Bangalore District Court
M/S.Rajesh Export Ltd vs M/S.Sai Krrishna Jewellers on 17 February, 2023
KABC030576672015
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 17th day of February 2023
Present:
SMT SUJATA SIDAGOUDA PATIL,
B.SC.,LL.B.
XXV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bangalore.
CC NO. 20673/2015
Complainant : M/s.Rajesh Export Ltd,
Company incorporated under Company's
Act
And having its office at No.4, Batavia
Chambers,
Kumara Krupa Road , Kumara Park East
Bangalore 560001.
Represented by its Authorized
Representative
Mr.B.G.Mallikarjun.
(By SKK Advocate )
V/s
Accused : 1.M/s.Sai Krrishna Jewellers
Partnership Firm
Having its office at NO.146,
KHB Colony, 5th main, 5th block,
Koramangala. Bangalore 560 095.
Rep. By its Partners.
2
CC NO. 20673/2015
A.2: Sri.K.V.Sathyanarayana Babu,
M/s.Sai Krrishna Jewelers,
Partnership Firm
Having its office at NO.146,
KHB Colony, 5th main, 5th block,
Koramangala. Bangalore 560095.
A.3: Sri.D.K.Kaushik
M/s.Sai Krrishna Jewelers,
Partnership Firm
Having its office at NO.146,
KHB Colony, 5th main, 5th block,
Koramangala. Bangalore 560095.
A.4: Sri.D.N.Krishnamurthy
M/s.Sai Krrishna Jewelers,
Partnership Firm
Having its office at NO.146,
KHB Colony, 5th main, 5th block,
Koramangala. Bangalore 560095.
A.5: Sri.K.S.Abhishek Babu
M/s.Sai Krrishna Jewelers,
Partnership Firm
Having its office at NO.146,
KHB Colony, 5th main, 5th block,
Koramangala. Bangalore 560095.
A.6: Sri.K.S.Abhiram Babu
M/s.Sai Krrishna Jewelers,
Partnership Firm
Having its office at NO.146,
KHB Colony, 5th main, 5th block,
Koramangala. Bangalore 560095.
1. Date of Commencement 09.06.2015
of offence
2. Date of report of offence 17.08.2015
3. Name of the M/s. Rajesh Exports Ltd.,
Complainant
3
CC NO. 20673/2015
4. Date of recording of 03.04.2018
evidence
5. Date of closing of 14.11.2022
evidence
6. Offence Complained of 138 N.I.Act.
7. Opinion of the Judge Accused are Acquitted
8. Complainant Sri SKK
Represented by
9. Accused defence by Sri - RRDG
JUDGMENT
The complainant filed the complaint under Sec.200 Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.138 Negotiable Instruments Act (For short N.I.Act).
2. The brief facts of the complainant case is as under:
The complainant company is engaged in the business of gold jewellery and gold bullion. The accused were interested in storing and selling the gold jewellery and gold bullion of the complainant company and entered into an agreement with the company dt.20.04.2011. Pursuant to said agreement, the accused were receiving gold jewllery and gold bullion . As per the terms of agreement the accused were required to sell the jewelery and gold bullion provided by the complainant and the sale proceeds were to be deposited into the bank account of the complainant.4
CC NO. 20673/2015 Accused No.2 and 3 had issued a cheque towards discharge of debt/liability of the complainant and a declaration for having issued the said cheque was also provided by the accused. The accused in the declaration had also undertaken to keep in operation and active the bank account with Dhanalaxmi Bank until realization of said cheque..
Accused No.1 represented by its partners accused No.2 and
3 had issued a cheque in favour of the complainant bearing No.081267 dt.09.06.2015 for Rs.4,84,00,000/ drawn on Dhanalaxmi Bank, Koramangala Branch, Bangalore. As per the promise and assurance given by the accused, the cheque bearing No.081267 dt.09.06.2015 for Rs.4,84,00,000/ was presented for realization through the complainant's banker ie Canara Bank, Overseas Branch, Bangalore 560001. The said cheque returned unrealised for the reason "Funds Insufficient". Consequently, the complainant issued a demand notice dt.04.07.2015 to accused No.1 to 6 for payment of outstanding due amount covered under the cheque. The accused received the demand notice but replied with untenable defence. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the complaint against the accused. Hence, this complaint.
