Bangalore District Court
M/S. Embassy Classic Private Ltd vs Smt. S.Hemalatha on 21 October, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY [CCH84]
:Present:
Sri N.Sunil Kumar Singh, B.Com., LL.B.,
LXXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
Dated on this the 21st day of October 2020
COM.O.S.No.8326/2015
Plaintiff M/s. Embassy Classic Private Ltd.,
A private Limited company
Registered office at No. 101/102,
1st Floor, Embassy Chambers,
Vittal Mallya Road,
Bengaluru 560 001.
Represented by its,
Director Mr. Jaikishen Virwani.
[By Sri. A.P, Advocate]
/v e r s u s/
Defendants: 1. Smt. S.Hemalatha
W/o. Mr. Prakash,
Aged Major,
D2, Chartered Sannidhi Apartment,
No.17, Sannidhi Road,
Basavangudi,
Bengaluru 560 004.
(By Sri.M.R.S, Advocate)
41
CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc
2. M/s. Embassy Heights Unit Owners
Association,
Magrath Road,
Corporation Division No. 61,
Bengaluru 560 025.
Represented by its,
General Secretary
(By Sri.M.H.H, Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit : 30/09/2015
Nature of the suit : Money suit
Date of commencement of : 07/12/2016
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 21/10/2020
was pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
05 00 21
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by plaintiff against defendants for recovery of money and such other reliefs.
2. The facts in brief of the plaintiff's case is that the plaintiff is Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and engaged in the business of real estate development, construction, formation of layouts, interior decoration, maintenance of buildings and other allied activities. The plaintiff being developer of the property entered into Joint Development Agreement dated 29/09/1993 with all original owners of property bearing No.13, 14, 15 & 16, situated at Magrath Road, Corporation Division No.61, 41 CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc Bengaluru560025 for construction of apartment of residential units in the said property. The coowners of the said property have signed to the Joint Development Agreement and as per the Joint Development Agreement the plaintiff constructed commercial complex and completed during the year 2003, which is called as "Embassy Heights". Thereafter plaintiff was able to secure tenant by name M/s. Global Symphony Software (I) Private Limited and entire building was let out to the said tenant after carrying out interior decoration as per understanding in the Lease Agreement dated 06/06/2003. Every commercial flat owners in the said building including 1 st defendant also received monthly rent from the tenants till vacating the premises during the year 200809. As per the terms of Lease Agreement and Lease Deed executed by tenant and the tenant himself was taking care of periodical maintenance work of the building during the leased period. During the year 2008 tenant of the building decided to vacate and handed over vacant possession of the building. Thus it was necessitate for the building owners to form association of the commercial building as per the Joint Development Agreement and also for the purpose of overall maintenance of the building. As per the recitals of Joint Development Agreement, the association of the building owners required to form proper maintenance of the building and building owners shall cooperate for the same. Thus an individual invitation letter was issued to all the unit holders including defendant No.1 on 01/09/2008 41 CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc fixing meeting for formation of association of the unit holders in the said building. In view of the same defendant No.2 was formed for the welfare of the building owners on 15/09/2008. The 2nd defendant association was registered on 22/10/2011 under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and the 2nd defendant association registration was renewed every year before the concerned authority by following required formalities and regulations.
3. The plaintiff was appointed as 'Agent' of 2 nd defendant association for maintenance of the building as per resolution of the association dated 20/09/2008. In this regard an individual letter was issued to all the unit holders of the building intimating about appointment of plaintiff for maintenance of the building. In this regard Building Maintenance Service Agreement was executed on 15/10/2008 between plaintiff and 2nd defendant for a period of 3 years. As per the terms of said agreement the unit holders of the said building in "Embassy Heights" are required to pay monthly maintenance charges directly to the plaintiff and 2nd defendant has renewed the Maintenance Agreement of plaintiff for further period of 5 years as per resolution dated 29/10/2011. Defendant No.2 has executed Renewed Agreement of Maintenance dated 02/11/2011 in favour of the plaintiff.
41CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc
4. Defendant No.1 is one of the original coowner of the property in the unit holder No.202, situated in 2 nd Floor, measuring 7645 sq.ft and 1/4th share holder in the Unit No.40, 58, 6A on the ground floor and Unit Nos.101D, 103C, 105B on the first floor as mentioned in Item No.'B' of the schedule to the plaint. The defendant No.1 being one of the signatory to the Joint Development Agreement bound to abide by the terms and conditions stipulated therein. As per the various recitals of Joint Development Agreement the unit holders of the building are required to bear expenses relating to their respective portions with regard to payment of Tax, payment of Electricity Bill, water charges to BWSSB, Maintenance Deposit if any to the Association of Apartment Owners formed for the purpose of maintenance of the building. As per the specific clause in Joint Development Agreement certain restrictions were casted on the building owner of each unit are bound to the terms of Joint Development Agreement with regard to enjoyment of the property in the building and to fulfill the statutory obligation of payment of tax etc. The owners of each unit are bound by the conditions stipulated in Joint Development Agreement and also bound by rules and regulations stipulated therein. Thus it made clear that executant of Joint Development Agreement including defendant No.1 who forms association of the building are liable to pay maintenance charges to the plaintiff as per the Maintenance Agreement executed.
41CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc
5. Since defendant No.1 not paid maintenance charges to the plaintiff as per the terms of Maintenance Agreement. But defendant No.1 deliberately issued legal notice on 11/02/2012 to the plaintiff demanded for copy of byelaw and Registration Certificate of the Association and specifically agreed to pay reasonable maintenance charges and power charges to the plaintiff. Upon providing such document of Formation of Association to the said legal notice, the plaintiff has replied on 01/03/2012 denying all the allegations made against plaintiff and calling upon to pay maintenance charges to the plaintiff. Later the defendant No.1 has sent rejoinder on 20/3/2012 alleging that the maintenance charges claimed by plaintiff is unlawful and she is not suppose to pay any such maintenance charges. Later plaintiff has sent reply to rejoinder on 07/04/2012 calling upon defendant No.1 to pay maintenance charges and electricity charges with respect to property in occupation of the 1 st defendant. Despite of service of such rejoinder notice, defendant No.1 not paid any maintenance charges which was due.
