Bangalore District Court
Composite Structural Engineers vs Sujash Bera on 14 January, 2026
KABC020062772024
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES
AND, ACJM, (SCCH-7), BENGALURU.
Before: Sri. SHYAM PRAKASH
B.A.L, LLB.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 14th day of January 2026
S.C. No.94/2024
PLAINTIFF : M/s COMPOSITE STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERS, Rep. by its
Proprietor,
Smt. Babu Umavathi,
W/o S. Deenadhayalan Naidu,
(Principle structural Engineer)
Aged around 54 years,
IT Ascent Flat No.15, 4th Floor,
119/1, 8th Cross, BDS Nagar,
K. Narayanapura Post,
Bangalore - 560 077.
2. Mr. S. Deenadhayalan Naidu,
S/o K. Sreeramulu Naidu,
(Principle Structure Engineer)
Composite Structural Engineers,
Aged around 60 years,
IT Ascent Flat No.15, 4th Floor,
119/1, 8th Cross, BDS Nagar,
K. Narayanapura Post,
Bangalore - 560 077.
(By Party In person)
2 SCH-7
SC.No.94/2024
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS: 1. Mr. Sujash Bera,
S/o Not Known to plaintiff,
Aged about 40 years,
Working as Architectural Consultant.
2. Mr. Arun,
S/o Not Known to plaintiff,
Aged about 40 years.
(Committee Member)
3. Miss. Koyel,
D/o Not Known to plaintiff,
Aged about 25 years.
(Committee Member)
4. Mr. Prakash,
Facility Manager,
S/o Not Known to plaintiff,
Aged about major,
5. Mr. Arun,
House Keeping,
S/o Not known,
Aged about major.
6. President,
Alpine ECO Apartments Owners
Welfare Association/Housing Unit.
7. Alpine ECO Apartments Housing
Welfare Association,
Rep. by its Board of Director/
Authorized signatories/person in
charge/ etc.
3 SCH-7
SC.No.94/2024
Sl. No.1 to 7 all are situated at Alpine
Eco Apartments, Survey No.13,
Doddanekundi, White Fields,
Krishnarajapuram Hobli,
Bengaluru - 560 037.
(By D.1 to D.5 Sri.R.S Advocate)
(D6 - Exparte)
*****
Date of Institution of suit 07-02-2024
Nature of the suit Recovery of Money
Date of Commencement of
08-07-2024
evidence
Date of pronouncement of
14-01-2026
judgment
Year's Month/s Day/s
Total Duration
01 11 07
(Shyam Prakash)
IX ASCJ & ACJM,
Benglauru.
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for recovery of money filed by the Plaintiff against defendants for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. and in alternate to restrain the defendants from misuse of the report submitted by the plaintiff and to restrain them to carryout work as shown in the report till the payment of the invoice amount and cost.
4 SCH-7 SC.No.94/2024
2. The brief facts averred in the Plaint are as under:
The Plaintiff No.1 is the Composite Structural Engineers firm and the plaintiff No.2 is the principle structure engineer of the said firm and he is the husband of the Proprietor of the plaintiff No.1 firm and he is managing all design consulting works. It is alleged that he saw the Ex.P-17/Paper advertisement dated 28.06.2023 published in Times of India by defendant's association for requiring structural analysis to find out the route cause of some of the identified risk areas and accordingly a Ex.P-18/brief profile was mailed in June 2023 to the advertiser/defendant's association and accordingly the defendant No.1 has invited the plaintiff No.2 to visit spot on 05.07.2023 and accordingly on 09.07.2023 the plaintiff No.2 has visited the Alpine Eco Apartments and met the defendant's therein and inspected the spot and taken photographs therein and on 31.07.2023 he has submitted the report along with the technical catalogs, sketch through whatsap with respect to proposed project and thereafter on 25.08.2023 the defendant messaged him that he has placed the same before the GBM for approval. Thereafter the defendant No.1 has prolonged the matter and not given any reply 5 SCH-7 SC.No.94/2024 or consent and therefore he has sent Ex.P-10 & 11/Invoices along with Ex.P-9/Covering letter and accordingly the defendant No.1 has sent reply to him that purchase order will be given when the General Body Meeting approves and inspite of the same the defendant No.1 has again prolonged the matter and not given positive response and therefore on 08.12.2023 when he has sent cheque details for transfer, at that time the defendant No.1 messaged him that they are going ahead with some other consultants. That he has made his efforts to inspect and sent report along with quotation proposal and finally the defendants changed their mind and given the proposed project to some other consultants and due to act of the defendants he has suffered irreparable loss and hardship, therefore he has demanded the defendants to pay the invoice amount, but the defendants dodged the time and not made payment. Hence, he has issued Letter against the Defendants which has been duly served to them.
