Bangalore District Court
Is A Digital Transformation Partner For ... vs Is In The Business Of Hostels on 27 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-86)
(Commercial Court)
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2022
PRESENT:
SMT. LATHAKUMARI M.
M.A., LL.M.,
LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Com. O.S. No. 267/2020
BETWEEN:
ModeFinServer Private Limited
a Company registered under the
provisions of Companies Act, 1956
having registered office at AIKYA,
228, 7TH Main, Raji Gandhi Nagar
Nandini Layout, Bangalore - 560096
Duly represented by its Group
Advisor Mr. Bhaskar G. Naidu
: PLAINTIFF
(Represented by Sri. K.
Chethan Kumar - Advocate)
AND
2
Com. O.S. No.267/2020
LNG Hospitality Services Private Limited
No.556, 7th A Main, HIG Colony,
Dollars Colony, RMV 2nd Stage,
Bangalore - 560 094
Duly represented by its Director
Mr. Sridhar Srinivasan
: DEFENDANT
(Represented by Sri.
Ganapathi Bhat - Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit 08.10.2020
Nature of the suit (suit on
pronote, suit for declaration &
Possession, Suit for injunction Suit for recovery of money
etc.)
Date of commencement of 26.05.2022
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment was
pronounced 27.07.2022
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 09 19
(LATHAKUMARI M.),
LXXXV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This is a plaintiff's suit to pass judgment and decree against the defendant, directing him to pay a sum of Rs.17,81,639/- towards the outstanding dues payable 3 Com. O.S. No.267/2020 with respect to procuring the Mobile based Hostel Bed booking software system and also interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of suit till realization of the amount with costs and for such other reliefs as this court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case is that, the plaintiff is a digital transformation partner for leading Banks and Financial institutions offering world-class Omni Channel and Digital Banking solutions focused on creating seamless customer experiences and providing software development, consultation and professional services. The defendant is in the business of hostels, camping sites and other provision of short-stay accommodation. The defendant being desirous of providing mobile based hostel booking system in India and was looking for software and technology as well as Technology Solution Partner approached the plaintiff through its authorized representative for procuring/ availing suitable software and the plaintiff proposed custom application development approach to design and build the solution. The defendant being satisfied with the service of the plaintiff executed a Software Development Agreement dated 25.04.2018 with the plaintiff for a project viz., 4 Com. O.S. No.267/2020 Mobile Based Hostel Bed Booking System, wherein the plaintiff was engaged to design and develop a solution on its platform. Under the said agreement, the plaintiff asserts that defendant was required to pay one time development project cost of Rs.28,00,000/- payable as per schedule as agreed in the said agreement and defendant was under obligation to make the schedule payments within 7 days from the date of invoice raised by the plaintiff. It is further contended that as per the terms of the said agreement, if the whole or any part of the invoice remains outstanding for 15 days or more, the defendant shall also liable to pay interest calculated at the rate of 2.5% per month on the outstanding dues. In para-7 of the plaint, plaintiff also mentioned payment schedule of Rs.28,00,000/-. It is further contended that plaintiff in due discharge of its obligation as per the said agreement completed each milestone in line with the requirement and specifications mutually agreed with the defendant, from time to time and accordingly raised invoices for item No.1, 2 and 3 as agreed under clause 9 of the said agreement and the defendant cleared such invoices accordingly. The plaintiff further mentioned that during the final stage of the project pursuant to the discussion with the defendant, the plaintiff raised its final 5 Com. O.S. No.267/2020 invoice dated 18.02.2019 for a total sum of Rs.15,37,000/- for the item Nos.4 and 5 of the payment schedule mentioned in the above table at para-7 of the plaint towards final payment of the project. It is further mentioned that Mr. Sriram Reddy, the Principal coordinator of the defendant assured the plaintiff that he shall personally guarantee the payments against the said outstanding invoices and requested the plaintiff to hand over the source Code to the defendant. It is plaintiff's further case that handing over of the said source code to the defendant shall complete the projects and thereby there shall be no further responsibilities or obligations on the part of the plaintiff. Considering the request of said Mr. Sriram Reddy, plaintiff handed over the said Source Code and also transferred the system knowledge to the project team of the defendant on 23.03.2019 and completed the signed project as agreed under the said agreement. It is plaintiff's further case that upon receipt of the said Source Code and the system knowledge, defendant was supposed to make payments within 7 days of the date of invoice. The defendant requested some more time to clear the invoice amount. However, defendant failed to make the payment as agreed and evading the payment on one or the other ground. Hence, 6 Com. O.S. No.267/2020 plaintiff constrained to issue the legal notice dated 05.08.2019 calling upon the defendant to make payment of the outstanding amount. In spite of such demand notice defendant neither bothered to clear the amount due nor responded to the said notice and failed to clear the invoice amount. Plaintiff got issued demand notice dated 12.09.2019 under Form No.3 & 4 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, thereby calling upon the defendants to make payment of the outstanding amount of Rs.17,81,639/- being the invoice amount and interest calculated till 11.09.2019, within 10 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. However, same was returned with shara as 'Door locked'. It is plaintiff's further case that in spite of receiving the legal notice on 07.08.2019 and also the demand notice issued by the plaintiff defendant neglected to pay the amount. In pursuance of this attitude on the part of the defendant, plaintiff has sustained loss and damages and hence, defendant is liable to repay the amount due along with interest at the rate of 18% from 05.03.2019 till realization of the same. Hence, this suit for the reliefs mentioned supra.
