Bangalore District Court
Smt. Nagarathna vs Mysore Sales International Limited on 24 June, 2019
Form
No.9
(Civil)
Title
Sheet for
Judgmen
t in Suits
R.P. 91 PRESENT: SMT. PRASHANTHI G,
B.A.(Law) LL.B.,
XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
Dated this the 24 th day of June 2019
PLAINTIFFS: 1. Smt. Nagarathna,
Aged about 51 years,
W/o Ramaiah Reddy,
2. Smt. Manjula
Aged about 46 years,
W/o Ramaiah Reddy,
Both residing at Ramaiah Reddy
Colony, Sector-C, Basavanagar,
Maruthahalli Post,
Bangalore-560 037.
[By Sri P.S.Manjunath, Advocate]
/v e r s u s/
DEFENDANTS: 1. Mysore Sales International Limited
A Company incorporated under
the Indian Companies Act, Having
its Registered Office MSIL House,
Cunnigham Road,
Bangalore-560 052
Represented by its Managing
Director.
2. The Chief General Manager,
MSIL, Air Cargo Division,
Air Port Exit Road,
Bangalore.
[By Sri RKB, Advocate]
2
CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc
Date of institution of the : 1/1/2014
suit
Nature of the suit : For recovery of money
Date of commencement of : 18/3/2015
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 24/6/2019
Judgment was
pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
5 5 23
(Prashanthi. G)
XXVII ACCJ: B'LORE.
The plaintiffs filed this suit against the
defendants for the relief of recovery of money
directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs total
sum of Rs.58,94,739/- with interest at the rate of 18%
per annum from 15/11/2011 till 20/12/2013 and
also the interest till the date of payment.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The plaintiffs were are the owners of the suit
schedule property and leased the same in favour of
the first defendant as per the lease agreement dated
2/5/2003. The lease period was effective with
3
CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc
retrospective effect from 19/3/2002 to 18/3/2008
with an option of renewal of lease for a further period
of 5 years. As per the conditions of the lease, the first
defendant was required to vacate the premises on or
before 18/8/2008. Evenafter the period of
acquirisation, he has not sought for extension of
lease. However, continued to be in possession of the
same. The defendant no.1 was not regular in payment
of the rent. In connection with the payment of the
arrears of rent and delivery of the vacant possession,
after several negotiations first defendant had sought
for waiver of arrears of the rent in respect of the suit
schedule property on the ground that they would
vacate and hand over the vacant possession of all the
premises on or before 28/2/2010. In the said
circumstances, the plaintiffs have addressed the letter
dated 1.2.2010 agreeing to forego the arrears of the
rent in respect of cold storage unit only subject to the
condition that first defendant should vacate and
handover the possession of all the premises on or
before 28/2/2010. It was further made clear that in
4
CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc
case the possession was not handed over within the
cut off date of 28/2/2010, the plaintiffs are entitled to
claim the arrears of the rent payable by the first
defendant in addition to the payment of the property
tax on or before 28/2/2010. In the very same letter it
was also agreed that the offer of waiver of rent was
subject to handing over of possession of the premises
when the transformer is installed and advance
amount paid by the first defendant in the respect of
cold storage unit installed will not be refunded and
the same will be adjusted towards the part of rental
dues. Further, the plaintiffs have personal discussion
with the officers of the defendant on 26/3/2010
regarding the settlement of accounts and thereafter
the second defendant addressed a letter dated
29/3/2010 inclusing the statement of accounts in the
respect of leased premises.
As agreed the first defendant did not keep up
their undertaking of vacating the premises on or
before 28/2/2010. On 8/5/2010, the plaintiffs issued
a legal notice to the first defendant to immediately
5
CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc
shift and vacate the premises in which the cold
storage unit is located and also to shift the
transformer and to handover the vacant premises
within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice.
Further, it is also called upon to pay the rentals for
the month of March and April 2010, failing which
appropriate legal proceedings against the first
defendant for securing the vacant possession as well
as the recovery of the damages for use and occupation
of the premises in question will be initiated.