Inspite of the same, the defendants have given Ex.P-14 & 15/Evasive reply and did not comply with the demand. As on the date of the suit the defendants are liable to pay Rs.1,60,000/- to the plaintiffs. Hence the plaintiffs constrained to file the suit.
6 SCH-7 SC.No.94/2024
3. In pursuance of suit summons, the defendant No.6 not appeared before the court and placed exparte and the defendants No.1 to 5 are appeared through it's counsel and filed written statement. In the written statement the defendants by denying the plaint averments and contended that the present suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed in limine. Further it is alleged that, the defendant's association, i.e., Alpine Eco Apartments Owners Welfare Association (AEAOWA) was looking for a comprehensive structural audit to identify issues/defects and to provide rectify suggestions by a structural engineer to carryout civil and structural repairs of the apartment basement area and accordingly the said association published advertisement of such requirement in Times of India News paper on 28.06.2023 and accordingly multiple vendors expressed interest and they are visited the apartment for providing their reports and quotations and plaintiffs are one among them to provide quotation for the said structural repair works. Under these circumstances the said association has not provided any purchase order or work order to the plaintiffs and not given any concent or acceptance to his proposal and even contract or agreement was not executed between them to carryout any such work. The plaintiff 7 SCH-7 SC.No.94/2024 No.2 just visited the spot like other vendors and on his own whims and understanding sent some documents and invoice before accepting his proposal and though the said works was not awarded to him, he tried to extract money from the defendants. The said contract was never finalized with the plaintiff as such question of awarding such work to plaintiff No.2 does not arise at all and the requirement of the said association is matched with another vendor/consultant and assigned the said work and accordingly the said consultant executed the work and accordingly the defendant's association has paid and settled the invoice bills of the said vendor/consultant as per Ex.D.7. Since there is no acceptance from the defendants for the proposal of the plaintiff No.2, he has no right to claim. The defendants did not benefit from the plaintiff specific report and quotation, as they used a different company to complete the work. Therefore the legal principal of unjust enrichment would not apply. The plaintiffs have deliberately sent the alleged notice/letter to the defendants and accordingly they have given right reply to the plaintiffs. Under this circumstances by suppressing these facts the plaintiffs have constrained to file the present suit against the defendants. Hence there is no cause of action to institute the present suit 8 SCH-7 SC.No.94/2024 and accordingly the present suit is not maintainable and prays to dismiss the suit.
4. The plaintiffs in order to prove their case, the Plaintiff No.2 got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P21 documents. On the other hand, the defendants got examined their GPA Holder by name Jayadeb Sahu as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.8 and closed their side.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. On the basis of the pleadings and the materials available on record, the following Points arise for my consideration:
1) Whether the plaintiffs proves that, in pursuance of the advertisement in the alleged newspaper the plaintiff No.2 has contacted the defendants and inspected the spot and given report and quotation for the proposed construction activities as alleged?
2) Whether the defendant proves that they did not benefit from the plaintiffs specific report and quotation has they used a different company to complete the construction activities, as such there was no agreement or promise by the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff for 9 SCH-7 SC.No.94/2024 the inspection and report charges as alleged?
3) Is the plaintiff entitled to the suit claim?
4) What order or decree?
7. My findings to the above Points are as under;
Point No: 1 :- In the Affirmative
Point No: 2 :- In the Affirmative
Point No: 3 :- In the Negative.
Point No: 4 :- As per final order for
the following;
REASONS
8. Points No.1 to 3:- These points are interlinked and inter related to each other, hence these points are taken for common discussion.
