Karnataka High Court
M/S Euphoros Ltd vs Sri Gireesh U D on 20 November, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48024
CRP No. 273 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 273 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
M/S EUPHOROS LTD
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR,
MR. THIRUKKUMARAN S,
R/AT NO.SUITE 3A, 3RD FLOOR
NO. 21, MES ROAD,
MUTHYALA NAGRA,
BANGALORE - 560 054.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. R THARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI GIREESH U D
S/O DEVARU BHAT U.N.
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
NO.3609, 2ND FLOOR,
Digitally 2ND STAGE, 3RD CROSS ROAD,
signed by
MALATESH SUBRAMANYA NAGARA,
KC BANGALORE - 560021.
Location: ...RESPONDENT
HIGH (BY SRI TIMMANNA BHAT DEVATHE, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE
KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.10.2019 PASSED IN
SC.No.1685/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL AND
ACMM COURT (SCCH 18) BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING
THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48024
CRP No. 273 of 2022
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Smt. R. Thara, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Timmanna Bhat Devathe, learned counsel for respondent.
2. The defendant in S.C.No.1685/2018 is the revision petitioner challenging the decree passed in the said suit for recovery of Rs.1,84,715/- with interest at the rate 6% per annum.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
3.1. A suit came to be filed by the respondent/plaintiff contended that he was working as Senior Manager in defendant company which was in the business of sale of CCTV cameras.
The job confirmation letter is marked at Ex.P5, shows that he was the permanent employee of the defendant company and he worked there upto 23.05.2017 and it was agreed that he would be paid salary of Rs.4,21,044/- per annum.
-3-NC: 2025:KHC:48024 CRP No. 273 of 2022 HC-KAR
4. Since the arrears of salary was not paid, legal notice was cast by the plaintiff which was served on the defendant company vide Ex.P4. Pay slip was placed before the Court vide Ex.P6, which would show about the monthly salary and statement of accounts for having received the salary from the defendant company and also showing the arrears.
5. Since there was no compliance to the callings of the legal notice, plaintiff filed suit for recovery of the arrears of salary.
6. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint averments.
7. It is also contended in the written statement that there was a violation of the conditions of appointment and therefore there was a warning issued to the plaintiff by the defendant and despite the same, there was no improvement in the conduct of the plaintiff which ultimately resulted in removing the plaintiff from the company and thus sought for dismissal of the suit.
8. Trial Judge after recording the evidence of the plaintiff, noted that there was no evidence nor any documents -4- NC: 2025:KHC:48024 CRP No. 273 of 2022 HC-KAR have been placed to establish that there was a violation of the condition by the plaintiff and thus decreed the suit as prayed for.
9. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant is before this Court in this revision on the following grounds:
That the impugned order passed by the Lower Court is contrary to law and evidence on record.
That the Ld. Trial Court erred in entertaining the objection filed to the I.A. filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act belatedly especially post addressing of arguments on the main review petition itself.
That the Ld. Trial Court ought to have considered the fact that the delay in filing the Review Petition was only 114 days and not huge and was substantiated elaborately vide the affidavit filed in I.A.No.2/2020 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The Ld. Trial Court ought to have considered the fact that the Respondent never intended to question the delay occasioned seriously, and the objections filed belatedly 4 months post completion of arguments on the review petition itself was only an afterthought and as such the approach of the Court below is erroneous and hence the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:48024 CRP No. 273 of 2022 HC-KAR That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the breakup of limitation wherein admittedly the suit bearing S.C.No.1685/2018 was decreed on 21.10.2019 and the period of limitation to file the Review Petition was 30 days and that the Petitioner having filed the review petition on 22.06.2020 was filed with a delay of 114 days as subtracting the 30 days period from 21.10.2019 till 20.11.2019 till 14.03.2020 as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 23.03.2020 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No(s).3/2020 reported under 2020 SCC OnLine SC 343 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 R/w Article 141 of the Constitution ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or special laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed.
That the Ld. Trial Court has failed consider that in response to the allegation raised by the Respondent regarding him having intimated the Petitioner vide his Emails in the month of December 2019 and January 2020, the petitioner reiterates that he did not check his emails as he was on a tour during the months of December 2019 and January 2020 and post his return he having known about the decree and also having accessed his emails had immediately applied for -6- NC: 2025:KHC:48024 CRP No. 273 of 2022 HC-KAR certified copies and other documents in the Month of February 2020 itself and by the time the said documents were made available, the ongoing pandemic had begun and as such could only contact his advocate and give instructions in filing of the present petition in the month of June 2020.