6. The invoice raised by plaintiff towards arrears of maintenance charges of Rs.33,73,606/ for the period from February 2009 to July 2012 is served on defendant No.1 and despite of several requests and demands, since defendant No.1 not complied to the request of plaintiff and not paid 41 CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc maintenance charges, the plaintiff filed suit in OS No.5843/2012 on 13/08/2012 before City Civil Court, Bengaluru for recovery of dues of maintenance till July 2012 in sum of Rs.33,73,606/ and Rs.10,00,000/ towards damages and the said suit is pending for adjudication.
7. Even after filing of said suit, defendant No.1 was continued as defaulter and not paid maintenance charges to plaintiff and also not paid other charges which are accrued. The plaintiff is maintaining entire Embassy Heights building as per the renewed Maintenance Agreement dated 02/11/2011 executed by 2nd defendant for a period of 5 years. Except 1st defendant other unit holders in the building "Embassy Heights" have paid maintenance as per the terms of agreement dated 02/11/2011 which clearly demonstrates that defendant No.1 is chronic defaulter in payment of maintenance charges.
8. Defendant No.2 Association in First Annual General Body Meeting held on 25/05/2013 resolved that the monthly maintenance charges payable to the Maintenance Agent be hiked to Rs.5.50/ per sq.ft from Rs.4.50/ per sq.ft with effect from 01/07/2013. The decision of 2 nd defendant Association with regard to increase of maintenance charges was communicated to all the unit holders of the building in "Embassy Heights" along with copy of Minutes of First Annual General Body Meeting held on 25/05/2013 and also 41 CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc intimated to all the unit holders of "Embassy Heights"
building including 1st defendant to pay maintenance charges, electricity and water consumption charges regularly with effect from 01/07/2013. Thus all the unit holders of "Embassy Heights" building have to pay maintenance charges with effect from 30/06/2013 to the plaintiff.
9. Despite of repeated requests and demands, since 1 st defendant not complied and not paid maintenance charges and even after filing OS No.5843/2012 maintenance charges were not paid by 1st defendant to the plaintiff. 1 St defendant continued to be defaulter in payment of statutory dues and also maintenance charges from the date of Annual General Body Meeting of 2nd defendant on 25/05/2013, 1 st defendant is due to pay Rs.11,03,998/ towards maintenance charges from July 2012. Hence the present suit is filed by plaintiff for recovery of arrears of maintenance charges of Rs.11,03,998/ along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of such dues till realization. The defendant No.1 also liable to pay Rs.5,74,200/ which is accumulated interest @ 24% per annum on outstanding balance of Rs.11,03,998/ till the date of filing suit and prayed to decree the suit with cost.
10. The brief averments of written statement filed by 1st defendant is that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. Suit of the plaintiff is bad for 41 CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc nonjoinder and misjoinder of necessary and proper parties. The plaintiff is claiming maintenance charges as "Agent" of 2nd defendant and filed present suit for recovery of such maintenance. The 1st defendant neither party to the transactions in appointment of plaintiff as "Maintenance Agent" by 2nd defendant. The present suit ought to have been filed by 2nd defendant as plaintiff and suit is bad for not filing the present suit by 2nd defendant. It is denied that 2nd defendant has executed Maintenance Service Agreement dated 15/10/2008 and renewed the same on 02/11/2011 in favour of the plaintiff. The terms and conditions stipulated in the said agreement is not binding on 1st defendant. The plaintiff is putforth unlawful demand which is not binding on 1st defendant. The averments made in para 2 and 3 of the plaint are not admitted by this defendant and not binding. The Joint Development Agreement alleged to have been executed for formation of 2nd defendant association is not binding on 1st defendant. The 1st defendant is one of the co owner of property in the unit which is mentioned in 'B' schedule is not correct. It is denied that defendant No.1 is one of the signatory to Joint Development Agreement for formation of 2nd defendant association and any such agreement executed for formation of 2 nd defendant association is not binding on 1st defendant. This defendant is not liable to pay any statutory charges or maintenance charges as claimed in the suit. The plaintiff being party to Joint Development Agreement for construction of the building "Embassy Heights"
41CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc not fully performed his part of contract and for such lapse of the plaintiff this defendant was constrained to file suit in OS No.16677/2005 which is pending for adjudication. As per the terms of Joint Development Agreement, plaintiff has to provide certain common amenities which are not provided in the building. Hence the term Joint Development Agreement nor Maintenance Agreement alleged to have been executed between plaintiff and 2nd defendant is not binding on the 1 st defendant. Even though 2nd defendant is formed in the building since 1st defendant is not signatory to any such Joint Development Agreement for formation of 2nd defendant Association, the condition stipulated are not binding on the 1st defendant.
11. It is denied that in the Annual General Body Meeting of 2nd defendant Association, maintenance charges have been increased from Rs.4.50 per sq.ft to Rs.5.50 per sq.ft. It is denied that the resolution passed in the General Body Meeting was communicated to this defendant. For the improper and illegal demand of plaintiff this defendant has issued Legal Notice on 11/02/2012 requesting to produce Registration Certificate of 2nd defendant Association and copy of Maintenance Agreement. Despite of service of said Legal Notice no such copies are produced by plaintiff. This defendant has demanded for documents of formation of Association by issuing Legal Notice on 19/05/2011 and same was replied by plaintiff on 08/06/2011, wherein the plaintiff 41 CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc has stated that Association has been formed. But no such documents of the association are produced so as to enable this defendant to consider that the 2 nd defendant Association is in existence. In the Legal Notice of this defendant she has admitted to pay reasonable maintenance charges provided that she was allowed to use premises with all facilities and denied to pay illegal demand made by plaintiff towards maintenance charges. It is admitted that plaintiff has issued reply notice on 01/03/2012 denying all the allegations, but demanded to pay maintenance charges. Since 2 nd defendant is not the association formed with the consent of 1 st defendant the question of payment of maintenance charges do not arise at all. Thus she has sent rejoinder to the reply notice of the plaintiff on 20/03/2012 denying payment of maintenance charges and also formation of association - 2nd defendant herein. Later plaintiff has sent reply to rejoinder on 20/06/2011 and 1st defendant ascertained that no such association as 2nd defendant was in existence or formed in the building. This defendant has obtained information from the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 12/10/2011 that no such association 2nd defendant is in existence. Thus plaintiff has no locusstandi to claim maintenance charges from this defendant in their capacity as the agreement holder for maintenance of building "Embassy Heights".