9. The Plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of money of Rs.1,60,000/- together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. and in alternate to restrain the defendants from misuse of the report submitted by the plaintiff and to restrain them to carryout work as shown in the report till the payment of the invoice amount and cost.
10. According to the plaintiff's case, the Plaintiff No.1 is the Composite Structural Engineers firm and the 10 SCH-7 SC.No.94/2024 plaintiff No.2 is the principle structure engineer of the said firm and he is the husband of the Proprietor of the plaintiff No.1 firm and he is managing all design consulting works. It is alleged that he saw the Ex.P- 17/Paper advertisement dated 28.06.2023 published in Times of India by defendant's association for requiring structural analysis to find out the route cause of some of the identified risk areas and accordingly a Ex.P-18/brief profile was mailed in June 2023 to the advertiser/defendant's association and accordingly the defendant No.1 has invited the plaintiff No.2 to visit spot on 05.07.2023 and accordingly on 09.07.2023 the plaintiff No.2 has visited the Alpine Eco Apartments and met the defendant's therein and inspected the spot and taken photographs therein and on 31.07.2023 he has submitted the report along with the technical catalogs, sketch through whatsap with respect to proposed project and thereafter on 25.08.2023 the defendant messaged him that he has placed the same before the GBM for approval. Thereafter the defendant No.1 has prolonged the matter and not given any reply or consent and therefore he has sent Ex.P-10 & 11/Invoices along with Ex.P-9/Covering letter and accordingly the defendant No.1 has sent reply to him that purchase order will be given when the General Body Meeting 11 SCH-7 SC.No.94/2024 approves and inspite of the same the defendant No.1 has again prolonged the matter and not given positive response and therefore on 08.12.2023 when he has sent cheque details for transfer, at that time the defendant No.1 messaged him that they are going ahead with some other consultants. That he has made his efforts to inspect and sent report along with quotation proposal and finally the defendants changed their mind and given the proposed project to some other consultants and due to act of the defendants he has suffered irreparable loss and hardship, therefore he has demanded the defendants to pay the invoice amount, but the defendants dodged the time and not made payment. Hence, he has issued Letter against the Defendants which has been duly served to them. Inspite of the same, the defendants have given Ex.P-14 & 15/Evasive reply and did not comply with the demand. As on the date of the suit the defendants are liable to pay Rs.1,60,000/- to the plaintiffs. The version of the defendants is that the present suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed in limine. Further it is alleged that, the defendant's association, i.e., Alpine Eco Apartments Owners Welfare Association (AEAOWA) was looking for a comprehensive structural audit to identify issues/defects and to provide rectify 12 SCH-7 SC.No.94/2024 suggestions by a structural engineer to carryout civil and structural repairs of the apartment basement area and accordingly the said association published advertisement of such requirement in Times of India News paper on 28.06.2023 and accordingly multiple vendors expressed interest and they are visited the apartment for providing their reports and quotations and plaintiffs are one among them to provide quotation for the said structural repair works. Under these circumstances the said association has not provided any purchase order or work order to the plaintiffs and not given any concent or acceptance to his proposal and even contract or agreement was not executed between them to carryout any such work. The plaintiff No.2 just visited the spot like other vendors and on his own whims and understanding sent some documents and invoice before accepting his proposal and though the said works was not awarded to him, he tried to extract money from the defendants. The said contract was never finalized with the plaintiff as such question of awarding such work to plaintiff No.2 does not arise at all and the requirement of the said association is matched with another vendor/consultant and assigned the said work and accordingly the said consultant executed the work and accordingly the defendant's association has paid and settled the invoice bills of the 13 SCH-7 SC.No.94/2024 said vendor/consultant as per Ex.D.7. Since there is no acceptance from the defendants for the proposal of the plaintiff No.2, he has no right to claim. The defendants did not benefit from the plaintiff specific report and quotation, as they used a different company to complete the work. Therefore the legal principal of unjust enrichment would not apply. The plaintiffs have deliberately sent the alleged notice/letter to the defendants and accordingly they have given right reply to the plaintiffs. Under this circumstances by suppressing these facts the plaintiffs have constrained to file the present suit against the defendants. Hence there is no cause of action to institute the present suit and accordingly the present suit is not maintainable and prays to dismiss the suit.