5
CC NO. 20673/2015
3. After filing of the complaint, cognizance taken and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant. The complainant has complied all the statutory requirements under Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Thereafter, the case is registered against the accused persons and summons issued. The accused persons appeared with the Advocate and released on bail. Copy of the complaint furnished to the accused. Plea recorded and read out to the accused persons. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In support of the complainant's case, the Authorized Representative of the complainant company got examined as PW1 got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.25. After closure of the evidence of the complainant, 313 Cr.P.C statement of the accused has been recorded. The accused denied the incriminating evidence placed by the complainant. Accused No. 3 got examined as DW1 and Ex.D1 to Ex.D.11 have been marked on behalf of the accused.
Heard arguments and perused the material on record.
5. I have gone through the decisions produced by both the parties.
6. The complainant has produced the below mentioned citations :
6
CC NO. 20673/2015
1. ILR 2018 KAR 4775 ( V.V.Cheri V/s.Meenakshi Developers )
2. 2017 SAR(Crl) 105 SC (Sampelly Satyanarayan Rao V/s.Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd, )
3. AIR 2022 SC 147 (Sunil Thodi & Ors V/s.State of Gujarath and Ors )
7. The learned counsel for the accused has relied on the following citations:
1. 2005 Crl.L.J 4072 (Goa Handicrafts Rural and Small V/s. Samudra Ropes Pvt ltd, & Anr )
2. 2003 (1) BC 507 (Manoharlal V/s.R Sundara Rajan and Ors)
3. 2000 (2) ALD Cri. 283 (Smt.K.Janaki Manoharan & Anr V/s.Gayathri Sugar Complex ) 5, AIR 2008 SC 1325 (Krishnajanardhan Bhat V/s.Dattatraya G.Hegde)
6. 2001 Crl.L.J 4311 (Hiten Sagan and Anr V/s IMC Limited and Anr)
7. 1995 Crl.LJ 560 (Sri Taher N Khambati V/s. Vinayak Enterprises)
8. Crl.A.No.251/2000 Honble Madras High Court (P Jayaraj V/s R Saroja )
9. Honble Madras High Court Judgment (Sadasivan V/s.S.Chitralekha disposed on 22.2.2006)
10. Jhonble Madras High Court Judgment (Crl A NO.21/2003 Eeshwaran V/s J A Abdul Hameed ) 7 CC NO. 20673/2015
11. Judgment of Honble Apex Court in Crl.A No.1012/1999 (M.S.Narayana Menon V/s.Sate of Kerala )
12. ILR 2009 KAR 2331 (B Indramma V/s.Sri Eshwar)
8. On the basis of the contents of the complaint the following points arise for my consideration. :
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused issued a cheque bearing No.081267 dt.09.06.2015 for Rs.4,84,00,000/ drawn on Dhanalaxmi Bank, Koramangala Branch, Bangalore in favour of the complainant towards discharge of legal liability ?
2. Whether the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons committed the offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act?
3. What order ?
9. My findings to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1&2 In the Negative.
Point.No.3 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
10. Point Nos.1 & 2: Both these points are interconnected with each other. In order to avoid repetition of facts, both the points have been taken up together for consideration. 8
CC NO. 20673/2015
11. That M/s.Sai Krishna Jewellers was due to the complainant company of a sum of Rs.4,84,00,000/ . The accused have undertaken to pay the debt/liability of M/s.Sai Krishna Jewellers due to the complainant, accordingly, provided a declaration and issued a cheque bearing No. No.081267 dt.09.06.2015 for Rs.4,84,00,000/ drawn on Dhanalaxmi Bank, Koramangala Branch, Bangalore in favour of the complainant company. The accused had issued the cheque towards the discharge of debt/liability of the complainant and a declaration to that effect. As per the promise and assurance given by the accused, the cheque was presented for realization through the complainant's banker ie Canara Bank, Overseas Branch, Bangalore 560001. The said cheque returned unrealised for the reason "Funds Insufficient". Consequently, the complainant issued a demand notice dt.04.07.2015 to the accused for payment of outstanding due amount covered under the cheque. The accused after receipt of legal notice have replied with vague reasons, but, not made payment. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the complaint against the accused. 9
CC NO. 20673/2015
12. In order to create the legal presumption as per Sec.139 of N.I.Act, the complainant company examined its authorized representative as PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.25. Ex.P1 is the C.C. of the Certificate of Incorporation. Ex.P.2 is the C.C.of the Board Resolution. Ex.P.3 is the Franchisee Agreement. Ex.P.4 is the Declaration. Ex.P.5 is the cheque. Ex.P.6 is the cheque return memo. Ex.P.7 is the office copy of the legal notice. Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.13 are the postal receipts. Ex.P14 is the copy of the complaint. Ex.P.15 to Ex.P.20 are the replies of the postal authority. Ex.P.21 reply notice. Ex.P.22 is the Statement of account of accused. Ex.P.23 is the Statement of 22 carat gold for the period from 02.04.2012 to 31.03.2020. Ex.P.24 is the statement of 24 carat gold from 02.02.2012 to 31.03.2020. Ex.P.25 is the Consolidated Statement.