12. Even though this defendant is not due to pay any statutory liability or maintenance charges he has deliberately 41 CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc filed suit in OS No.5843/2012 on 13/08/2012 claiming Rs.33,73,606/ being maintenance charges and other dues from February 2009 to July 2012 and also demanded Rs.10,00,000/ towards damages in which the present defendant has appeared and contested the matter is not correct. This defendant is disputing the validity of agreement executed by 2nd defendant for collecting maintenance charges by plaintiff and also disputed the formation of association - 2nd defendant. Hence question of payment of any such maintenance charges do not arise at all. It is denied that 1 st defendant was chronic defaulter in payment of maintenance and other statutory charges towards electricity and water. It is denied that this defendant is liable to pay Rs.11,03,998/ towards maintenance charges along with interest @ 24% per annum from 01/08/2013 and also denied that 1 st defendant is liable to pay interest of Rs.5,74,200/ on the outstanding amount along with future interest @ 24% per annum. Since this defendant is not under obligation to pay maintenance towards building in her possession at "Embassy Heights", there is no cause of action for the suit and prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with cost.
13. The brief averments of written statement filed by 2 nd defendant is that the present suit is filed by plaintiff for recovery of maintenance charges from 1 st defendant with respect to possession of 1st defendant in commercial complex in "Embassy Heights" from 01/08/2013 till date of filing the 41 CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc suit. Since no prayer is sought against 2 nd defendant which is registered association of Commercial Unit at "Embassy Heights". The suit filed against 2nd defendant as formal party. It is admitted that "Embassy Heights" Commercial Complex building was constructed by plaintiff under Joint Development Agreement dated 29/09/1993. It is also admitted that original owner including defendant No.1 are in possession of the respective units in the said building. It is also admitted that building in possession of 1 st defendant was rented out to M/s. Global Symphony Software (I) Private Limited as per Lease Agreement dated 06/06/2003 and later tenant has vacated from the said building in the year 2008. After vacating the said tenant in the year 2008 the building owners have decided to appoint plaintiff to maintain said building as per resolution passed in 2nd defendant association and 2nd defendant association was formed as per the decision of association on 15/09/2008 and the plaintiff was appointed to maintain the said building and to collect maintenance charges and other statutory obligations of payment of tax, water charges and electricity charges from the owners of each unit holder in the building and executed agreement of maintenance on 15/10/2008 for a period of 3 years and it is also admitted that the said agreement was renewed for 5 years on 02/11/2011 for collecting maintenance charges Rs.5.50 per sq.ft in the General Body Meeting of 2 nd defendant association on 25/05/2013.
41CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc
14. It is submitted by 2nd defendant that 1st defendant being one of the signatory to the Joint Development Agreement is bound by all the terms and conditions stipulated therein and 1st defendant being unit holder in the building is required to bare expenses with regard to maintenance, electricity charges and water charges of the building. It is also admitted that every unit holder in the building of "Embassy Heights" are paying maintenance charges and other consumption charges of electricity and water from time to time regularly. The invoices raised by plaintiff were honoured by all the other unit holders in the building except defendant No.1. Since request of plaintiff was not honoured by 1st defendant, the plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of maintenance charges from 1 st defendant which was due from February 2009 to July 2012 in OS No.5843/2012 which is pending for adjudication. It is also submitted by 2nd defendant that despite of filing of suit in OS No.5843/2012 since maintenance charges or other statutory obligations were not paid by 1st defendant and there was due in sum of Rs.11,03,998/ the present suit is filed by plaintiff against 1st defendant and she is liable to pay the same. Since 1st defendant not paid maintenance charges from 01/07/2013 to the 2nd defendant they have filed suit in OS No.8094/2015 on the file of City Civil Court, Bengaluru which is pending for adjudication. The 1 st defendant is continuously utilizing maintenance services of plaintiff till today as co owner of the building, she is liable to pay maintenance 41 CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc charges to the plaintiff, since plaintiff is appointed as "Agent" to collect maintenance and other statutory charges of the building. The averments made in the plaint are admitted by 2nd defendant. Hence it is prayed to decree the suit of plaintiff with cost.
15. On the above pleadings, following issues have been framed:
ISSUES
1) whether plaintiff proves that it was duly appointed by defendant No.2 for maintenance of "Embassy Heights"?
2) Whether plaintiff further proves that defendant No.1 is liable to pay maintenance charges from July 2012 totally amounting to Rs.11,03,998/ pertaining to suit schedule properties?
3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest at 24% amounting to Rs.5,74,200/ from 1/8/2013 till filing of the suit?
4) Whether plaintiff is entitled for current and future interest at 24% per annum?
5) Whether plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?
6) What order or decree?
16. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, director of plaintiff company got himself examined as PW.1 by filing affidavit evidence and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to 41 CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc Ex.P.80 and also marked Ex.P.81 to Ex.P.83 by confronting to DW1 while cross examination by plaintiff's counsel and examined witness on their behalf as PW.2. On behalf of defendants, 1st defendant got examined herself as DW.1 by filing her affidavit evidence and got marked documents Ex.D.1 to D.19 and no evidence is adduced on behalf of 2 nd defendant.
17. Heard arguments of both the sides and perused written arguments submitted on behalf of plaintiff and 1 st defendant.
18. My findings to the above issues are as under:
ISSUE No.1 : Affirmative
ISSUE No.2 : Affirmative
ISSUE No.3 : Negative.
ISSUE No.4 : Partly affirmative.
ISSUE NO.5 : Partly affirmative.
ISSUE No.6 : As per my final order for the
following:
REASONS
19. ISSUES No.1 to 5 : Since these five issues are
interconnected to each other, they have been taken together for my discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and findings to be given thereunder.