11. The burden to prove the framed Point lies on the Plaintiffs. Hence, in order to prove its case, the Plaintiff No.2 got examined as P.W.1 by filing affidavit evidence and he has reiterated the entire plaint averments in his evidence before this Court and produced as many as Ex.P1 to Ex.P21 documents. Therefore, there is no necessity to repeat those facts again. I have gone through the documents produced by P.W.1. Ex.P.1 is the SPA dated 03.07.2024 executed by the Proprietor of the plaintiff No.1 in favour of plaintiff No.2 to 14 SCH-7 SC.No.94/2024 represent the matter on its behalf, Ex.P.2 is the Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, Ex.P.3 is the GST Registration Certificate of plaintiff No.1, Ex.P.4 is the E-mail and Whatsapp messages, Ex.P.5 is the Letter dated 02.08.2023 given by the plaintiff to defendant's association, Ex.P.6 is the Inspection Reports, sketch/plan, Ex.P.7 is the Catalogue of Company, Ex.P.8 is the Letter dated 12.07.2023 with respect to Quotation, Ex.P.9 is the Letter dated 10.11.2023, Ex.P.10k is the Tax Invoice dated 10.11.2023 issued by the plaintiff in favour of defendant's association, Ex.P.11 is the Tax Invoice dated 31.07.2023 issued by the SV Colour Grafics to plaintiff No.1, Ex.P.12 is the Photographs, Ex.P.13 is the CD, Ex.P.14 and Ex.P-15 are the Reply to Legal Notice dated 11.01.2024, Ex.P.16 is the Copy of Whatsapp messages, Ex.P.17 is the Advertisement published in Times of India Newspaper dated 28.06.203, Ex.P.18 is the plaintiff No.1 Company profile sent through E-mail, Ex.P.19 is the Letter written by Plaintiff No.2 to defendant's Association dated 20.12.2023, Ex.P.20 is the E-mail and Whatsapp correspondence and Ex.P.21 is the Certificate under Section 63 of BSA.
15 SCH-7 SC.No.94/2024
12. In the cross-examination of PW-1 by the counsel for defendants he deposed that plaintiff No.1 is the proprietorship firm and he is working as Composite Structural Engineer therein through the PP advertisement in newspaper he came to know about the requirement of the defendant's association in the month of June 2023 and accordingly he has contacted the defendant No.1 through E-mail and thereafter the defendant No.1 has permitted to inspect the spot and accordingly he has inspected the spot and thereafter he has forward his report along with photographs and quotation. There is no written agreement in between them with respect to work allotted to him, but the defendants No.1 to 3 have orally instructed him to go ahead with the work. He has sent quotation to the defendant No.1 through whatsapp in the month of August 2023. On 25.08.2023 the defendant No.1 asked him for the quotation and accordingly he has issued quotation on 12.07.2023 and thereafter the defendant No.1 has placed before GBM for approval. After receiving such quotation the defendants are not communicated or contacted him for 78 days and therefore he has contacted the defendant No.1 and given invoice and demanded to pay the said invoice bill. After 100 days from the date of submitting his report the defendant No.1 has informed that he is not 16 SCH-7 SC.No.94/2024 interest to take service from him. Therefore he has issued letter dated 28.12.2023 to the defendant demanding to pay the invoice bill amount. For the said letter the defendants have given reply by denying his demand with respect to payment of the said bill. He has issued the said report, invoice bill without approval of the GBM of the defendants association.