13. During cross examination of PW 1, the accused have taken specific defence that after entering the franchisee agreement with the complainant accused No.2 to 6 independently issued six cheques towards security purpose for a sum of Rs.4,84,00,000/ each on 9.6.2015. Apart it further it has been suggested that all the accused have given declaration statement in favour of the complainant company. Complainant 10 CC NO. 20673/2015 company is engaged in business of gold jewellery and gold bullion and accused company agreed to store and sell the gold jewellery and gold bullion, accordingly executed agreement on 20.4.2011 and its duration was of 3 years period. Accused No.1 is a partnership firm represented by Accused NO.2 to 6. Further it is suggested that they have reputed business of gold jewellery from their forefathers time with more than 150 years experience. Looking to the well reputed business of the accused firm, the complainant company who runs their jewellery business under the name and style of Shubh Jewellers satisfied the business reputation of accused and entered into said franchisee agreement and taken six cheques from accused No.1 to 6 for amount of Rs.4,84,00,000/each for valuation of 23 kgs 22 carrat gold jewellery for security purpose. Apart from above said six cheques, the complainant company took original title deeds along with registered mortgage deeds from the accused and their family members. It is suggested that in order to run the jewellery business as per the terms and conditions mentioned under the franchisee agreement, the accused have taken show room at Koramangala area at the option of the complainant company by investing huge amount towards alteration of the show room 11 CC NO. 20673/2015 conveniently. As per the defence, they have invested Rs.18 lakhs towards deposit concerned in favour of the premises owner apart it they have given deposit of Rs.23 Lakhs in favour of the complainant company for security purpose. Since the date of agreement till month of December, 2014, they have regularly transferred the sale amount in favour of the complainant company's account regularly. It is further suggested that some of the golden jewellery have been returned to the complainant as per the customers complaint. In those events accused have returned such ornaments in favour of the complainant company but the complainant company has not made payment of the valuation amount which was paid by the customers. Under such situation in order to maintain good reputation in the society, the accused made payment from their pockets. But all these suggestion have been straight away denied by the witness.
14. Further it is suggested that at the end of agreement period accused were to pay sum of Rs.95 Lakhs as per statement of account. At that time the accused requested to set right the premises deposit amount and security deposit amount including the margin amount to be paid by the complainant company to the accused. They were ready to pay the balance amount, but the 12 CC NO. 20673/2015 complainant company has not agreed to deduct the same and made claim of entire Rs.95 Lakhs amount.
15. Apart from present cases, the complainant company has filed another two complaints bearing CC NO.4261/2016 and CC.NO.4262/2016 against the mother of the accused Smt.Shobha Bhawani and her husband Daulath Krishna wherein the accused has been acquitted. Further it is defended that in the month of December, 2014 when the accused approached the complainant company by stating that the business is not well running and intended to terminate the franchise agreement at that time the complainant company has blocked the transaction account of the accused. Immediately, they made claim of entire security amount . Thereafter they presented two cheques out of above said eight cheques which were given towards security. Thereafter filed present two cases.