Unfortunately, the first defendant did not replied. Any
of the notices issued by the plaintiff nor complied with
the demands made in the notice. In the
circumstances, a final notice dated 7/12/2010 came
to be issued indicating that the plaintiffs have
withdrawn the concession given for the waiver of the
rentals / damages upto 28/2/2010 for not honouring
the undertaking given for vacating of the premises.
Therefore, they are called upon to pay all the arrears
of rent and damages in respect of cold storage plant
since 1.4.2008 till 30.11.2010 and also called upon to
6
CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc
vacate the premises within 3 months from the date of
receipt of the notice. Even to the said notice, there
was no reply for the first defendant. When all the
meetings and telephonic discussions along with the
first defendant become in vain, the plaintiff filed this
suit for the necessary reliefs.
The plaintiff submitted a representation to the
Manager of the first defendant calling upon him to
take the steps for the payment of the arrears. In
response to the representation the second defendant
appears to have address a letter to the Agriculture
and Processed Food Product Export Development
Authority referring to the letter addressed by the
plaintiff requesting to arrange for payment of
Rs.38,58,847/- with interest at the rate of 18% per
annum and also the service tax of Rs.4,86,914/- to
the plaintiff. The said letter correctly disclosed that
the defendants have sublet the property taken on
lease from the plaintiff to APEDA without consent of
the plaintiff. In addition to the payment, the APEDA
also requested to remove and shift the cold storage
7
CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc
plant to the first defendant. In the very same letter,
the second defendant made a request to the plaintiff
to bear with them as they are constantly following
with the APEDA for shifting the cold storage plant
installed at suit schedule property. In addition to the
letter, another letter was also addressed by the second
defendant to APEDA on 19/10/2011 referring to the
letter received from the Airport Director, Mangalore
Airport. The second defendant has indicated in said
letter that APEDA should arrange for immediate
removal and shifting of cold storage plant from the
premises in question and also for the payment of
rental arrears. Further, they also addressed a letter
directed to the Airport Director, Airport Authority of
India, Mangalore Airport requesting to arrange for
removal and shifting of existing cold storage plant
with the help of officers of Airport authority. In view of
the aforesaid correspondences made by the
defendants in between themselves, the plaintiffs are
under the hope that their grievance will be addressed
positively by the defendant. Even after the lapse of
8
CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc
several months from the date of letter addressed by
the second defendant, the plaintiffs have advised to
approach this court by way of writ petition seeking the
writ of mandamus directing the defendants to pay the
admitted arrears of the rent though the plaintiffs had
an alternative remedy of filing a suit for recovery of
rent and damages. Accordingly, a writ petition was
filed by the plaintiff in writ petition no.1928/2012
before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka wherein
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dismissed the
writ petition with a liberty to file the civil suit against
the defendants for the reliefs. In that view, the
plaintiffs filed present suit for the recovery of money.
The plaintiffs sold the suit schedule property in
favour of M/s V.S.S builders and developers on
17/11/2011. So, till that date, the plaintiffs are
entitled to recover the arr arrears of the rent as well as
damages from the defendant. Even after the filing of
the writ petition, the defendant did not make any
payment to the plaintiff. They were due a sum of
Rs.23,48,129/- to the plaintiff no.1 and
9
CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc
Rs.23,48,129/- to the plaintiff no.2. After deducting
the advance amount paid by the defendants a sum of
Rs. 42,71,258/- and interest at the rate of 18% per
annum from 15/11/2011 till 20/12/2013 in a sum of
Rs.16,13,481/- and a legal notice charges of
Rs.10,000/- and totally the suit claim is fixed at
Rs.58,94,739/-.
The cause of action for the suit arose when the
defendants have written the letter dated 30/11/2011
to APEDA and also on 25/9/2013 when the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition
reserving the liberty to file the civil suit for the
monetary relief within the jurisdiction of this court.
3. The summons is duly served to the
defendants. Defendants appeared and filed written
statement.
4. The main contentions of the defendants in
the written statement are as under:
The suit itself is ex facie barred by the law and is
liable to be rejected. The plaintiffs have not
approached the court with clean hands because they
10
CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc
have suppressed the vital fact of defendant company
not being liable and due of any amount muchless
what is claimed by the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit is
bad for suppressio very suggessio falsie. The suit is
barred by limitation, wherein the plaintiffs are
claiming the arrears of rent pertaining to the year
2008 and even considering the legal notice dated
28/2/2010 as per the plaint document no.3.