13. In order to prove the version of the defendant, the GPA holder of defendant's firm Sri.Jayadeb Sahu got examined as D.W.1 by filing affidavit evidence and he has reiterated the entire written statement averments in his evidence before this Court and got marked documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D.8 documents. I have gone through the documents produced by D.W.1. Ex.D1 is the General Power of Attorney dated 11.03.2024 executed by the defendants in favour of their agent to represent the case on their behalf, Ex.D.2 is the Board Resolution , Ex.D.3 is the payment confirmation letter dated 27.05.2024 issued by defendant's association to KIA Consultants, Ex.D.4 is the Minutes of the General Body Meeting dated 26.03.2023, Ex.D.5 is the Minutes of the General Body Meeting dated 24.09.2023, Ex.D.6 is the Owners Welfare Association General Body Meeting documents dated 24.09.2023, Ex.D.7 is the Invoice issued by K.I.A. Consultants with respect to 17 SCH-7 SC.No.94/2024 work done as per the requirement of the defendants and Ex.D.8 is the Certificate under Section 63(4)(c) Part A of B.S.A. 2023. In the cross-examination of Dw.1 by the counsel for plaintiff, he has deposed that in purchase of the discussion in GBM/General Body Meeting the flat owners will assemble and discussed the matter about disputes, problems and maintenance. In pursuance of the advertisement in paper publication plaintiff No.2 has contacted the defendant No.1 and accordingly the defendant No.1 has permitted the plaintiff No.1 to visit the spot. In pursuance of the said advertisement in paper publication plaintiff No.1 profile and KIA Consultant profile have contacted the defendants association and both vendors have visited the spot and given the report and quotation for the alleged construction activities. After approval from the GBM the defendants association has given work order to KIA Consultants and accordingly the said consultants have completed the required work and given invoice and accordingly they have paid the payment towards work done. Further he has denied that the said KIA Consultant is not in existence and they have not made any transaction between KIA Consultants and in order to escape from their liability he is deposing falsely.
18 SCH-7 SC.No.94/2024
14. The plaintiff contended that in pursuance of the advertisement in newspaper for a proposed construction activities the plaintiff being interested party invited to inspect the spot of the defendant's apartment and thereafter he has made an offer by submitting a report, plan, quotation and invoice and thereafter the defendant has not informed anything to the plaintiff and finally he has not accepted the proposal of the plaintiff and he has completed the work from another consultant, as a result the efforts of the plaintiff went on vain and plaintiff put to great hardship and irreparable loss as such without hesitation prays to allow the suit claim. The counsel for the defendant's contended that, in pursuance of the advertisement in newspaper for a proposed construction activities in the defendant's apartments many consultants approached the defendant's association and they have inspected the spot and given report along with quotation and accordingly the plaintiff No.2 is one among them who inspected the spot and submitted the report along with quotation. The said advertisement is generally considered as an invitation to offer, not an offer itself. This means the defendant was inviting interested parties to propose terms, reports and quotations. The plaintiff made an offer by submitting a report and quotation. A contract 19 SCH-7 SC.No.94/2024 is only formed when an offer is unequivocally accepted by the other party and in this matter the defendant defendant's association did not accept the plaintiff offer. The defendant was generally under no legal obligation to accept the plaintiff proposal, especially when a more cost- effective option was available from another company. The costs incurred by the plaintiff for the spot inspection and report were preliminary to the formation of the contract. In the absence of an agreement (either express or implied) that such preliminary work would be compensated regardless of whether the contract was awarded, these costs are typically viewed as a business expense or a risk taken by the plaintiff in the hope of securing the larger project. The defendant's association has not accepted the proposal of the plaintiff and it has awarded the final contract to KIA Consultants and it has completed the required work and accordingly the defendant's association settle the payment to the said KIA Consultants towards the alleged workdone, under these circumstances the plaintiff has no right to claim against the defendant's association, as such without hesitation prays to dismiss the present suit.