3. On issuance of suit summons defendant appeared through its counsel and resisted this suit filed by plaintiff 7 Com. O.S. No.267/2020 by filing his written statement contending that, the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit against the defendant. It is further mentioned that during the initial discussion on the project and also while execution the defendant has appraised that the business model of the defendant is completely relied on the App and Software to be developed by the plaintiff and the importance have been appraised well. It is further mentioned that plaintiff insisted to protect the information to be shared during the project execution and and Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) was signed to project the same. Whereas the plaintiff clearly violated the NDA and sub-contracted the work to third party without any prior approval from the defendant and sufficient protection of business secrets of the defendant. It is further contended that plaintiff as a matter of fact not completed the work and also unauthorisedly sub-contracted the work to third parties amounting to disclosure of the information, has put the defendant in huge financial loss and the business was not taken up subsequently due to failure on the part of the plaintiff to deliver the project in time. The business operations of the defendant came to be closed due to failure to launch software and mobile app which was core to the business. It is further contended that plaintiff has 8 Com. O.S. No.267/2020 delegated the work contract knowing fully well that said work is beneficial and it should not have been disclosed to third parties. The defendant has given the software development work to the plaintiff. Whereas gradually the defendant came to know that the plaintiff has sub- contract to Artha Infosystems to complete the project of the system. In fact the software development work was given to the plaintiff on capability of the plaintiff. But the plaintiff has violated the NDA norms by disclosing the secrets of the defendant company. Plaintiff accepted the work of defendant make believe the defendant that plaintiff will do the quality work. Whereas he has delegated the same by way of sub-contract which is not scope of the contract. That apart, the plaintiff failed to complete and deliver the project within the time as agreed by them. The said work undertaken by the plaintiff could not be completed due to incapability of its team. The business of the defendant was totally depending on the software which is agreed to be delivered by the plaintiff, the defendant not only suffered huge loss and damages and he had to stop the business itself. Even though work is not delivered, the plaintiff has issued alleged demand notice under IBC demanding to pay the amount. Said notice was not at all served on the 9 Com. O.S. No.267/2020 defendant but the notice issued by IBC was served on the defendant and he has issued reply to the said notice issued by IBC. The defendant further mentioned that, as per the terms and conditions of the software development agreement, the plaintiff has not delivered the project work within time and the plaintiff got the conditionally sign off with assurance to finish the pending works which was never completed by the plaintiff, though plaintiff initially agreed to deliver the project work on 25.09.2018 postponed the same to 15.02.2019 and same was pending even on 28.03.2019. In pursuance of the same, the defendants suffered huge loss in his business and consequently stopped the business. The plaintiff is sole responsible for the said loss of the company and hence, plaintiff is liable to pay the damages to the defendant. The claim made by the plaintiff is not at all tenable and plaintiff himself is liable to pay the damages to the defendant. The contention taken by the plaintiff that on handing over of the source code, the project came to be completed is also not correct. There was no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit. Hence pray for dismissal of this suit with cost.