20. It is the case of plaintiff that the plaintiff is Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and engaged in the business of real estate development, 41 CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc construction, formation of layouts, interior decoration, maintenance of buildings and other allied activities. The plaintiff being developer of the property entered into Joint Development Agreement dated 29/09/1993 with all original owners of property bearing No.13, 14, 15 & 16, situated at Magrath Road, Corporation Division No.61, Bengaluru560025 for construction of apartment of residential units in the said property. The coowners of the said property have signed to the Joint Development Agreement and as per the Joint Development Agreement the plaintiff constructed commercial complex and completed during the year 2003, which is called as "Embassy Heights". Thereafter plaintiff was able to secure tenant by name M/s. Global Symphony Software (I) Private Limited and entire building was let out to the said tenant after carrying out interior decoration as per understanding in the Lease Agreement dated 06/06/2003. Every commercial flat owners in the said building including 1 st defendant also received monthly rent from the tenants till vacating the premises during the year 200809. As per the terms of Lease Agreement and Lease Deed executed by tenant and the tenant himself was taking care of periodical maintenance work of the building during the leased period. During the year 2008 tenant of the building decided to vacate and handed over vacant possession of the building. Thus it was necessitate for the building owners to form association of the commercial building as per the Joint Development Agreement and also for 41 CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc the purpose of overall maintenance of the building. As per the recitals of Joint Development Agreement, the association of the building owners required to form proper maintenance of the building and building owners shall cooperate for the same. Thus an individual invitation letter was issued to all the unit holders including defendant No.1 on 01/09/2008 fixing meeting for formation of association of the unit holders in the said building. In view of the same defendant No.2 was formed for the welfare of the building owners on 15/09/2008. The 2nd defendant association was registered on 22/10/2011 under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and the 2nd defendant association registration was renewed every year before the concerned authority by following required formalities and regulations.
21. The plaintiff was appointed as 'Agent' of 2nd defendant association for maintenance of the building as per resolution of the association dated 20/09/2008. In this regard an individual letter was issued to all the unit holders of the building intimating about appointment of plaintiff for maintenance of the building. In this regard Building Maintenance Service Agreement was executed on 15/10/2008 between plaintiff and 2nd defendant for a period of 3 years. As per the terms of said agreement the unit holders of the said building in "Embassy Heights" are required to pay monthly maintenance charges directly to the plaintiff and 2nd defendant has renewed the Maintenance Agreement of 41 CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc plaintiff for further period of 5 years as per resolution dated 29/10/2011. Defendant No.2 has executed Renewed Agreement of Maintenance dated 02/11/2011 in favour of the plaintiff.
22. Defendant No.1 is one of the original coowner of the property in the unit holder No.202, situated in 2 nd Floor, measuring 7645 sq.ft and 1/4th share holder in the Unit No.40, 58, 6A on the ground floor and Unit Nos.101D, 103C, 105B on the first floor as mentioned in Item No.'B' of the schedule to the plaint. The defendant No.1 being one of the signatory to the Joint Development Agreement bound to abide by the terms and conditions stipulated therein. As per the various recitals of Joint Development Agreement the unit holders of the building are required to bear expenses relating to their respective portions with regard to payment of Tax, payment of Electricity Bill, water charges to BWSSB, Maintenance Deposit if any to the Association of Apartment Owners formed for the purpose of maintenance of the building. As per the specific clause in Joint Development Agreement certain restrictions were casted on the building owner of each unit are bound to the terms of Joint Development Agreement with regard to enjoyment of the property in the building and to fulfill the statutory obligation of payment of tax etc. The owners of each unit are bound by the conditions stipulated in Joint Development Agreement and also bound by rules and regulations stipulated therein.
41CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc Thus it made clear that executant of Joint Development Agreement including defendant No.1 who forms association of the building are liable to pay maintenance charges to the plaintiff as per the Maintenance Agreement executed.
23. Since defendant No.1 not paid maintenance charges to the plaintiff as per the terms of Maintenance Agreement. But defendant No.1 deliberately issued legal notice on 11/02/2012 to the plaintiff demanded for copy of byelaw and Registration Certificate of the Association and specifically agreed to pay reasonable maintenance charges and power charges to the plaintiff. Upon providing such document of Formation of Association to the said legal notice, the plaintiff has replied on 01/03/2012 denying all the allegations made against plaintiff and calling upon to pay maintenance charges to the plaintiff. Later the defendant No.1 has sent rejoinder on 20/3/2012 alleging that the maintenance charges claimed by plaintiff is unlawful and she is not suppose to pay any such maintenance charges. Later plaintiff has sent reply to rejoinder on 07/04/2012 calling upon defendant No.1 to pay maintenance charges and electricity charges with respect to property in occupation of the 1 st defendant. Despite of service of such rejoinder notice, defendant No.1 not paid any maintenance charges which was due.
41CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc
24. The invoice raised by plaintiff towards arrears of maintenance charges of Rs.33,73,606/ for the period from February 2009 to July 2012 is served on defendant No.1 and despite of several requests and demands, since defendant No.1 not complied to the request of plaintiff and not paid maintenance charges, the plaintiff filed suit in OS No.5843/2012 on 13/08/2012 before City Civil Court, Bengaluru for recovery of dues of maintenance till July 2012 in sum of Rs.33,73,606/ and Rs.10,00,000/ towards damages and the said suit is pending for adjudication.
25. Even after filing of said suit, defendant No.1 was continued as defaulter and not paid maintenance charges to plaintiff and also not paid other charges which are accrued. The plaintiff is maintaining entire Embassy Heights building as per the renewed Maintenance Agreement dated 02/11/2011 executed by 2nd defendant for a period of 5 years. Except 1st defendant other unit holders in the building "Embassy Heights" have paid maintenance as per the terms of agreement dated 02/11/2011 which clearly demonstrates that defendant No.1 is chronic defaulter in payment of maintenance charges.