Therefore, the plaintiff's suit is to be dismissed in
limine. In view of the suit being barred by the
limitation, there is no cause of action to file a present
suit. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed for want
of cause of action.
These defendants admits that there was a lease
agreement entered into between the plaintiffs and
defendants on 2/5/2003. Further, they also agree
that the lease period is for 5 years from 9/2/2003 to
18/2/2008. It is also correct that the first defendant
was required to vacate the premises on or before
18/2/2008. However the defendants denies the other
averments. The allegation with respect to irregular
11
CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc
payment of rent is specifically denied. Further
averments with regard to the waiver of rent in respect
of the suit schedule property on the ground that they
would vacate and handover the vacant possession of
all the premises which have been let out by the
plaintiffs on or before 28/2/2010 is specifically
denied. Further the averment that the plaintiffs are
entitled to the arrears of rent in addition to the
payment of property tax on or before 28/2/2010 is
also specifically denied as false. Neither the
defendants agree for the proposal of the plaintiffs nor
they have agreed to adjust the advance amount paid
towards the cold storage towards the part of the rental
dues. There was no notice issued by the plaintiffs in
order to vacate the suit schedule property as well as
for the arrears of the rent. The defendants never
undertook to vacate the premises on or before
28/2/2010. The defendant no.1 and 2 are not bound
to pay the rent upto 30/11/2010 amounting to
Rs.28,98,007/- besides the service tax in
Rs.3,68,164/-. All the documents are created by the
12
CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc
plaintiffs in order to file the suit which is apparent
from the circumstances of the case. Further the claim
of the plaintiffs is not genuine because they would
have filed the suit within limitation period. The suit
itself is time barred, illegal and not tenable both in eye
of law and facts. As averred by the plaintiffs there is
no telephonic discussions as well as representations
by plaintiffs side to the General Manager of the first
defendant company, because the first defendant had
paid entire rental amount upto date as agreed. The
averments stated in para no.7 to 19 are specifically
denied as false. The averments that the defendants
have not paid the rental amount and they are liable to
pay a sum of Rs.23,48,129/- to the plaintiff no.1 and
a sum of Rs.23,48,129/- to the plaintiff no.2 is
specifically denied as false. Further, they are going to
deduct the aforesaid rent from the advance amount is
also specifically denied as incorrect. The plaintiffs are
legally bound to return the advance amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- together with interest to the
defendants since they have already vacated the suit
13
CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc
schedule premises. The total amount claimed by the
plaintiffs is absolutely barred by time, imaginary,
arbitrary and not supported by any admissible
evidence whatsoever. Further, the plaintiffs cannot
take advantage of the observations made by the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka because the
observation will not cure the delay in demanding the
claims. The submissions of the petitioners is recorded
and that observation should fulfill all the legal
requirements and the present suit is barred by time.
Hence, the plaintiffs suit is hopelessly barred by
limitation and is to be dismissed at threshold itself.
Under the above circumstances, the claim of the
plaintiffs is not tenable in the eye of law for the want
of cause of action and also on the ground of
limitation. Therefore, praying to dismiss the suit with
exemplary costs.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
my learned predecessor has framed the following
issues for consideration:
14
CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc
(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that
defendants are liable to pay Rs.58,94,739/-
together with interest at the rate of 18% per
annum from 15/11/2011 to till
20/12/2012?
(2) Whether defendants prove hat they have
already handed over the vacant possession
of the suit schedule property to the
plaintiffs in the year 2008 itself on the
completion of lease period and hence, they
are not liable to pay any rents from 2008
onwards as contended?
(3) Whether suit is barred by law of limitation?
(4) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the
reliefs as sought for?
(5) What order or decree?
6. Plaintiffs in order to prove their case,
examined their power of attorney as PW.1 and got
marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 and closed their side of
evidence. On the other hand defendants examined its
General Manager as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D1 to
Ex.D4 and closed their side of evidence.