16. Further it is contended that during the pendency of the case when accused insisted to produce ledger book sof account of franchisee business from commencement of the agreement till the date available, at that time the complainant company successfully avoided. Thereafter court passed an order to produce the same. At that time on 27.01.2021 they produced the Ledger of the books of 13 CC NO. 20673/2015 accounts along with 65 (B) Certificate which have been duly marked as Ex.P.22 to P.25. But during cross examination PW 1 has deposed that they have taken Ex.P.22 to Ex.P.24 account extracts with the help of technician by name Sabarjith Mukherjee residing at Calcutta. But, after issuance of summons no such person has been traced out. Therefore, in absence of compliance of Sec.65(b) of Evidence Act, the documents marked as Ex.P.22 to Ex.P.25 cannot be taken into consideration.
17. On the contrary during defence evidence, accused has produced web copies of mail communication including the authorized copy of ledger extract of the account of the accused. Further they produced the EDC settlement slips and the bank statement which have been marked under Ex.D1 to Ex.D.10.
18. During defense evidence accused No.3 who got examined as DW 1 admits Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.5 including their signatures. DW1 stated that the account statements produced by both parties ie Ex.P.22 and Ex.D.5, out of them in Ex.P.22, the complainant company has erased some of the payment entries of the accused. Therefore Ex.P.22 is nothing but created document. Further he admits that from the date of franchisee agreement till ending of the business, accused firm has received 106.4 kgs of 14 CC NO. 20673/2015 golden ornaments from the complainant company and it has been shown in detail as per Ex.D.5 and entire debits have been duly shown in the debit column. It is specifically suggested that as per Ex.P25, he has sold 25 Kgs 592 Gms and 88 kgs 150 gms of Golden ornaments and he was liable to make payment of Rs.24,53,43,469/ apart it he was also liable to pay Rs.6,43,35,798/ with regard to 24 carrat sold gold items . Entirely after deducting all the dues of accused, it has been suggested that they were liable to pay Rs.5,22,87,490/ but all above suggestion have been denied by the witness.
19. As per the pleading and evidence placed by both the parties it discloses that on 20.4.2011 the franchisee agreement has been executed. Accordingly, accused agreed to sell gold ornaments and services of the complainant exclusively and not of other company's products. The show room was fixed at the option of the complainant company at Koramanagala. Further it is observed that as per the agreement complainant company was at liberty to withdraw all or any part of the products at any time. From 20.4.2011 for 3 years period was stated to be "Lock In Period " during which either party is not suppose to terminate the agreement. Apart it the accused shall allow any official of the 15 CC NO. 20673/2015 complainant company to check and verify the products and services by entering the show room which was run under the name "Shubh Jewellers". At the time of agreement, the accused shall pay the refundable deposit for Rs.23 Lakhs and every sale proceed ie cash collection shall be deposited to the complainant company's account within 24 hrs period. Party shall maintain stock register including repair process and to return the particular samples after repairs to the customer by the complainant company.
20. Further accused are responsible for up keeping replacement and maintenance of furniture, fixtures and all the assets in the show room by keeping updated required strength of labours. Necessary modification can be done with prior permission of the complainant company. Despite it they should not engage directly or indirectly in similar type of bullion business of products of other companies. As per the agreement complainant company shall pay 2.5 % commission on sale of 22 carat gold jewellery. If attempts exceeds weight of 43 gms sold per day then commission will be Rs.43 per gram sale. Apart it 5% commission shall be paid on diamond jewellery. 50% commission to be paid on sale of gold and silver coins after 16 CC NO. 20673/2015 excluding vat and sale returns with respect to all above commissions.
21. After entering of above said agreement, the complainant company has not paid sale tax and it made accused persons to face sale tax default process before the concerned authority. To that effect the accused have produced the authorised copy of the order passed u/s.62(6) of KVAT Act, 2003 by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Authority through which the accused persons have been acquitted and the impugned reassessment order including consequential penalty and interest levied by the Sales Tax Authority has been set aside.