26. Defendant No.2 Association in First Annual General Body Meeting held on 25/05/2013 resolved that the monthly maintenance charges payable to the Maintenance Agent be 41 CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc hiked to Rs.5.50/ per sq.ft from Rs.4.50/ per sq.ft with effect from 01/07/2013. The decision of 2 nd defendant Association with regard to increase of maintenance charges was communicated to all the unit holders of the building in "Embassy Heights" along with copy of Minutes of First Annual General Body Meeting held on 25/05/2013 and also intimated to all the unit holders of "Embassy Heights"
building including 1st defendant to pay maintenance charges, electricity and water consumption charges regularly with effect from 01/07/2013. Thus all the unit holders of "Embassy Heights" building have to pay maintenance charges with effect from 30/06/2013 to the plaintiff. Despite of repeated requests and demands, since 1 st defendant has not complied and not paid maintenance charges and even after filing OS No.5843/2012 maintenance charges were not paid by 1st defendant to the plaintiff. 1St defendant continued to be defaulter in payment of statutory dues and also maintenance charges from the date of Annual General Body Meeting of 2 nd defendant on 25/05/2013, 1st defendant is due to pay Rs.11,03,998/ towards maintenance charges from July 2012. Hence the present suit is filed by plaintiff for recovery of arrears of maintenance charges of Rs.11,03,998/ along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of such dues till realization. The defendant No.1 also liable to pay Rs.5,74,200/ which is accumulated interest @ 24% per annum on outstanding balance of Rs.11,03,998/ till the date of filing suit.41
CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc
27. In order to prove the case of plaintiff, director of plaintiff company got examined himself as PW.1 by filing his affidavit evidence reiterated plaint averments and deposed that he has been authorized by the plaintiff firm to depose on their behalf and represent them in the present suit. In order to substantiate the same authorization letter issued by plaintiff company in favour of PW.1 is marked as Ex.P.1. The recital of Ex.P.1 clearly discloses that the Chairman of plaintiff company has authorized PW.1 to appear before this court in the present suit and represent the plaintiff company and to depose on their behalf. It is also deposed by PW.1 that plaintiff is Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act of 1956 engaged in the business of real estate development, construction, formation of layouts, interior decoration, maintenance of building and other allied activities. It is also deposed by PW.1 that under Joint Development Agreement dated 29/09/1993 the owners of property bearing No.13, 14, 15 & 16 situated at Magrath Road, Corporation Division No.61, Bengaluru have entrusted development of said property to Virawani Builders which is the partnership firm and as per the said Joint Development Agreement said Virawani Builders have constructed commercial building named as "Embassy Heights". In order to substantiate the same Joint Development Agreement is marked as Ex.P.2. The recital of Ex.P.2 clearly discloses that property was developed under Joint Development Agreement 41 CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc and building was constructed consisting of commercial and residential units and subsequently the appropriate development rights were assigned to the plaintiff company vide Assignment Deed dated 06/09/2000 and as per Assignment Deed plaintiff company during the year 2003 was managing the building "Embassy Heights" and plaintiff had secured tenant M/s. Global Symphony Software (I) Private Limited as tenant to the said building who are carrying on their business as per agreement dated 06/06/2003 and they have vacated the said building during the year 200809. The periodical maintenance of the said building was looking after by plaintiff company and after vacating the premises by M/s. Global Symphony Software (I) Private Limited in the year 2008, it was necessitate to form association of the building owners in "Embassy Heights". Hence the Embassy Heights Unit Holders Association was incorporated and registered before Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies. In order to substantiate the same registration certificate issued in the name of 2nd defendant by the competent authority are marked as Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.5. The recitals of Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.5 clearly discloses that in order to manage Embassy Heights Building Association was registered in the name of 2nd defendant and after registration of such 2nd defendant association on 22/10/2011, the registration certificate was renewed every year and 2nd defendant association has appointed plaintiff company to manage "Embassy Heights" building to look after day today activities and maintenance as per the resolution of 41 CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc 2nd defendant dated 20/09/2008 and byelaws of 2 nd defendant association is marked as Ex.P.6 which clearly discloses incorporation of 2nd defendant association to manage "Embassy Heights" building as contended by plaintiff herein and Memorandum of Association of 2nd defendant association is marked as Ex.P.7. The Adhoc Committee Meeting of 2nd defendant association held on 20/09/2008 which was communicated to plaintiff company for having appointed them to maintain "Embassy Heights" building from 01/10/2008 is marked as Ex.P.8 and it is further deposed by PW.1 that the Adhoc Committee Meeting Resolution was communicated to all building owners in "Embassy Heights"
building and in order to substantiate the same copies of resolution which was communicated to all the building owners in "Embassy Heights" are marked as Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.22.
28. It is also deposed by PW.1 that as per said resolution agreement was executed by 2nd defendant in the name of plaintiff so as to entrust them to collect maintenance, electricity and water charges from the building owners in "Embassy Heights" and agreement executed by 2 nd defendant in favour of plaintiff to maintain "Embassy Heights" building is marked as Ex.P.23. On going through the recitals of Ex.P.23, it is pertinent to note that after incorporation of 2 nd defendant as per Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.7 the 2 nd defendant executed Ex.P.23 in favour of plaintiff authorizing them to maintain 41 CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc building "Embassy Heights" and to collect maintenance charges, electricity and water charges of the said building from the building owners. It is also deposed by PW.1 that the said agreement Ex.P.23 was renewed by 2nd defendant as per Renewal Agreement Ex.P.24 and Ex.P.25. These facts are not in dispute between parties to the suit. In the cross examination of DW.1 she has specifically admitted that the 2nd defendant was incorporated and the maintenance agreement was executed by 2nd defendant in favour of plaintiff for maintenance of "Embassy Heights". In which 1 st respondent was holding ownership of the building measuring 7645 sq.ft and admittedly 1st defendant not paid maintenance charges to the 2nd defendant or to the plaintiff with respect to property held by her from the year 2008.
