Bangalore District Court
H B Jairaj vs M/S Global Warehouse Services(Gws) on 7 November, 2025
Com.OS.364/2025
KABC170009342025
IN THE COURT OF LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-86)
(Commercial Court)
THIS THE 7th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025
PRESENT:
SRI.ARJUN. S. MALLUR. B.A.L.LL.B.,
LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Com.OS.No.364/2025
BETWEEN:
Sri. H B Jairaj
S/o Late H.R. Basavaraj,
Aged about 60 years,
R/At No.26/4, Raj Nivas,
Sanky Road,
Bengaluru - 560052
: PLAINTIFF
(Represented by Sri.Sharath S Gogi, Advovate.)
AND
M/S Global Warehouse Services(GWS)
No.56, 3rd Floor, Coles Road, Frazer Town,
Bengaluru -560005
Rep By Its Director
Mr. Sayed Shehzi
: DEFENDANT
(Exparte)
1
Com.OS.364/2025
Date of Institution of the suit 07.03.2025
Nature of the suit (suit on pro
note, suit for declaration & Suit for recovery of
Possession, Suit for injunction Money.
etc.)
Date of commencement of 28.10.2025
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment was 07.11.2025
pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
00 08 04
(ARJUN. S. MALLUR)
LXXXV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
Suit for recovery of a total sum of Rs. 1,37,78,318/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Seven Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Eighteen Only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of suit till realization.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under:-
The plaintiff and defendant had entered into a work contract dated 22.11.2019 as per BOQ under which defendant was required to construct a commercial shed as per the requirement submitted by 2 Com.OS.364/2025 Metro Cash and Carry facility at property bearing No.44- 2-125-4 old property No.3842/1A M-10/A, 3842/A M- 11/A and 3842/1B , Anegundi Road, Tilaknagar, Mysore. Though the defendant carried out the construction it has failed to complete the same in all aspects. The construction carried out by the defendant was of substandard quality contrary to the representation and assurances by using sub-standard quality materials. The defendant also did not complete the work and because of inefficient work and substandard quality the plaintiff had to redo the PHE plumbing works by incurring a cost of Rs.28,39,358/-, re do the electrical works incurring a cost of Rs.29,32,221/-, the fire protection system works incurring additional cost of Rs.51,33,000/-. It is further submitted that the compound wall constructed by the defendant collapsed and on inspection by the structural engineer it revealed that the defendant had used substandard low quality quality of steel and the plaintiff had to incur cost of Rs.52,00,000/- for rebuilding the compound wall with proper foundation and therefore towards the same the defendant is liable to pay differential amount of Rs.20,00,000/- and 3 Com.OS.364/2025 another sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in all a total sum of Rs. 1,37,78,318/-. It is submitted that the defendant falsely represented with the plaintiff being competent to carryout top class construction but on the other hand has carried out a sub-standard construction which has resulted in plaintiff suffering huge loss. The plaintiff issued a legal notice calling upon the defendant to make good the above mentioned amount which has been sent through email for which the defendant has not caused any reply. The plaintiff instituted PIM proceedings in which the defendant did not appear and the same was closed as non-starter. Hence the suit.
3. On publication of summons in the newspapers the defendant has remained absent and has been placed ex-parte.
4. GPA holder of the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents at Exs.P.1 to P.8.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the records.
4
Com.OS.364/2025
6. Now the points that arise for my consideration are:
POINT NO.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit claim as prayed?
POINT NO.2: What order or decree?
7. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1:- In the Affirmative, Point No.2:- As per the final Order for the following;
REASONS
8. POINT No.1:-The GPA Holde of the plaintiff has examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.8. Ex.P.1 is the GPA executed by the plaintiff. Ex.P.2 is the Work contract dated 22.11.2019. Ex.P.3 is the Report of Unit Consultants MEP. Ex.P.4 is the Office copy of the legal notice dated 25.06.2024 with postal receipt. Ex.P.5 is the Undelivered postal cover. Ex.P.6 is the Screen shots of the emails exchanged. Ex.P.7 is the Certificate u/S 63(4)(C) of BSA, 2023. Ex.P.8 is the Non starter report in PIM 2638/2024. 5
Com.OS.364/2025
9. As mentioned above the defendant has not appeared upon publication of summons against them in the news paper and has been placed ex-parte. The contentions of the plaintiff and the evidence of the plaintiff is substantiated with the documents produced at Ex.P.2 the work contract, Ex.P.3 the report of the unit consultants who have carried out the structural inspection which discloses the defendant having carried out substandard quality of work forcing the plaintiff to incur additional expenses for redoing the work and for restoration of the compound structure. Legal notice under Ex.P.4 is sent which the defendant has refused to receive and also has not caused any reply. The screenshots of the emails at Ex.P.6 coupled with the certificate under Sec.63(4)(c) of BSA 2023 substantiate the demand notice sent to the defendant to which no reply has been cause. The evidence of the plaintiff having remain unchallenged the plaintiff would be for recovery of the suit claim as prayed. Accordingly I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative. 6
Com.OS.364/2025
10. POINT NO.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost.
The Defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,37,78,318/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Seven Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Eighteen Only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of suit till realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
Office to soft copies of the judgment on the e-mail Id's of the respective parties if furnished.
[Typed by me directly on the computer, corrected and signed by me then pronounced in the Open Court, dated this the 7th day of November 2025] Digitally signed by ARJUN ARJUN SRINATH SRINATH MALLUR Date: 2025.11.07 MALLUR 17:46:26 +0530 (ARJUN. S. MALLUR) LXXXV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF ALONG WITH PLAINT PW-1 Mr. G.R. Ganesh 7 Com.OS.364/2025 LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF Ex.P.1 GPA executed by the plaintiff. Ex.P.2 Work contract dated 22.11.2019. Ex.P.3 Report of Unit Consultants MEP. Ex.P.4 Office copy of the legal notice dated 25.06.2024 with postal receipt.
Ex.P.5 Undelivered postal cover. Ex.P.6 Screen shots of the emails exchanged. Ex.P.7 Certificate u/S 63(4)(C) of BSA, 2023. Ex.P.8 Non starter report in PIM 2638/2024. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT NIL (ARJUN. S. MALLUR) LXXXV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
8