4. Based on these pleadings, this court framed the 10 Com. O.S. No.267/2020 following issues: -
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant is due of Rs.17,81,639.00 to the plaintiff with regard to development of the mobile based hostel bed booking software system and defendant is liable to pay the same along with interest @ 24% p.a.?
2) Whether the defendant proves that plaintiff has violated the norms of non disclosure agreement by disclosing the secrets of defendant company?
3) Whether the defendant further proves that due to delay caused by the plaintiff in delivering the project work in time to the defendant, he sustained huge loss in the business?
4) What order or decree?
5. On behalf of plaintiff its authorized representative Sri. Bhaskar G Naidu got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked as many as 17 documents Ex.P1 to P17. On behalf of defendant its Director Sridhar S got examined himself as DW.1 and got marked as many as 3 documents in support of his defence and another two documents at the time of cross-examination of PW.1 in all five documents as per Ex.D1 to D5.
6. I have carefully scrutinized the records before me.
11Com. O.S. No.267/2020 Heard the arguments. Perused the written arguments.
7. 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: - As per the final Order for the following reasons.
REASONS
8. Issue No.1 to 3:- These three issues are taken up together for common discussion for the sake of convenience in order to avoid repetition of facts.
Execution of software development agreement between the parties on 25.04.2018 for development of mobile based hostel bed booking system software by the plaintiff to the defendant is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that under the said agreement defendant was required to pay one time project development cost of Rs.28,00,000/-. Said software development agreement produced by plaintiff is as per Ex.P3. In clause 9 of this agreement at page No.10 payment schedule and also one time development project cost of Rs.28,00,000/- has 12 Com. O.S. No.267/2020 been clearly mentioned. It is also not in dispute that against said Rs.28,00,000/- defendant has paid portion of the amount as per payment schedule mentioned under item No.1 to 3 of clause 9 of Ex.P3 i.e., 50% amount has already been paid by the defendant towards development of the software app for the defendant. As per clause 9, item No.4 defendant shall pay 25% of project cost at the time of deployment and remaining 25% of cost at the time of User Acceptance Test (UAT) sign off. It is the contention of plaintiff that defendant has not paid amount towards these two items i.e., balance of 50% amount. In respect of the same, plaintiff raised its final invoice dated 18.02.2019 for a total sum of Rs.15,37,000/- for the item No.4 and 5 of the payment schedule mentioned in clause 9. Plaintiff is claiming said amount along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a., from 05.03.2019 till realization of the amount in all amounting to Rs.17,81,639/-. On the other hand, defendant contended that under the Software Development Agreement plaintiff was required to complete the project work development and software i.e., Mobile Based Hostel Bed Booking System and said project has not been completed by the plaintiff as agreed by them and they kept on postponing the project work for one or the other 13 Com. O.S. No.267/2020 reason. He has already made payment of Rs.14,00,000/- to the plaintiff against the initial work done by the plaintiff and he has not paid the final bill as per Ex.P9 since the plaintiff has not completed the project as agreed by him. This version of defendant establishes that, cost of project and also payment of balance amount by the defendant is not in dispute. It is the specific contention of defendant that since the plaintiff has not completed the project, he is not liable to pay the balance amount. Apart form this contention, defendant has raised another contention in his written statement stating that plaintiff has violated the norms of NDA by disclosing the secrets of his company by engaging third party without his knowledge to execute the work and thereby he sustained huge loss and hence he is not at all liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. Before considering the alleged violation of norms of NDA by the plaintiff, it is necessary to consider, whether plaintiff has completed the project i.e., development of software in favour of the defendant. On behalf of plaintiff its authorized representative whose details are forthcoming even in plaint para-4 got examined himself as PW.1. In his chief affidavit he has reiterated the entire plaint averments and asserted that demand notice was issued to 14 Com. O.S. No.267/2020 defendant on 12.09.2019 calling upon the defendant to make payment of the outstanding amount of Rs.17,81,639/- being the invoice amount plus interest calculated till 11.09.2019 within 10 days from the receipt of demand notice and said demand notice was returned with postal remarks as 'Door Locked'. PW.1 got marked as