29. While cross examining DW.1 by plaintiff's counsel three documents have been confronted and marked as Ex.P.81 to Ex.P.83. Ex.P.81 is the copy of judgment in OS No.8094/2015 which was filed by plaintiff against 1 st defendant for non payment of maintenance and recovery of money. Admittedly the said suit was decreed and directed by the court to 1st defendant to pay maintenance charges of Rs.21,65,158.50 along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till realization and also further directed to pay monthly maintenance to plaintiff with respect to the property held by her in "Embassy Heights". The deposition of DW.1 in the said suit is marked as Ex.P.12 which clearly discloses 41 CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc that she has admitted that she was holding property in "Embassy Heights" and she has not paid maintenance to plaintiff as per the terms of agreement executed by 2 nd defendant in favour of plaintiff Ex.P.23 & Ex.P.24. It was admitted by DW.1 that as per Ex.P.83 she has sold some of the properties held in her name in favour of his brother who is also Secretary of 2nd defendant association. The said sale deed Ex.P.83 was executed by 1 st defendant on 20/04/2016. Thus till 20/04/2016 admittedly DW.1 not paid any maintenance charges towards property held by her in "Embassy Heights", which fact is not in dispute between parties to the suit. As per recitals of Ex.P.83 the maintenance charges of property held in the name of DW.1 shall be paid by purchaser from the date of execution of said sale deed. Thus till 20/04/2016 admittedly DW.1 not paid any such maintenance to the plaintiff towards property held by her in "Embassy Heights".
30. DW.1 not disputed that she is holding property in "Embassy Heights" as contended by plaintiff to which 1 st defendant not paid maintenance so far. In order to substantiate that 1st defendant was holding property in her name in "Embassy Heights" building which is maintained by plaintiff, the katha extract of property is marked as Ex.P.25 which clearly discloses that DW.1 is holding property in "Embassy Heights" in her name at the relevant point of time. Instead of paying maintenance which is claimed by plaintiff, 41 CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc 1st defendant has questioned the incorporation of 2 nd defendant association and she has issued Legal Notice to plaintiff calling upon them to furnish certain information with regard to formation of 2nd defendant association. In order to substantiate the same copy of Legal Notice issued by 1 st defendant to the plaintiff is marked as Ex.P.26 and it is also deposed by PW.1 that as per Annual General Body Meeting of 2nd defendant held on 25/05/2013 the maintenance charges per square feet in the building was enhanced from Rs.4.50 per sq.ft to Rs.5.50 per sq.ft. In order to substantiate the same resolution passed in the Annual General Body Meeting of 2nd defendant is marked as Ex.P.27 and 2nd defendant has issued notice to 1st defendant calling upon her to pay membership fees and such notice is marked as Ex.P.28 and reply notice sent by plaintiff to the notice of 1 st defendant as per Ex.P.26 is marked as Ex.P.29. On going through the recitals of Ex.P.29 it is pertinent to note that plaintiff has explained to the notice of 1st defendant about establishment of 2nd defendant association in "Embassy Heights" building which is provided for maintenance of building and requested 1st defendant to pay arrears of maintenance charges as claimed in the suit. PW.1 further deposed that periodically they were sending invoices towards payment of maintenance charges by 1st defendant and copies of invoices sent by RPAD which was communicated to 1st defendant at the regular intervals are marked as Ex.P.30 to Ex.P.79. On going through the recitals of Ex.P.30 to Ex.P.79, it is pertinent to 41 CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc note that at the regular intervals plaintiff was sending invoices for payment of maintenance charges by 1 st defendant towards property held by her in "Embassy Heights". Despite of sending such invoices periodically 1st defendant not paid said amount to the plaintiff towards her property held at "Embassy Heights" building. These facts were admitted in the cross examination of DW.1 by plaintiff's counsel.
31. For having received maintenance amount from other property owners in "Embassy Heights" building by plaintiff and for having paid service tax to government the bank statement and calculation sheet are marked together as Ex.P.80 and along with Ex.P.80 copies of challen are also furnished which discloses that the service tax collected from the building owners was paid by plaintiff to the exchequer at the relevant point of time. Even though PW.1 is cross examined by defence counsel at length nothing is elicited to prove that DW.1 is not under obligation to pay any maintenance to the plaintiff towards property held by her in "Embassy Heights" building. As already discussed above as per Ex.P.81 & Ex.P.82 the earlier suit which was filed by plaintiff against defendants was decreed for recovery of maintenance. But so far 1st defendant not paid any such maintenance charges as ordered by the court in Ex.P.81. The deposition of DW.1 as per Ex.P.82 clearly discloses that she has no intention of paying maintenance charges to the plaintiff towards her property held at "Embassy Heights"
41CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc building. Despite of cross examination of PW.1 by defence counsel nothing is elicited to prove that plaintiff is not entitled to recover suit claim from the 1st defendant.
32. The plaintiff examined one witness on their behalf as PW.2 who is Accountant working in the office of plaintiff during the year 2011. PW.2 deposed in his evidence that he has got knowledge about account transaction of plaintiff company and he used to raise invoices to collect maintenance and other charges of "Embassy Heights" building owners and the plaintiff was provided with an agreement by 2 nd defendant for collecting maintenance and other charges from the building owners of "Embassy Heights". It is also deposed by PW.2 that after collecting such maintenance and other charges plaintiff used to pay service tax to government as per recitals of Ex.P.80. PW.2 further deposed that he used to raise invoices for collecting maintenance and other charges from the building owners of "Embassy Heights". Despite of cross examination of PW.2 by defence counsel nothing is elicited to prove that plaintiff was not authorized to collect maintenance and other charges from the property owners of "Embassy Heights" building. It is surprised to note that in the cross examination of PW.2 it was suggested by defence counsel that Ex.P.80 was concocted for the purpose of this suit. But on going through the recitals of Ex.P.80 admittedly service tax was paid by plaintiff for having collected maintenance charges from the building owners of "Embassy 41 CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc Heights". Hence from the cross examination of PW.2 nothing is elicited by defence counsel to disprove the claim of plaintiff herein. By the evidence and documents of PW.1 and PW.2 plaintiff was able to prove that 1 st defendant is chronic defaulter in payment of maintenance charges towards property held by her in "Embassy Heights" building, despite of authorization issued by 2nd defendant to the plaintiff to collect such maintenance charges.