That the Ld. Trial Court has failed consider that pursuant to filing of the petition the service of the notice on the respondent was complete and was recorded by the trial Court vide its order dated 22.09.2020. Pursuant to it the stood matter adjourned to 16.10.2020 for the appearance of Respondent, and subsequently the Respondent had entered into appearance on that date and the Hon'ble Court was pleased to adjourn the matter to 18.11.2020 for filing of objections. Thereafter the Respondent filed his objections on 18.11.2020 and subsequently the matter stood adjourned to the next date of hearing. As the objections were filed by the respondent the trial Court was pleased to post the case for arguments wherein the Petitioner on 20.01.2021 filed the Written Arguments with list of citations. Thereafter arguments were addressed and heard by this Hon'ble court on 06.02.2021, 25.02.2021 and on 07.04.2021. That post filing of objections and addressing arguments on the entire review petition itself on various dates, the Respondent rather strangely made a request to file objections to I.A.No.2/2020 filed under Section 5 of the -7- NC: 2025:KHC:48024 CRP No. 273 of 2022 HC-KAR Limitation Act and accordingly filed the objections on 03.08.2021 post addressing the arguments on the main petition itself. In this aforesaid factual backdrop, the Respondent having knowledge about the instant review petition as early as on 22.09.2020 itself and he having entered appearance on 16.10.2020 and filed objections on 18.11.2020 itself was obligated to explain to the Trial Court as to the reason for filing the objections belatedly that too after more than 9 months and he before seeking explanation on each day's delay was bound to answer the Trial Court as to what prompted him to file the objections post completion of arguments itself. The said practice of filing an objection to an interlocutory application post filing of objections to the main petition and the arguments thereafter is unbeknownst to the standard tenets of procedural law and the conduct of the Respondent only inferred that the respondent was adopting dilatory tactics to protract the proceedings.
That the Ld. Trial Court failed consider that Petitioner had elaborately explained the factum of delay and has in support relied upon a few authorities in the Written Arguments vide Para's 7 to 15.
That the Ld. Trial Court failed consider the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhivchandra Shankar More v. Balu Gangaram More, (2019) 6 SCC 387 wherein at page 389 it -8- NC: 2025:KHC:48024 CRP No. 273 of 2022 HC-KAR was held as thus "Ss. 3 and 5 - Bar of limitation - Objectives of rules of limitation- Sufficient cause for cordoning delay- Interpretation of - Held, rules of limitation not meant to destroy rights of parties They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek remedy promptly - During efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy -Unending period of launching remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy - Law of limitation thus founded on public policy - Further held, sufficient cause should be given liberal construction so as to advance sustainable justice when there is no inaction, no negligence nor want of bona Aides could be imputed to party seeking condonation of delay - This phrase is elastic enough to enable courts to apply law in meaningful manner which serves ends of justice - No hard-and-fast rule has been or can be laid down for deciding applications for condonation of delay but over the years it is observed that liberal approach needs to be adopted in such matters so that substantive rights of parties are not defeated only on ground of delay Doctrines and Maxims Interest Reipublicae Up Sit Finis Litium - It is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation".
The Ld. Trial Court committed an error in entertaining the suit without adverting to the fact that as per Exhibit P-1 i.e. the employment -9- NC: 2025:KHC:48024 CRP No. 273 of 2022 HC-KAR agreement produced by the Plaintiff the suit was not maintainable in view of the arbitration clause which specified settling of disputes vide Arbitration.
The Ld. Trial Court committed an error in trying and decreeing the suit without adverting to the fact that Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 specifically barred any court in trying any dispute when there was an arbitration agreement.
The impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court is unsustainable in light of the provision of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which specifically states that "A judicial authority, before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming through or under him, so applies not later than the date of submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, then, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of the Supreme Court or any Court, refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that prima facie no valid arbitration agreement exists"
That the Respondent having relied upon the as per Exhibit P-1 i.e. the employment agreement, to stake his claim for recovery of arrears of salary cannot approbate or reprobate by discarding the other portion of the agreement which mandated
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48024 CRP No. 273 of 2022 HC-KAR settling of disputes through arbitration. It is well settled law that a document has to read as a whole and portions of it cannot be discarded at the whims and fancies of a litigant to only retain the beneficial part and as such on a preliminary point of jurisdiction itself the Review Petition deserved to be allowed by dismissing the suit as being not maintainable.
That the Ld. Trial Court failed consider that the when a clause in an agreement or contract stipulates recourse under Arbitration for settlement of disputes then the same has to be adhered to otherwise the very purpose of the legislative enactment will stand defeated rendering the Act otiose.
The impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court is erroneous in light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Anand Gajapati Raju v. P.V.G. Raju reported in (2000) 4 SCC 539 wherein it has held that the language of Section 8 is peremptory and it is obligatory for the Court to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of Arbitration Agreement.