many as 17 documents in his further chief examination. The vital documents are Ex.P3 original software development agreement. Ex.P10 Email copies exchanged between the plaintiff and defendant and also Ex.P17 certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. In his cross-examination by defendant, it is elicited that PW.1 was former MD of plaintiff company, presently he is working as its Group Advisor. Plaintiff admits in his cross- examination that defendant entrusted to the plaintiff to develop a software i.e., Mobile Based Hostel Bed Booking System. PW.1 also admits that defendant entrusted software development to take said hostel booking through mobile app throughout India. He also admits that plaintiff and defendant executed Ex.P3 i.e., Software Development Agreement dated 25.04.2018 in this regard. Said agreement has been signed by plaintiff M.D. Amarnath Chowdary. PW.1 also admits in pursuance of Ex.P3 plaintiff also signed NDA dated 30.04.2018. It is 15 Com. O.S. No.267/2020 also elicited that as per clause-3 of the said software development agreement any dispute arose between the parties shall be referred to arbitration. However, defendant has not taken such contention in his written statement nor raised such issues at any point of time during the pendency of this suit before this court. Accordingly, the contention of arbitration clause raised by defendant at belated stage is not of much consequence in this suit. PW.1 admits that as per NDA Agreement clause 2.1.1 it was necessary for the plaintiff to maintain confidentiality with regard to said software development system. PW.1 has denied that plaintiff has given sub- contract. According to PW.1 with the consent of defendant, plaintiff worked in association with said Artha Info Systems. PW.1 has denied that as per NDA agreement, it was agreed between the parties that plaintiff shall not entrust its work to any third parties. It is further elicited that as per clause 3.2 of NDA Agreement there is a clause to the effect that written consent prior to entrusting any work to outsiders is necessary and PW.1 voluntarily state that plaintiff obtained such consent from defendant through Email. In this regard, it is necessary to go through certain Email correspondence confronted by defendant in the cross-examination of PW.1 which is as 16 Com. O.S. No.267/2020 per Ex.D1 and also some of the Email correspondence produced by DW.1 himself in his cross-examination. It is the contention of defendant that plaintiff sub-let its work to Artha Info System and thereby violated the terms of contract and also same was done without the knowledge of defendant. In this regard, it is necessary to go through the Email correspondence from one Jaswanth to Prakash Badiger and also Sriram Reddy. It is not in dispute that Sriram Reddy is the person of defendant i.e., Principal Coordinator of defendant company. In this Email it is mentioned that source code has been handed over to defendant. In this regard on behalf of defendant it is mentioned that they have received source code with respect and requires one Soumen's help in setting up the same in their environment as discussed. In another Email dated 07.03.2019 plaintiff has also mentioned that he will share the sign off form tomorrow and also confirmed that they have handed over to Prakash Badiger, Java code for services and API's Php for admin console, Mobile app code Landing page. Having received this source code and code details through Prakash Badiger of Artha Info System defendant requested knowledge sharing session of serenity project which is completed and handed over which is also forthcoming in Ex.D1 itself. It is also not in 17 Com. O.S. No.267/2020 dispute that knowledge sharing sessions was conducted on 23.03.2019 and in the said session, plaintiff along with Artha Info Team participated with defendant. Said Sriram Reddy, Prakash Badiger were present in the said knowledge sharing session. Further in Ex.D2 the defendant Sriram Reddy has appreciated the efforts of the plaintiff team and informed that final demo will be convened on Saturday through Email dated 26.02.2019 at 3.24 PM. It is the contention of defendant that as per NDA executed on 30.04.2018 clause 2.2.1 confidential information relating to the business has to be maintained by the parties and defendant asserts that plaintiff has violated this clause by appointing Artha Info System for execution of their work without their knowledge. Whereas in all the Email communication taken place between the plaintiff and defendant, Artha Info System is a party and defendant also sometime sent a copy to Artha Info system itself. Having received the source code through Prakash Badiger who is admittedly working with defendant's LNG Technologies at present, what was the inconvenience caused to the defendant is not at all whispered by the defendant herein. On the other hand, in the cross-examination of DW1 it is elicited that as per Ex.D2 i.e., Email dated 25.02.2019 the UAT details were 18 Com. O.S. No.267/2020 furnished to defendant. DW.1 also admits that as per Ex.D2, the defendant