33. In order to rebut the evidence and documents of PW.1 herein, 1st defendant got himself examined as DW.1 by filing her affidavit evidence reiterating written statement averments and deposed that M/s. Embassy Classic Private Limited who are the developers have undertaken for development of property No.13, 14, 15 & 16, situated at Magrath Road, Corporation Division No.61, Bengaluru by entering into Joint Development Agreement and constructed "Embassy Heights" building. It is also deposed that she being one of the cosharer in the said property got the property to her share. But other cosharers mislead other unit holders of the building and formed association without her consent and got registered the same. It is also deposed by DW.1 that she is neither party to the resolution for formation of 2 nd defendant association and demand made by 2 nd defendant association through the plaintiff is illegal and not sustainable. Even though DW.1 has denied formation of 2 nd defendant association and entrustment of maintenance of building to 41 CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc the plaintiff by 2nd defendant association. In the cross examination of DW.1 she has specifically admitted documents Ex.P.81 & Ex.P.82 the suit which was filed against her by plaintiff for arrears of maintenance. Despite of decreeing said suit as per Ex.P.81 she has not complied to the said decree passed by the court and admittedly she is due to pay arrears of maintenance as per the order of court in judgment Ex.P.81.
34. It is also deposed by DW.1 that she was not notified about resolution passed by 2nd defendant association and also not notified with regard to the meeting of 2 nd defendant association. It is also deposed by DW.1 that she was not included as member of the association and no deed of declaration was taken from her which binds resolution of the association of 2nd defendant. But as per Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.18 DW.1 was notified by 2nd defendant with regard to resolution passed and establishment of association in the building and as per Ex.P.18 DW.1 was communicated by 2nd defendant association to participate in the meeting on payment of membership fees of Rs.10,000/ which is evident that DW.1 was notified by 2nd defendant association to participate in the meeting. But despite of service of Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.28 DW.1 not participated in the meeting of 2 nd defendant association and she has not paid membership fees as called for.
41CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc
35. Admittedly DW.1 not questioned about formation of 2nd defendant association before any forum nor she has not questioned entrustment of maintenance of building to the plaintiff by 2nd defendant association as per Ex.P.23 and Ex.P.24. Admittedly the suit filed by plaintiff against DW.1 as per Ex.P.81 was decreed and for having preferred any appeal aggrieved by the said judgment no documents are produced on behalf of DW.1. For having filed another suit by plaintiff against DW.1 in OS No.5843/2012, copy of plaint and written statement filed by DW.1 in the said suit are produced. Copy of Legal Notice issued by DW.1 to plaintiff and other members of the association is marked as Ex.D.3 and copy of postal receipts are marked as Ex.D.6 to Ex.D.8 for having served said notice. Reply of plaintiff to the said notice are marked as Ex.D.9 and Ex.D.10. Copy of postal acknowledgement and postal receipt are marked as Ex.D.18 and Ex.D.19. The rejoinder sent by DW.1 to said reply notice is marked as Ex.D.12 and for having served said rejoinder on the counsel of plaintiff, the postal receipt and copy of postal acknowledgement are marked as Ex.D.13 and Ex.D.14. It is further deposed by DW.1 that for having registered 2 nd defendant association without her consent she has applied for certified copies of registration certificate and other documents before Registrar of Cooperative Societies and copy of application is marked as Ex.D.15 and endorsement issued by Registrar of Cooperative Societies are marked as Ex.D.16 and Ex.D.17. Admittedly there are no such documents produced 41 CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc on behalf of DW.1 to prove that she is not under obligation to pay maintenance towards property held by her in "Embassy Heights" building. As already discussed above despite of passing judgment as per Ex.P.81 DW.1 not complied to the said judgment and not paid arrears of maintenance to the plaintiff. The entrustment of maintenance of building as per Ex.P.23 and Ex.P.24 to the plaintiff by 2 nd defendant is proved in the evidence of PW.1 and his documents. Despite of communication sent to DW.1 periodically by sending invoices as per Ex.P.30 to Ex.P.79 DW.1 not complied to the request of plaintiff. Hence PW.1 was constrained to file present suit for recovery of maintenance amount which was due from DW.1. In the cross examination of DW.1 by plaintiff's counsel she has specifically admitted that she has not paid maintenance charges to plaintiff towards building which she was holding in "Embassy Heights" despite of judgment passed by the court as per Ex.P.81. Thus by the evidence and documents of DW.1 she was not able to prove that she is not under obligation to pay maintenance to plaintiff as claimed in the suit. On the other hand PW.1 by his evidence and documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.83 was able to prove that plaintiff is entitled to recover arrears of maintenance in sum of Rs.11,03,998/ from 1st defendant towards maintenance charges and other charges payable by her in "Embassy Heights" building as claimed in the suit.
41CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc
36. In the present suit PW.1 has claimed sum of Rs.5,74,200/ being interest amount calculated @ 24% per annum on the outstanding amount of Rs.11,03,998/ from 1 st defendant and also prayed to award future interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till realization. But admittedly there is no such written contract or agreement between plaintiff and 1st defendant to claim such exorbitant interest towards arrears of maintenance payable by 1 st defendant. Taking into consideration the nature of transaction and the amount due by 1st defendant to the plaintiff towards maintenance charges of building held by DW.1 in "Embassy Heights" building, reasonable interest @ 12% per annum can be awarded from the date of suit till realization. In the absence of written contract or agreement between parties to the suit, it is not justified to award interest from the date of amount due till filing of suit as claimed by PW.1 in sum of Rs.5,74,200/ and plaintiff is not entitled for such exorbitant interest on the amount outstanding. But by the evidence of PW.1 and their documents plaintiff was able to prove that they are entitled to recover suit claim of Rs.11,03,998/ as per invoices raised against DW.1 periodically marked as Ex.P.30 to Ex.P.79 along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till realization. Accordingly I hold issues No.1 and 2 as affirmative, issue No.3 as negative and Issues No.4 & 5 as partly affirmative.
41CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc
37. ISSUE No.6 : In view of my discussion on issues No.1 to 5 above, I proceed to pass following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with cost.
Plaintiff is entitled to recover sum of Rs.11,03,998/ from defendant No.1 along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till realization.
The claim of plaintiff to recover sum of Rs.5,74,200/ along with interest @ 24% per annum from 01/08/2013 till filing of the suit is hereby rejected.
Draw decree accordingly.
[Dictated to the Judgment Writer; transcript thereof corrected, initialed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 21st day of October 2020] [N. Sunil Kumar Singh] LXXXIII Additional City Civil Judge.
BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff:
PW.1 Jaikishan M. Virwani
PW.2 Padmavathi T.N
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the
Defendants:
DW.1 S. Hemalatha
41
CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 Minutes of Meeting
Ex.P.2 C.C. of Agreement dt. 29/09/1993
Ex.P.3to P.5 C.C of 3 registration Certificates of
plaintiff.
Ex.P.6 Byelaw of 2nd defendant association.
Ex.P.7 C.C of Memorandum of Association of
D.2 association.
Ex.P.8 to
Ex.P.22 C.C of 15 letters dt. 20/9/2008 of D.2
association issued to all apartment
owners.
Ex.P.23 C.C of Building Maintenance Service
Agreement between plaintiff and
defendant No.2.
Ex.P.24 Agreement of Maintenance dt.2/11/2011
Ex.P.25 C.C of katha extract of defendant No.1
Ex.P.26 Legal Notice dt.11/2/2012 issued by
defendant No.1 to plaintiff.
Ex.P.27 C.C of Minutes of 1st Annual General
Body Meeting of D.2 held on 25/5/2013.
Ex.P.28 C.C of Letter dt. 10/6/2013 issued by
D.2 to D.1.
Ex.P.29 Office copy of reply dt. 1/3/2012 by
plaintiff to D.1.
41
CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc Ex.P.30 & Copy of two invoices dt. 28/7/2012 with Ex.P.31 postal acknowledgement.
Ex.P.32 & Office copies of two invoices
Ex.P.33 dt.30/8/2012 with postal
acknowledgement.
Ex.P.34 & Office copies of two invoices
Ex.P.35 dt.28/9/2012 with postal
acknowledgement.
Ex.P.36 & Office copies of two invoices
Ex.P.37 dt.30/10/2012 with postal
acknowledgement.
Ex.P.38 & Office copies of two invoices
Ex.P.39 dt.30/11/2012 with postal
acknowledgement.
Ex.P.40 & Office copies of two invoices
Ex.P.41 dt.29/12/2012 with postal
acknowledgement.
Ex.P.42 & Office copies of two invoices
Ex.P.43 dt.30/01/2013 with postal
acknowledgement.
Ex.P.44 & Office copies of two invoices
Ex.P.45 dt.26/2/2013 with postal
acknowledgement.
Ex.P.46 to Office copies of two invoices
Ex.P.48 dt.01/04/2013 and 2 invoices together
dt.2/5/2013 with postal
acknowledgement.
Ex.P.49 & Office copies of two invoices
Ex.P.50 dt.01/06/2013 with postal
acknowledgement.
41
CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc Ex.P.51 & Office copy of Invoice dt.8/8/2012 Ex.P.52 pertaining to Electricity bill with postal acknowledgement.
Ex.P.53 & Office copy of Invoice dt.8/9/2012 Ex.P.54 pertaining to Electricity bill with postal acknowledgement.
Ex.P.55 & Office copy of Invoice dt.8/10/2012 Ex.P.56 pertaining to Electricity bill with postal acknowledgement.
Ex.P.57 & Office copy of Invoice dt.16/6/2012 Ex.P.58 pertaining to Electricity bill with postal acknowledgement.
Ex.P.59 & Office copy of Invoice dt.17/12/2012 Ex.P.60 pertaining to Electricity bill with postal acknowledgement.
Ex.P.61 & Office copy of Invoice dt.11/1/2013 Ex.P.62 pertaining to Electricity bill with postal acknowledgement.
Ex.P.63 & Office copy of Invoice dt.7/2/2013 Ex.P.64 pertaining to Electricity bill with postal acknowledgement.
Ex.P.65 & Office copy of Invoice dt.12/3/2013 Ex.P.66 pertaining to Electricity bill with postal acknowledgement.
Ex.P.67 & Office copy of Invoice dt.12/4/2013 Ex.P.68 pertaining to Electricity bill with postal acknowledgement.
Ex.P.69 & Office copy of Invoice dt.9/5/2013 Ex.P.70 pertaining to Electricity bill with postal acknowledgement.
41CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc Ex.P.71 & Office copy of Invoice dt.12/6/2013 Ex.P.72 pertaining to Electricity bill with postal acknowledgement.
Ex.P.73 & Office copy of Invoice dt.9/7/2013 Ex.P.74 pertaining to Electricity bill with postal acknowledgement.
Ex.P.75 to Office copy of letter dt. 10/9/2012, debit Ex.P.77 note with postal acknowledgement.
Ex.P.78 & Copy of debit note dt. 1/4/2013 with
Ex.P.79 postal acknowledgement.
Ex.P.80 Calculation regarding Service Tax by
plaintiff company pages 1 to 26.
Ex.P.81 C.C of judgment in OS 8094/2015
confronted to witness of DW.1.
Ex.P.82 C.C of evidence of DW.1
Ex.P.83 C.C of Sale Deed dt.20/4/2016.
4. List of the documents marked for the defendants:
Ex.D.1 Plaint copy of OS 5843/2012.
Ex.D.2 W.S copy of OS 5843/2012.
Ex.D.3 Legal Notice dt. 19/5/2011.
Ex.D.4&
Ex.D.5 Two Postal acknowledgements
Ex.D.6 to
Ex.D.8 Three postal receipts.
Ex.D.9 Reply Notice dt. 8/6/2011.
41
CT 1390_Com.O.S.83262015_Judgment .doc Ex.D.10 Supplementary Notice dt. 15/6/2011.
Ex.D.11 Legal Notice dt. 11/2/2012.
Ex.D.12 Rejoinder Notice dt. 15/6/2011.
Ex.D.13&
Ex.D.14 Postal Receipt and acknowledgement
Ex.D.15 Application form sought in RTI.
Ex.D.16 C.C of endorsement issued by District
Registrar dt. 12/10/2011.
Ex.D.17 C.C of endorsement issued by District
Registrar dt. 12/9/2011.
Ex.D.18 & Postal Receipt &
Ex.D.19 Postal Acknowledgement.
[N. Sunil Kumar Singh]
LXXXIII Additional City Civil Judge.
BENGALURU.