Bangalore District Court
M S Avion Network vs Vinay M Avalakki on 1 April, 2026
1 O.S.3518/2017
KABC010127852017
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE ( CCH - 02 ) AT BENGALURU
Present : Sri. B.P. DEVAMANE, LL.M.,
I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Dated this the 1st day of April 2026
O.S. 3518 / 2017
PLAINTIFF : M/s. Avion Network,
# 174/40, Lucky Paradise,
Jaya Nagara,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
Represented by its
Authorized Partner.
(By Sri. G.A. Mithun, Adv.)
- VS -
DEFENDANTS : 1. Vinay M. Avalakki,
S/o Mahesh K. Avalakki,
Aged about 42 years,
2. Mahesh K. Avalakki,
S/o Krishnamurthy Avalakki,
Aged about 70 years,
2 O.S.3518/2017
Both are Managing Partners of
M/s. Gen Mot Coils,
# 29-B, Bidadi Industrial Area,
BIDADI - 562 109,
Ramanagara District.
( By Sri. Sriharsha R. Londhe, Adv. )
Date of Institution of the suit 30.05.2017
Nature of the Suit (suit for pronote,
Suit for declaration & possession, Suit for recovery of money
Suit for injunction, etc.):
Date of the commencement of 17.03.2021
recording of the Evidence:
Date on which the Judgment was 01.04.2026
pronounced:
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration:
08 10 01
( B.P. DEVAMANE )
I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
*****
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of money of Rs.3,26,413/- from defendant Nos.1 & 2 along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of suit till realization.
3 O.S.3518/20172. Case of the plaintiff in brief is that defendant Nos.1 & 2 are the partners of Gen Mot Coils owned by defendants and defendants are customers obtaining services from plaintiff in travel services towards the business related to travel for a long time. Defendants being partners of the business entity Gen Mot Coils have also obtaining all their personal & family members related travel bookings from the plaintiff. Gen Mot Coils used to make payments for business related travel and also for personal travel. The payments made by them were appropriated to the ledger account. Plaintiff used to provide services to defendants on an understanding that defendants shall make payments against the outstanding amounts from time to time. Defendant Nos.1 & 2 have outstanding dues of Rs.3,26,413/-. Plaintiff sent its representatives to defendants demanding outstanding amounts on several occasions. Defendants promised to make payment on several occasions, but failed to carry out thier obligation. Defendants owe said sum towards personal travel of the partners of Gen Mot Coils viz., Mr. Vinay M. Avalakki & Mr. Mahesh M. Avalakki. On several occasions plaintiff requested defendants to settle the dues. However, under one or other pretext they have postponing the same and continuing to obtain services for their business related travel. Plaintiff considering the long-standing relationship with defendants, did not take any action by considering the representations that they would clear said outstanding dues. Plaintiff continued to provide services on good faith & goodwill to defendants and to its proprietors personal travel.
4 O.S.3518/20172(a). Now, defendants have been taking a new stand that they were not satisfied with the services and as such defendants are refusing to pay said amount and trying to unjustly enrich themselves by utilizing the services and undertaking the travel. On 13.04.2017 plaintiff issued demand notice to defendants asking them to clear the entire outstanding due of Rs.3,26,413/- as full & final settlement without any interest, if payment is made within seven days of the receipt of notice. Though said notice was served on defendants, but no payments were made. Defendants replied through reply notices dated 21.04.2017 & 22.04.2017 admitting the amount of Rs.3,26,413/- and claim that the amount is old and as such defendants shall not make payment. Hence, plaintiff filed this suit.
3. After service of summons, defendant Nos.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed common Written Statement denying entire case of plaintiff. Para-wise contents of plaint are denied. It is denied that Gen Mot Coils are the customers of plaintiff obtaining travel services towards their business related travel for long time. It is denied that defendant Nos.1 & 2 have an outstanding due of Rs.3,26,413/-. It is contended that the demand notice dated 13.04.2017 issued by plaintiff is suitably replied by defendants. It is denied that in the reply notices dated 21.04.2017 & 27.04.2017 defendant Nos.1 & 2 admitted their liability for Rs.3,26,413/-. The suit is barred by limitation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Court has framed following issues : -
5 O.S.3518/2017ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants were availed the service of travel booking from time to time and use to make payment on credit basis ?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are due to Rs.3,26,413/- ?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit claim of Rs.3,26,413/- from the defendants together with interest ?
4. What Decree or Order ?
Addl. Issue :
1. Whether the defendants prove that the suit is barred by law of limitation ?
5. In order to prove the case, Partner of plaintiff firm examined as PW1 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to P9. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined as DW1 and got marked the document at Ex.D1.
6. Heard arguments. Perused the material on record.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under : -
Issue Nos.1 TO 3 : In the Negative
Addl. Issue : In the Affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per the final order,
for the following : -
6 O.S.3518/2017
REASONS
8. ISSUE Nos.1 to 3 & Addl. Issue : All these issues are interconnected with each other, hence they are taken together for discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
9. It is the case of plaintiff that plaintiff is a firm providing travel services to defendants. Gen Mot Coils are the customers of plaintiff and obtaining travel services towards business related travel for long time. Ex.P8 is the ledger account statement from 31.08.2010 to 15.10.2015. As per Ex.P8 the outstanding due as on 15.10.2015 is Rs.63,753/-. There is another ledger account statement in the name of Vinay Avalakki from 30.04.2008 to 12.02.2015 as per which there is no any dues from Vinay Avalakki.