company appreciated the plaintiff's work and further admits that in the said Email dated 26.02.2019 there is reference about Chidambar Joshi from plaintiff company and Prakash Badiger from Artha Info System and also DW.1 i.e., witness before this court Mr. Sridhar himself. He also admits that said Email dated 26.02.2019 sent by Sriram Reddy of defendant company to Chidambar Joshi from Artha Info System and plaintiff company and also DW.1. It is also elicited that as per Ex.D4 dated 28.03.2019 sent at 11 AM defendant himself informed that they want to extend the NDA even to said Artha Info System. He also admits that one Mr. Prakash Badiger was working with Artha Info System at that time. DW.1 further admits that defendant has also started new company by name LNG Technologies. He has denied the suggestion that at the time of process of development of said software by plaintiff, defendant started said LNG Technologies. He has also denied that they have recruited said Prakash Badiger of Artha Info Systems by LNG Technologies however admits that in Ex.D4 dated 28.03.2019 sent at 11 AM there is reference about Prakash Badiger for LNG Technologies. This version of DW.1 and the document more particularly Email Ex.D4 19 Com. O.S. No.267/2020 establishes that Prakash Badiger of Artha Info System who was initially working for plaintiff now started work with defendant LNG Technologies and his details are forthcoming in the Email dated 28.03.2019. In this Email the defendant has mentioned to the plaintiff that "initially BRD and NDA agreements have been signed between the plaintiff and defendant LNG Hospitality. Now that they understand the project has been executed by Artha Info System they would like tri-party NDA before sign off on the project". Therefore, this Email correspondence makes it crystal clear that defendant is neither complaining about disclosure of confidential terms or the business secrets of defendant company by the plaintiff through Artha Info System. On the other hand, he has mentioned that he is having the knowledge that plaintiff has executed the project through Artha Info System and thereby he want said Artha Info System authorities to sign the tri-party agreement with plaintiff and defendant. From Ex.D4 it is crystal clear that said Prakash Badiger of Artha Info System later started work for LNG Technologies pertaining to defendant himself. Defendant by employing the person of plaintiff for his company, later cannot evade payment of the amount due contending that work has not been executed in time. Nowhere in the Email 20 Com. O.S. No.267/2020 correspondence produced by defendant himself defendant has ever complained about either delay in executing the work or disclosure of any confidential matters to third parties. On the other hand, in the cross- examination of DW.1 he has voluntarily mentioned that after entering into the agreement between the defendant and plaintiff, defendant informed the plaintiff about its requirement and such discussion took 2 to 3 months time. Admittedly in Ex.P3 there is no such time stipulation forthcoming. DW.1 also admits that Ex.P11 has been delivered to defendant Sriram Reddy. In this regard, plaintiff has also produced track consignment document issued by postal authorities. Ex.P11 is the demand notice issued by plaintiff on 05.08.2019 stating that inspite of acknowledging the liability of payment of Rs.15,37,000/- defendants have miserably failed to make payment of the said amount due to plaintiff with malafide intention and thereby called upon the defendant including DW.1 herein and said Sriram Reddy to make the payment within 15 days. In this notice plaintiff has categorically mentioned that they have been transferred the system knowledge to defendant LNG Project team on 23.03.2019 and completed the project as agreed under the agreement. In spite of receipt of such notice by 21 Com. O.S. No.267/2020 Sriram Reddy who is none other than the Principal Coordinator of defendant company, defendant failed to issue any reply to this notice. On the other hand, defendant started another company by name LNG Technologies through Mr. Praksh Badiger whose name is forthcoming in Ex.D4. As I have already stated, it is not in dispute that software development agreement i.e., Ex.P3 has been signed by DW.1. The various Email correspondence produced by plaintiff and defendant himself establishes that source code has been handed over to defendant through Prakash Badiger of Artha Info System who is later recruited by defendant for his LNG Technologies. In the Email Ex.P10 produced by the plaintiff, plaintiff has informed that source code has already been handed over and there is also reference about one Amith Darda authorized representative of defendant whose name is forthcoming in NDA and also to Prakash Badiger, copy has been sent from plaintiff stating that Java code for service and API's etc., has been handed over to Prakash. Said Prakash admittedly is working for defendant. Having received the said source code and other details the very Sriram Reddy informed plaintiff to arrange for