22. It is agreed facts that after filing of the present cases, the franchisee business was running and the complainant company has supplied the golden jewellery and bullion to the accused firm and the accused have updated their payment with respect to the sold items in favour of the complainant company as per Ex.D.5. The account statement Ex.D.5 maintained by the complainant company upto December, 2014, same has been taken out by DW1. Thereafter, the very account has been blocked by the complainant company. Apart it the witness has duly complied with the Sec.65 (b) of Evidence Act by stating that he is 17 CC NO. 20673/2015 in possession of the computer monitor along with the printer through which he took the print of ExD.5. Therefore, by comparing the same with Ex.P.22, Ex.D.5 is more reliable because Ex.P.22 to Ex.P.25 have been taken out with the assistance of one cyber expert by name Sabarjith Mukherjee and PW 1 has tried to comply with Sec.65(B) of Evidence Act by affixing his certificate which is not tenable under law. Further it is observed that the contents of above said certificate has not been duly complied with necessary ingredients of Sec.65(B) of Evidence Act resulting of which the Ex.P.22 - P25 cannot be taken into consideration as the amount mentioned under disputed cheque is legally recoverable debt. I have gone through the contents of Ex.P25 in which they have shown net cash payable of Rs.5,22,87,490/ . Further I have gone through the contents of Ex.P.22 with respect to due amount recoverable for sold gold items of 22 carrat in which it has been mentioned that Rs.3,95,88,606/ . The amount shown in Ex.P.25 is consolidated amount with respect to sold gold items of 22 and 24 carrats. Therefore, there is material variation in pleadings, oral evidence and the contents of the written documentary evidence produced by Pw 1 to support his case. It is admitted fact that the amount 18 CC NO. 20673/2015 mentioned under the cheque is valued amount for 23 kgs gold. But, as per Ex.P.25 accused have to return gold item weighing 573.4gms of 22 carat golden ornaments and 11 gms of 24 carats ornaments including 60 gms of silver items . The entire valuation is shown for Rs.5,22,87,490/. On what basis the above said valuation is made is not duly explained by PW1. Further it is observed that deposition of security amount of Rs.23 Lakhs by the accused person asked by the defence counsel for several times during cross examination of PW 1, but PW 1 failed to give proper explanation regarding acceptance of above said security amount . But as per Ex.P 3, there is specific contention of taking security amount of Rs.23 lakhs from the accused. Further I have gone through the franchisee gold ledger account extract in which no column is there to show payment of commission on 22 carat gold jewellery as mentioned in Anexure 1 including commission on sale of diamond jewellery , gold bullion or gold coins. Hence, in absence of any such payments it shows that the complainant company by entering into franchisee agreement, has not acted upon fairly and not given agreed commission and margin in favour of the accused persons. On failure of fair payment and maintenance of franchisee gold ledger statement and debtors 19 CC NO. 20673/2015 cash ledger accounts properly, the dispute arose among the parties. Further it is observed that as per Ex.D.6, email communication is made by the accused by stating the balance amount to be paid by the accused on 25.7.2014 , as per Ex.D7 also they have intimated the balance amount of Rs.85,49,876/ as on 31.03.2014. Further more I have gone through Ex.D8 which is nothing but the consignment note produced by the accused persons which runs from 13.6.2011 to 01.07.2015 which shows that the accused have transferred sale amounts to Rajesh Exports company regularly. The above said documents are computer print outs produced by DW1 and duly complied with Sec.65(B) of the Evidence Act. On the contrary the complainant company has failed to place fair statement of accounts including franchisee gold ledger account statement. Only they have approached the court by claiming the amount mentioned under the cheque. Further it is observed that at the time of entering into franchisee agreement as per Ex.P.3 the complainant company has taken declaration from all the accused persons and blank signed cheques. Apart it, they have taken mortgage deeds which have been executed by the accused and their family members. Out of 20 CC NO. 20673/2015 them, Ex.D.1 and D2 have been duly confronted by the defence counsel and same is admitted by PW 1.
