiff. Therefore, the electronic evidence produced by the plaintiff is duly supported by the statutory certificate and becomes admissible in evidence.
16. On careful appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, it becomes clear that the plaintiff was employed with the defendant company and that the salary for several months remained unpaid. The documentary evidence, particularly Ex.P2 (Offer Letter), Ex.P4 (email acknowledgment of Judge sign 10 O.S.No.8850/2024 dues) and Ex.P7 (bank statement) clearly support the claim of the plaintiff.
17. Before proceeding to pass the decree, it is necessary for this Court to record its judicial satisfaction regarding the proof of the plaintiff's claim. Merely because the defendant has been placed ex- parte, the Court cannot mechanically decree the suit. The plaintiff must independently establish his claim through acceptable oral and documentary evidence.
18. In the present case, the plaintiff has entered the witness box as PW-1 and has produced documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. The said documents include the offer letter issued by the defendant company, email communications acknowledging salary dues, bank statement reflecting partial payment of salary, legal notice issued to the defendant and electronic records supported by statutory certificate. The said documentary evidence clearly establishes the employer-employee relationship between the parties and the existence of unpaid salary dues.
Judge sign 11 O.S.No.8850/2024
19. Further, the email communication produced at Ex.P4 clearly contains an acknowledgment by the defendant company that payment to the plaintiff was pending and would be released after receipt of funds from its client. Such acknowledgment corroborates the claim of the plaintiff regarding the outstanding salary dues. The oral testimony of PW-1 remains unchallenged and unrebutted since the defendant, despite service of summons, has chosen not to appear before the Court and contest the matter. There is nothing on record to discredit the testimony of PW-1 or the authenticity of the documents produced. Upon careful scrutiny of the pleadings, oral evidence and documentary evidence, this Court is satisfied that the plaintiff has successfully proved his claim on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, which is the standard of proof required in civil proceedings. Accordingly, this Court holds that the plaintiff has established that the defendant company is liable to pay the outstanding salary amount claimed in the suit.
20. It is a settled principle of law that salary payable to an employee for the services rendered constitutes a legally enforceable Judge sign 12 O.S.No.8850/2024 liability on the part of the employer. Once the relationship of employer and employee and the terms of employment are established, the employer is under a contractual as well as statutory obligation to pay the agreed remuneration for the work performed by the employee. Non-payment of salary for the period during which the employee has rendered service amounts to breach of contract and gives rise to a lawful claim for recovery of the unpaid amount.
21. The Hon'ble Courts have consistently held that an employer cannot withhold salary merely on the ground of internal financial difficulties or delay in receipt of payments from clients. Such internal issues of the employer cannot prejudice the legitimate right of the employee to receive salary for the services already rendered. The obligation to pay salary arises out of the employment contract itself and once the employee establishes that he has worked during the relevant period, the employer becomes liable to discharge the salary dues. In the present case, the documentary evidence particularly Ex.P2 - Offer Letter clearly establishes the terms of employment and agreed salary payable to the plaintiff. The email Judge sign 13 O.S.No.8850/2024 communication produced at Ex.P4 further reveals that the defendant company had acknowledged the existence of pending salary dues. Therefore, the defendant company cannot avoid its contractual obligation to pay the salary due to the plaintiff.
22. In civil proceedings, the case of a party is required to be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal trials. The Court is required to evaluate the entire evidence on record cumulatively and determine whether the version of the plaintiff appears more probable and credible. In the present case, the plaintiff has produced documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to Ex.P14, which includes the offer letter issued by the defendant company, various email communications exchanged between the parties, bank statement showing partial salary payments, legal notice issued to the defendant and other electronic records duly supported by statutory certification. The bank statement produced at Ex.P7 clearly demonstrates that the plaintiff received salary only for the period from May 2022 to July 2022, thereby supporting the claim that salary Judge sign 14 O.S.No.8850/2024 for the subsequent months remained unpaid. The email communication produced at Ex.P4 also contains an acknowledgment by the defendant company regarding the outstanding salary dues. These documents collectively corroborate the version of the plaintiff.
23. It is also relevant to note that the defendant company, despite service of summons, has chosen not to appear before the Court and contest the proceedings. Consequently, the oral testimony of PW-1 and the documentary evidence produced by him remain unchallenged and unrebutted. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence from the defendant, the evidence adduced by the plaintiff inspires confidence and deserves acceptance. Therefore, upon cumulative evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, this Court is satisfied that the plaintiff has successfully established his claim on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.
Judge sign 15 O.S.No.8850/2024
24. The defendant company, despite service of summons, has chosen not to contest the proceedings and has not placed any material before the court to rebut the claim of the plaintiff. In civil proceedings, when the evidence of the plaintiff remains unchallenged and unrebutted, the court is entitled to rely upon such evidence if it appears credible and consistent. The documents produced by the plaintiff clearly demonstrate that the defendant company failed to pay the salary due to the plaintiff. The acknowledgment of outstanding dues in the email communication produced at Ex.P4 further strengthens the claim of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has successfully established that the defendant company is liable to pay the outstanding salary amount of Rs.7,80,600/-. With regard to the claim of interest at 24% per annum, the same appears to be on the higher side. In the absence of any contractual stipulation regarding such rate of interest, it would be just and reasonable to award interest at 9% per annum from the date of suit till realization. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative and Point No.2 is answered partly in the Affirmative.
Judge sign 16 O.S.No.8850/2024
25. Point No.3: For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with costs.
The defendant company is directed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.7,80,600/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Eighty Thousand Six Hundred only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of suit till realization. Draw decree accordingly.
[Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-III, through online, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 10th day of March, 2026.].
(Somashekara A.) XV Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
C/c LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Judge sign 17 O.S.No.8850/2024 ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff:
PW.1 Prasanna K
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendants:
NIL
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 The excerpt of defendant company from MCA (Ministry of Corporate Affairs) Ex.P.2 Office copy of the offer letter dated 01.05.2022 issued by the defendant company to the plaintiff Ex.P.3 Email communications dated 01.02.2023 addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant company requesting for lop leave and the acknowledgment for the same by the defendant company Ex.P.4 Email communication dated 27.02.2023 issued by the defendant company to the plaintiff Ex.P.5 Email communications between the plaintiff and the defendant company dated 03.03.2023, 09.03.2023, 24.03.2023, 01.05.2023 and 09.10.2023 Ex.P.6 Email communication between the plaintiff and the defendant company dated 02.01.2024, 06.01.2024 and 11.01.2024 Ex.P.7 Bank statement of the plaintiff for having received the salary for the month of May 2022 till July 2022 Judge sign 18 O.S.No.8850/2024 Ex.P.8 Office copy of the legal notice issued by the plaintiff against the defendant company Ex.P.9 & 10 Two postal receipts Ex.P.11 Office copy of the reply notice dated 11.12.2023 Ex.P.12 Email communication between the plaintiff and defendants company in respect to handling over of the office laptop dated 02.01.2024, 06.01.2024 and 11.01.2024 Ex.P.13 Email communication wherein defendant company has shared Form No.16 to the plaintiff Ex.P.14 Certificate under Sec.63(4) of BNS.
4. List of documents marked on behalf of the Defendant:-
NIL (Somashekara A.) XV Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
C/c LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Judge sign 19 O.S.No.8850/2024 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, VIDE SEPARATE JUDGMENT Order The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with costs.
Judge sign 20 O.S.No.8850/2024 The defendant company is directed to payto the plaintiff a sum of Rs.7,80,600/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Eighty Thousand Six Hundred only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of suit till realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Somashekara A.) XV Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
C/c LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Judge sign