knowledge sharing sessions. Plaintiff accordingly arranged such session stating that 22 Com. O.S. No.267/2020 knowledge sharing session serenity project is completed and handed over. In NDA agreement though there is reference at clause 2.2.1 about confidentiality of business the term business has not been defined in NDA Agreement Ex.D3. It is the contention of defendant that plaintiff violated the clause 2.3.1 of Ex.D3 by engaging Prakash Badiger from Artha Info System. Whereas said Prakash Badiger engaged by plaintiff during the process of project, later recruited to defendant company itself by defendant for his LNG Technologies. These facts are not disputed by defendant, on the other hand DW.1 admits the same in his cross-examination. Having sent the source code and handed over other details to Prakash Badiger for LNG Technologies of defendant, plaintiff completed his work. On the other hand, defendant contended that plaintiff has not at all completed the work and also violated the norms of NDA and committed delay in executing the work. Whereas no documents are produced by defendant to substantiate the same. Admittedly, the defendant has paid part of the amount initially to the plaintiff for development of software app in its favour i.e., Rs.14,00,000/-. If plaintiff failed to develop app in time or violated terms of Ex.P3 or D3, it is probable that defendant having paid huge amount to the 23 Com. O.S. No.267/2020 plaintiff, would not have left any stone unturned. Further, there was no impediment for defendant to raise the dispute in this regard. It is the contention of defendant that plaintiff has violated the clause in Ex.D3 by engaging Artha Info team, whereas one Prakash Badiger who worked for such project with plaintiff later employed by defendant himself and that apart defendant through Email insisted plaintiff to enter into tri-party agreement between himself, plaintiff and said Prakash Badiger of Artha Info team. When such being the case, the question of violation of clause 2.2.1 in Ex.P3 or 3.2 of Ex.D3 does not arise. Defendant having received the source code and later having recruited plaintiff no persons in his company now cannot assert that plaintiff has not completed the work. Having received necessary source code with knowledge sharing session with regard to development of software from plaintiff, it was for the defendant to materialize the same by utilizing the app. Considering all these circumstances, I have answered Issue No.1 in the Affirmative and Issue No.2 and 3 in the Negative.
9. Issue No.4: - For the work executed in accordance with Ex.P3, plaintiff is entitled for the balance amount 24 Com. O.S. No.267/2020 due from defendant. In para-17 of the plaint, plaintiff claims interest at the rate of 18% p.a. However, in the prayer column plaintiff claims 24% interest per annum. Considering the transaction between the parties, if 18% interest is awarded per annum from the date of suit till realization of the amount that would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly and also in view of my findings on Issue No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following Order.
ORDER The Suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.17,81,639/- from defendant is decreed with cost.
The defendant shall deposit the amount within one month from today along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till realization of the amount.
25Com. O.S. No.267/2020 Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 27th day of July, 2022).
(LATHAKUMARI M.), LXXXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 Sri. Bhaskar G Naidu LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF Ex.P.1 Certificate of plaintiff company.
Ex.P.2 Board resolution.
Ex.P.3 Original software development agreement.
Ex.P.4 Tax invoice.
Ex.P.5 Export invoice.
Ex.P.6 Tax invoice.
Ex.P.7 & 8 Axis Bank statement.
Ex.P.9 Export invoice.
Ex.P.10 Copies E-mail exchanges between plaintiff and
defendant.
26
Com. O.S. No.267/2020
Ex.P.11 Office copy of legal notice dated 05.08.2019
issued by plaintiff.
Ex.P.11(a) 3 postal receipts.
Ex.P.12 Online Tract statement of postal department.
Ex.P.13 Sealed returned RPAD cover.
Ex.P.13(a) Postal receipt.
Ex.P.13(b) Sealed cover opened before the court and notice in it.
Ex.P.14 Another demand notice dated 12.09.2019 issued as per insolvency and bankruptcy goods.
Ex.P.15 Notice issued to one of the director Sridhar Srinivasan.
Ex.P.15(a) Postal receipt.
Ex.P.16 Sealed returned RPAD cover.
Ex.P.16(a) Sealed cover opened before the court and notice in it.
Ex.P.17 Certificate u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT DW.1 Sridhar. S LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT Ex.D1 E-mail Ex.D2 E-mail dated 26.02.2019 27 Com. O.S. No.267/2020 Ex.D.3 Copy of NDA and conditional sign off agreement.
Ex.D.4 E-mail correspondence with plaintiff dated 28.03.2019, 17.05.2019, 25.02.2019 and 26.02.2019 (3 pages in all) Ex.D.5 Form C issued by National E-governance Services Limited.
(LATHAKUMARI M.), LXXXV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.