15
CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc
7. Heard both sides and perused entire
records of the case.
8. My findings on the above issues are as
under:
Issue No. 1) ............In the affirmative;
Issue No. 2) ............In the negative;
Issue No. 3) ............In the negative;
Issue No. 4) ............In the affirmative;
Issue No. 5) ............As per final order for
the following:
9. ISSUE NO.1: It is the specific case of the
plaintiffs that defendant no.1 is the tenant under
plaintiff no.1 and 2. They have executed lease deed
dated 2/5/2003. As per the conditions of the lease
deed, the duration of lease deed is for 5 years.
Further, the defendant no.1 was required to vacate
the premises on or before 18/2/2008. Even after
expiry of the lease deed, the first defendant did not
sought for the extension of the lease, rather than
continued to be in possession of the lease property. In
16
CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc
support of the contentions of the plaintiffs, the
plaintiffs have produced notices issued by plaintiffs in
favour of the Chief General Manager of the MSIL.
From the Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, it is clear that the
defendants are ready to vacate the premises as agreed
on or before 28/2/2010 and if it is not delivered
within the cut off date, the plaintiffs are entitled to all
the arrears of the rent. The same is re-uttered in his
chief examination. In the cross-examination of PW.1,
it is clearly admitted by PW.1 that the lease was
commenced from 19/2/2003 and was completed on
18/2/2008. Further, it is also admitted that the
defendants have not paid the rent from 1.4.2008 to
15.11.2011. Further, it is clearly deposed by PW.1
that, "it is false to suggest that as the lease deed was
not renewed after 31/3/2008, the question of paying
the rent does not arise." In this regard, a specific
question is also asked to DW.1 in the cross-
examination by the counsel for the plaintiffs. He
clearly admitted that the lease expired on 18/2/2008
and further he stated that after the expiry of the lease
17
CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc
period, they have handed over the property to the
plaintiffs. It is pertinent to note that in this juncture,
DW.1 clearly admitted that they have not produced
any documents to show that they have handed over
the property to the plaintiff after the expiry of the
lease period. Ex.P6 is the notice issued by the plaintiff
in favour of the defendant calling upon the defendant
handing over the vacant possession of the property
where the cold storage unit is situated. Though DW.1
contended that he do not know whether the plaintiffs
have addressed the letter to the defendants as per the
Ex.P6, Ex.P7 is written after receiving of Ex.P6. I have
carefully gone through Ex.P7 which is later addressed
by Mr. R.Ravindra, the Assistant General Manager of
APEDA on 30/9/2011 with regard to the removal of
the cold storage plant. Ex.P6 is issued by the plaintiffs
on 21/9/2011 whereas Ex.P7 is issued on
30/9/2011. In Ex.P7, the first defendant issued a
letter to the Assistant General Manager of APEDA
requested to arrange for the payment of Rs.
38,58,847/- together with interest at the rate of 18%
18
CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc
per annum and service tax of Rs.4,86,914/- to the
landlords under intimation to them. It is also noted
that early removal and shifting of the said plant is the
only remedy which MSIL has to act upon in the
interest of it. The copy of the said letter was also
addressed to the plaintiff no.1 and 2. From Ex.P7, it is
clear that after issue of Ex.P6 from the plaintiff to
vacate the suit schedule property, this official letter
has been issued by the MSIL in favour of the Assistant
General Manager of APEDA. So, from Ex.P6 and
Ex.P7, it is very clear that till 30/9/2011, the first
defendant has not paid the arrears of rent as well as
service tax to the plaintiffs. Though the defendant
no.1 contended that they have already vacated the
premises and they were not in arrears of the rent to
the plaintiffs, no documents are produced by them in
support of their claim. Further, from the writings of
the Ex.P6 and Ex.P7, it is very clear that the
defendant no.1 has not paid the payment to the tune
of Rs.38,58,847/- together with interest at the rate of
18% per annum plus service tax to the tune of
19
CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc
Rs.4,86,914/- to the plaintiff. Since till 30/9/2011,
the defendants have not paid the rents and are
continued in the possession and there are no
documents produced by them to show that they have
vacated the premises, I am of the opinion that till
20/12/2013, they were still in continuation of the
possession of the suit schedule property. Even a writ
petition is also filed by the plaintiffs which is marked
as Ex.P10 wherein it is clearly stated that the writ
petition is filed for the recovery of the rental arrears
along with the admissible service tax plus the rental
arrears from October 2011 to till the date of delivery of
vacant possession. From this, it is clear that even
after the filing of the writ petition, in the year 2012,
the suit schedule property was not handed over to the
plaintiffs. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka dismissed the above writ petition with a
liberty to file the suit. So, from the documents
submitted by the plaintiffs, it is clear that the
defendants are liable to pay Rs.58,94,739/- together
with rate of interest at 18% per annum from
20
CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc
15/11/2011 till 20/12/2013. Accordingly, I answer
issue no.1 in the affirmative.