The Ld. Trial Court committed an error in decreeing the suit solely on the basis of pleadings and evidence rendered by the Plaintiff/Respondent without applying its independent judicial mind to the facts and evidence in the suit.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48024 CRP No. 273 of 2022 HC-KAR The impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court erroneous in light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Chander Manchanda and Another Vs. Janki Manchanda, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 699 wherein it has held that "On the failure of the defendants and their Counsel to appear in Court on the adjourned date of hearing of the suit its disposal under Order VIII, Rule 10 CPC is, therefore, to be treated as a disposal in accordance with Order XVII, Rule 2. An ex-parte decree passed under Order VIII, Rule 10 is not to be treated differently from any other decree ex-parte liable to be set aside under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC"
The impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court erroneous in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Concord Of India Insurance Co Ltd vs Nirmala Devi And Ors reported in (1979) 4 SCC 365 wherein it was held that " "I am of the view that legal advice given by the members of the legal profession may sometimes be wrong even as pronouncement on questions of law by courts are some times wrong. An amount of latitude is expected in such cases for, to err is human and lay men, as litigants are, may legitimately lean on expert counsel in legal as in other departments, without probing the professional competence of the advice. The court must of course, see whether in such cases there is
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48024 CRP No. 273 of 2022 HC-KAR any taint of mala fides or element of recklessness or ruse".
The impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court erroneous in light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.N. Ramappa Gowda v. C.C. Chandregowda, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 265 wherein it has held that "If plaint indicates disputed questions of fact, court should require plaintiff to lead evidence, and on independent examination thereof, should it pass a judgment and decree".
The Ld. Trial Court erred in not appreciating the fact that the Respondent herein had breached the terms of his employment agreement by leaking confidential information pertaining to the Appellant Company to its Competitors.
The Ld. Trial Court erred in not considering that vide letter issued to the Respondent on 01.06.2017 the Appellant had sought explanation regarding the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him for committing breach of employment agreement in leaking confidential information pertaining to the Appellant Company to its Competitors.
The Ld. Trial Court erred in not taking judicial notice of the fact the three (3) months prior notice had to be given by any employee prior to resigning from the Company, admittedly the Respondent having tendered his resignation on
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48024 CRP No. 273 of 2022 HC-KAR 23.05.2017 without giving three months notice and subsequently he having ceased to work thereafter was disentitled to claim arrears of salary or any dues.
The Ld. Trial Court erred in not deciding the suit on the basis of appreciation of facts, materials on record and evidence.
The findings rendered by the Ld. Trial Court suffers from illegalities and infirmities and is not based on conjectures and surmises."
10. Smt. Thara, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contended that there was no sufficient opportunity for the defendant to contest the suit and decree has acted harsh on the defendant and as on the date of passing of the decree, company was not in existence and therefore sought for allowing the revision petition.
11. Per contra, Sri Thimmanna Bhat Devathe, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supports the impugned judgment.
12. He would further contend that the defence was as vague as anything and without there being any proof, the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48024 CRP No. 273 of 2022 HC-KAR learned trial Judge was bound to decree the suit which has been done in the impugned judgment and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
13. He would also contend that before the trial Court a review petition came to be filed to review the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge and said review petition also dismissed and therefore, the present petition needs to be dismissed.
14. Having heard the arguments of both sides this court perused the material on record meticulously.
15. On such perusal of the material on record, plaintiff being the permanent employee of the defendant company is established by the plaintiff by placing Ex.P5 on record.
16. Monthly salary is also established by placing the pay slip on record. Statement of accounts filed by the plaintiff also shows that there are arrears of salary payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.
17. Legal notice issued prior to institution of suit is duly served on the defendant and there was no reply. Therefore, suit came to be filed by the plaintiff.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48024 CRP No. 273 of 2022 HC-KAR
18. Before the Trial Court, plaintiff established his appointment and arrears of salary by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record.
19. As against the evidence placed on record, there was no contra evidence placed by the defendant to establish the defence that there was a violation of the service conditions which ultimately resulted in termination of the plaintiff.
20. Under such circumstances, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff is just and proper.
21. A feeble attempt is no doubt made by the revision petitioner stating that as on the date of passing of the decree, company was not in existence. That would not act as a hindrance for the Trial Court to decree the suit and the defendant to honour the decree. Moreover, defendant is a closely held private limited company.
22. Under such circumstances, it is for the plaintiff to work out remedy in the execution as to from whom the amount is to be recovered.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48024 CRP No. 273 of 2022 HC-KAR
23. Suffice to say that the decree passed by the trial Court is not suffering from any legal infirmities which would call for interference in this revisional Jurisdiction.
24. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) Revision petition is dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
MR