10. There is another statement produced in the name of Bengaluru Coil - Mahesh AK from 12.04.2007 till 05.02.2010 as per which the outstanding due as on 05.02.2010 is Rs.3,26,413/-. This statement is got marked as Ex.P9(a). As per Ex.P9(a) it is in the name of Bengaluru Coil - Mahesh AK and it is not in the name of Gen Mot Coils as claimed by plaintiff. There is another statement produced in the name of Bengaluru Coil Manufacturer from 02.04.2007 till 26.10.2011. As per this statement, the closing balance is 'Nil' as on 31.10.2011.
11. PW1 in his cross-examination stated that in Ex.P9 statement all the transactions between plaintiff & defendants are entered. Except Ex.P9, there is no any other document to prove 7 O.S.3518/2017 the transaction between plaintiff & defendants. Ex.P8 statement is pertaining to Gen Mot Coils customer number G-24 is regarding Rs.63,753/- regarding which small cause case in SC No.808/2013 was registered and said case came to be dismissed. PW1 states that in the year 2016 the amount was due from defendants. Relevant portion of cross-examination of PW1 reads thus:
ನನ್ನ ಮತ್ತು ಪತಿವಾದಿಯ ಮಧ್ಯ 1998 ರಿಂದ ವ್ಯವಹಾರ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಈ ಹಣ ನನಗೆ ಕಡೆಯದಾಗಿ 2016 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಬರಬೇಕಾಗಿತ್ತು .
Thus, as per the evidence of PW1, the amount claimed in this suit was due in the year 2016. PW1 further states that as per Ex.P9 from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 the amount was due from defendants. Relevant portion of cross-examination of PW1 reads thus:
ನಿಪಿ.9 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಇರುವ ದಿಃ 01.04.2009 ರಿಂದ 31.03.2010 ರ ವರೆಗೆ ನೀಡಿರುವ ಲಡ್ಜರ್ ಸೇಟ್ಮೆಂಟ್ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ನಾನು ಈ ದಾವೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹಣ ಬರಬೇಕಾಗಿ ಕೇಳಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಸದರಿ ದಾಖಲೆಯ ಪುಟವನ್ನು ನಿಪಿ.9ಎ ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು.
As per this evidence of PW1, he is claiming this amount as per statement at Ex.P9(a). On perusal of Ex.P9(a) it reveals that as on 05.02.2010 there was outstanding of Rs.3,26,413/- from the Bengaluru Coil - AK Mahesh ledger account. As per the case of plaintiff, he is claiming amount from Gen Mot Coils and not Bengaluru Coils. As per Ex.P9(a) this account pertains to Bengaluru Coil - AK Mahesh and this amount is due as on 05.02.2010.8 O.S.3518/2017
12. Except Ex.P9(a) statement produced by plaintiff, there is no any other document on record to prove the case of plaintiff. Ex.P9(a) belongs to the Bengaluru Coil - AK Mahesh ledger account and it does not belongs to Gen Mot Coils against whose partners plaintiff is claiming the amount.
13. As per the plaint, the cause of action to the suit arose on 13.04.2017 when he issued demand notice as per Ex.P1. As per Ex.P9(a) outstanding amount is due on 05.02.2010. If Ex.P9(a) is considered as the base for claim of this amount by plaintiff, then the cause of action ought to have been shown in the year 2010. But, plaintiff averred that cause of action to the suit arose on 13.04.2017. Plaintiff averred that defendants replied to his notice admitting the claim. The reply notices are produced at Ex.P2 & Ex.P3. Ex.P2 is issued by AK Mahesh on behalf of Gen Mot Coils wherein it is stated that they have forwarded the notice to their legal advisors and he has further stated that "In the meanwhile we would like to bring to your notice that the amount said to be due is more than seven years old and hence the matter is barred by limitation ." This statement made in the notice Ex.P2 cannot be considered as admission by defendants, as it is stated that the amount said to be due is more than seven years old.
14. Ex.P3 is the reply notice issued by advocate of defendants wherein he has clearly denied regarding the transaction and he has also stated that the claim is barred by limitation. Hence this cannot be treated as admission by defendants. As discussed above, as per Ex.P9(a) the alleged 9 O.S.3518/2017 claim of plaintiff is due in the year 2010 regarding which plaintiff is claiming by filing this suit in the year 2017, after seven years of the alleged claim. Thus, the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation. Plaintiff has clearly stated that except Ex.P9 there is no any other document to prove his claim. If as per Ex.P9(a) defendants were due in the year 2010 of this claim amount, thereafter also there was transaction between plaintiff & defendants and why that amount is not adjusted or carried farword in the future transactions i.e., after the year 2010, is not explained. Thus, plaintiff failed to prove that he has legally recoverable dues from defendants as on the date of filing of the suit. Accordingly, I answer Issue Nos.1 to 3 in the Negative and Additional Issue in the Affirmative.
15. ISSUE No.4 : In view of the aforesaid discussions, I proceed to pass the following : -
ORDER The suit is dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
Dictated to Senior Sheristedar (now under instructions to continue the work as Stenographer Grade I) directly on computer, computerized by him, revised, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 1st day of April 2026. Digitally signed by B P BP DEVAMANE DEVAMANE Date:
2026.04.02 13:50:47 +0530 ( B.P. DEVAMANE ) I Addl. City Civil And Sessions Judge (CCH-02), Bengaluru City.10 O.S.3518/2017
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF :
PW1 : C.N. Nagendra DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF :
Ex.P1 : Legal notice Ex.P1(a) : Postal receipt Ex.P1(b) : Postal acknowledgment Ex.P2 & P3 : Reply notices Ex.P4 : Partnership deed Ex.P5 : Variation deed Ex.P6 : Registration certificate Ex.P7 : Register of Firms Ex.P8 & P9 : Account ledger extracts
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS :
DW1 : Vinay M. Avalakki DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS :
Ex.D1 : Copy of resolution
I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.