23. On careful perusal of entire documentary evidence placed by either parties it shows that the complainant company has failed to prove that the amount mentioned under the cheque is legally recoverable debt as the complainant company has failed to prove that as per Franchisee agreement the company has performed its part performance legally by giving of commissions and margin in favour of the accused persons as agreed in Ex.P.3. Further it is observed that as per Ex.P.25, the total returnable gold was of 573.4 gms of 22 carat golden ornaments, 11 gms of 24 carat golden ornaments including 60 gms of silver items. Therefore it is observed that as per pleading of the complainant and the contents of the franchisee agreement, the cheque in dispute was issued by the accused persons towards security as the complainant company has handed over 23 kgs of golden ornaments for sale purpose and the amount mentioned under the cheque was entire valuation of 23 Kgs gold ornaments. But looking to Ex.P.25, the items to be returned by the accused is very less compared to the 23 Kgs golden ornaments. Therefore the amount mentioned under the cheque is too exorbitant 21 CC NO. 20673/2015 compared to the valuation of the golden ornaments to be returned by the accused as per Ex.P.25. Apart it, the sale amount of sold gold items have been duly transferred as per the statement of the accused ExD.5. The contents of Ex.P.22 & P23 differs from the contents of Ex.D.5. Therefore, the amount mentioned under the cheque is not at all due amount to be paid by the accused. Therefore, the amount mentioned under the cheque in dispute is not at all legally recoverable debt. Mere production of the cheque is not sufficient to prove the ingredients of Sec.138 of N.I.Act. There must be a existing legally recoverable debt on the part of the accused. The complainant has not discharged the initial burden which lies on him. The accused persons have successfully rebutted the presumption available under Sec.139 of N.I.Act. On the other hand the complainant has not produced sufficient evidence or materials to prove the complaint averment and ingredients of section 138 of N.I.Act. In this regard, it is necessary to refer the following decision :
(2010) 11 SCC 441Rangappa V/s Sri.Mohan 'N.I.Act, 1881 S.139 Presumption under Scope of
- Held , presumption mandated by S.139 includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability However, such 22 CC NO. 20673/2015 presumption is rebuttable in nature - Criminal Trial - Proof Presumption - Generally'.
24. The principles of the above case are amply applicable to the case on hand. In view of the principles laid down in the above cases and materials on record, the court comes to the conclusion that the complainant has utterly failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and has not placed sufficient oral and documentary evidence for convincing the court in order to convict the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act . Hence, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
25. Point No.3 : In the light of the above findings on point Nos.1 & 2 I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Exercising the powers conferred upon this court u/s.255(1) Cr.P.C., the accused persons are hereby Acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec.138 Negotiable Instrument Act.
The bail bond of the accused and that of the sureties if any stand cancelled. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of February, 2023).
(SUJATA SIDAGOUDA PATIL) XXV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.23
CC NO. 20673/2015 ANNEXURE
1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 : B.G.Mallikarjun
2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P1 : C.C. of the Certificate of Incorporation Ex.P2 : C.C. of Board Resolution Ex.P3 : Franchisee Agreement Ex.P4 : Declaration Ex.P5 : Cheque Ex.P6 : Bank Endorsement Ex.P7 : Office copy of legal notice Ex.P8 13 : Postal receipts Ex.P14 : Copy of the complaint Ex.P1520 : Replies of the postal authority Ex.P21 : Reply notice Ex.P22 : Statement of Account of accused Ex.P23 : Statement of 22 carat gold from 02.04.2012 to 31.03.2020 Ex.P24 : Statement of 24 carat gold from 02.02.2012 to 31.03.2020 Ex.P25 : Consolidated Statement.
3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED: D.W.1 : D.K.Koushik
4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED: Ex.D1&2 : Copies of the Mortgage Deeds Ex.D3 : Copy of the Judgment in C.C.No.4262/2017 Ex.D4 : Copy of the Judgment in C.C.No.4261/2017 24 CC NO. 20673/2015 Ex.D5 : A.C. of the Ledger Extract Ex.D6 : 2 web copies of email Ex.D7 : Web copy of email dt.11.06.2014 Ex.D8 : 23 Consignment notes Ex.D9 : EDC Settlement slips of IDBI Bank Ex.D10 : 8 Monthly Bank Statements from June 2011 to Nov.2011, JanFeb.2012.
Ex.D11 : A.C.of the Order passed by The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in VAT A.No.18/201920.
Digitally signedby SUJATA
SUJATA SIDAGOUDA
SIDAGOUDA PATIL
PATIL Date:
2023.02.20
17:02:55 +0530
(SUJATA SIDAGOUDA PATIL)
XXV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
25
CC NO. 20673/2015
26
CC NO. 20673/2015