10. ISSUE NO.2: One of the main contention
of the defendants is that in the year 2008 itself, they
have vacated the suit schedule property and handed
over the same to the plaintiffs and from 2008, they
were not liable to pay any rents to the plaintiffs. A
specific question has been asked by the counsel for
the plaintiffs to DW.1, wherein DW.1 clearly admitted
that the lease was expired on 18/2/2008 but they
have not produced any documents to show that they
have handed over the property to the plaintiffs after
the expiry of the lease period. Though DW.1
contended that they were not liable to pay any arrears
of rent together with the tax to the plaintiffs, in all the
documents produced by the plaintiff, it is clear that
the defendants are still in possession of the suit
schedule land till 2013. Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 on which the
plaintiffs mainly relies upon the case clearly shows
that the defendants are not vacated the suit schedule
21
CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc
premises after the expiry of the lease period. As earlier
discussed, Ex.P6 is issued on 21/9/2011 and Ex.P7
is an arrangement requested by the defendant no.1 to
the Assistant General Manager of the APEDA. From
contents of Ex.P7, it is clear that the cold storage
plant which is in the suit schedule property has not
been shifted from the schedule property. Further, the
requisition for arrangement for the payment of
Rs.38,58,847/- together with interest rate of 18% per
annum and also service tax of Rs.4,86,914/- to the
LANDLORDS clearly shows that till the date of Ex.P7,
they have not handed over the vacant possession and
also they were still liable to pay the payment of
arrears of rent as well as service tax to the plaintiffs
together with the interest. In the support of the
contentions of the defendants, they have produced
documents i.e., Ex.D5 and Ex.D6 which are the
original files which were in the custody of first
defendant. I have carefully gone through Ex.D5 and
Ex.D6 wherein the entire proceedings of the case are
not entered in the files. So, it is clear that both Ex.D5
22
CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc
and Ex.D6 are incomplete in nature. Further, there
are no note sheets with regard to the proceedings from
2002 to 2008. Further, from the admissions of DW.2
in his cross-examination that "it is correct to suggest
that in Ex.P6 page no.120, there is entry upto 2013
with regard to this lease transaction." From the above
admissions from the mouth of DW.2 clearly shows
that the lease transaction was still continued till
2013, although verbatically the lease was expired on
2008 itself. Though there was no renewal of the lease,
from the documents submitted by the plaintiffs as
well as the defendants, it is clear that the defendants
are still in continuation of possession of the suit
schedule property and they were liable to pay the
amount as contended by the plaintiffs. Further, since
the defendants did not produce any documents in the
support of the claim for vacating the possession of the
suit schedule property and also they were not liable to
pay any rents from 2008, I am of the opinion that the
defendants utterly failed in proving issue no.2.
Accordingly, I answer issue no.2 in the negative.
23
CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc
11. ISSUE NO.3: Another contention taken
by the defendants is that suit of the plaintiffs is
barred by limitation, because the plaintiffs are
claiming the arrears of the rent from the year 2008-09
and subsequent period even considering the legal
notice dated 28/8/2010 referred in para no.3 of the
plaint. So, as per the plaintiffs, suit of the plaintiffs is
barred by limitation. Further, contended that merely
because Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka directed the
plaintiffs to seek remedy before the Civil Court, it does
not create any fresh limitation to the plaintiffs to file
the suit before the Civil Court, because as per the
defendants the plaintiffs have to file the suit within
2011 i.e., after 3 years from the date of expiry of lease
period. On the one context, if we take the contentions
taken by the defendants is correct, the suit has to be
filed within 2011. However, from the documents
produced by the plaintiffs as well as the defendants, it
is clear that though there were no documents for the
continuation of the lease after 2008, the defendants
are still in possession of the suit schedule property till
24
CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc
2013. Further, the plaintiffs have not sought for any
reliefs from the year 2008-09 itself, rather than the
relief column of the plaintiffs is very clear that they
have sought for the arrears of the rents from
15/11/2011 till 20/12/2013. From Ex.P6 and Ex.P7,
it is clear that till October 2011, the defendant no.1 is
in possession of the suit schedule property. Further,
the writ petition was filed in a year 2012. From the
admissions of DW.2 in the cross-examination it is
clear in the Ex.D6 itself, there was entry with regard
to the lease transaction till 2013 it is clear that the
lease between the plaintiffs and the defendants are
continued till 2013. So, the contention of the
defendants that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by
limitation does not holds good. Hence, I am of the
opinion that the present suit is filed on 20/12/2013
which is well within limitation. Accordingly, I answer
issue no.3 in the negative.
12. ISSUE NO.4: The suit of the plaintiffs is
one for the recovery of arrears of rent along with
25
CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc
interest plus service tax payable. From the discussion
on issues 1 to 3, it is clear that evern after the expiry
of the lease period, the defendants are still in
possession and continuation of the lease. Further,
from the admissions in Ex.P7, it is clear that they
were in arrears of rent as well as liable to pay the
service tax also. From the admissions in Ex.D6 and
also from the mouth of DW.2, it is clear that the lease
transaction was continued till 2013. Therefore, I am of
the opinion that though defendants contended that
suit schedule property was already sold out to the
third person, the liability of the defendants was still
continued upto 20/12/2013 as rightly contended by
the plaintiffs. From the above reasons and
discussions, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs are
entitled to the reliefs as sought for. Accordingly, I
answer issue no.4 in the affirmative.
13. ISSUE NO.5: From my above discussions
and reasoning, the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be
decreed. In the result, I pass the following:
26
CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby
decreed.
The plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of
Rs. 58,94,739/- with the interest at the
rate of 18% per annum from 15/11/2011
till 20/12/2013.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
***
[Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, Script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 24 th day of June 2019.] [PRASHANTHI.G] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
PW.1 Smt. R.Sandhya
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
DW.1 V.Ganesh
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P1 General power of attorney executed by the plaintiffs Ex.P2 Copy of the letter dated 1.2.2010 written to the defendant no.2 27 CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc Ex.P3 Letter dated 29/3/2010 written by the defendants to the plaintiff and its enclosures Ex.P4 Copy of the legal notice issued to defendant no.2 Ex.P5 Copy of the legal notice issued to defendants Ex.P6 Copy of representation given by the plaintiffs to the defendant no.2 Ex.P7 Letter written by the defendants to APEDA Ex.P8 Copy of letter written to AGM, APEDA Ex.P9 Copy of letter addressed to Airport Director Ex.P10 Certified copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.1928/12 dated 25/9/2013 Ex.P11 Form Nos. 16A in respect of to Income Tax Ex.P14
4. List of the documents marked for the defendants:
Ex.D1 Authorisation letter dated 22/1/2018 Ex.D2 Certified copy of lease agreement dated 16/3/1998 Ex.D3 Certified copy of lease agreement dated 2/5/2003 Ex.D4 Certified copy of the rent paid details [PRASHANTHI.G] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
28 CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc 24/6/2019 P-PSM D1, D2 - RKB Judgment pronounced in the Open Court....
(Vide separate detailed judgment) The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed.
The plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 58,94,739/- with the interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 15/11/2011 till 20/12/2013.
No order as to costs. Draw decree accordingly.
[PRASHANTHI.G] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
3 CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc 0 3 CT0028_O.S._75_2014_Judgment_.doc 1 fdfdf