15. On going through the rival submission of the both parties, pleading, evidence, documents and material 20 SCH-7 SC.No.94/2024 available on record and position of law it is seen that, the defendant's association made an advertisement in a newspaper by inviting the consultants to carryout the construction activities in the defendant's apartment as per their requirement and accordingly many consultants including the plaintiff have approached the defendant and inspected the spot and thereafter the plaintiff No.2 and another consultant submitted the report along with quotation and placing before General Body Meeting the defendant's association rejected the report of the plaintiff and accepted the report of the another consultant, i.e., KIA Consultant and permitted it to continue with the said project and accordingly it has completed the work as per their requirement and accordingly the defendant's association settle the payment to it for the alleged work done, under these circumstances the plaintiffs have no role in the alleged construction activities. In the instant case, the initial advertisement by the defendant' association was likely an 'invitation to offer', not a concrete offer to the Plaintiffs. The plaintiff's quotation constituted the 'offer' which the defendant was free to accept or reject. The defendant was not legally obligated to accepted the lowest bid or work with the Plaintiffs. There is no legally binding contract with the plaintiffs. A legally binding contract requires 21 SCH-7 SC.No.94/2024 an offer, acceptance, consideration and an intention to create legal relations, since the defendants never accepted the plaintiff's offer (quotation) no contract was formed between them. The costs incurred by the Plaintiffs for the spot inspection and report were essentially a business expense or investment made to prepare their offer. In competitive bidding situations, it is generally understood that such preparatory costs are borne by the party making the bid unless there is a specific agreement to the contrary. In relating to absence of agreement for reimbursement, there was no agreement or promise by the defendants to reimburse the plaintiff for the inspection and report charges, even if the work was awarded elsewhere. The defendants have the right to choose another company based on cost or any other factor, as long as no prior contract with the Plaintiffs was breached. The quotation/invoice bill merely documented the plaintiff's expenses, it did not create a legal obligation for the defendants to pay in the absence of a contract. Hence the defendant proves that they did not benefit from the plaintiffs specific report and quotation has they used a different company to complete the construction activities, as such there was no agreement or promise by the defendants to reimburse the plaintiffs for the inspection and report charges as 22 SCH-7 SC.No.94/2024 alleged and obviously the plaintiffs are not entitled to their alternate relief that prayed in the plaint. Hence I do not find good ground to entertain the present suit of the plaintiffs. Accordingly the counsel for defendant's have rightly contended that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the suit claim. Hence in the light of the above discussion and keeping in view of the position of law, I conclude that the plaintiffs failed to prove the case and accordingly the counsel for the defendants rightly contended that there is no force in the contention in the plaint. Hence, the plaintiffs suit have to fail. Accordingly, I answered Points No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative and Point No.3 in the Negative.
16. Point No.4:- In view of my above discussions and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed with cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by him, corrected and signed by me and then pronounced in the Open Court on 14th day of January 2026) [Shyam Prakash] IX ADDL. JUDGE & ACJM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
23 SCH-7 SC.No.94/2024 ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
PW.1 : Mr. S. Deenadayalan Naidu
2. List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 : SPA dated 03.07.2024
Ex.P.2 : Certificate under Section 65B of
Indian Evidence Act
Ex.P.3 : GST Registration Certificate
Ex.P.4 : E-mail and Whatsapp messages
Ex.P.5 : Letter dated 02.08.2023
Ex.P.6 : Inspection Reports, sketch/plan
Ex.P.7 : Catalogue of Company
Ex.P.8 : Letter dated 12.07.2023 with
respect to Quotation
Ex.P.9 : Letter dated 10.11.2023
Ex.P.10 : Tax Invoice dated 10.11.2023
Ex.P.11 : Tax Invoice dated 31.07.2023
Ex.P.12 : Photographs
Ex.P.13 : CD
Ex.P.14 &
Ex.P-15 : Reply to Legal Notice dated
11.01.2024
Ex.P.16 : Copy of Whatsapp messages
Ex.P.17 : Advertisement published in Times
of India Newspaper
Ex.P.18 : Plaintiff No.1 Company profile
sent through E-mail
Ex.P.19 : Letter written by Plaintiff No.2 to
defendant's Association
Ex.P.20 : E-mail and Whatsapp
correspondence
24 SCH-7
SC.No.94/2024
Ex.P.21 : Certificate under Section 63 of
BSA.
3. List of witness examined for the defendant:
DW.1 : Sri. Jayadeb Sahu
4. List of documents exhibited for the defendant:
Ex.D1 : General Power of Attorney
Ex.D.2 : Resolution of Board
Ex.D.3 : Payment confirmation letter
Ex.D.4 : Minutes of the General Body
Meeting dated 26.03.2023
Ex.D.5 : Minutes of the General Body
Meeting dated 24.09.2023
Ex.D.6 : Owners Welfare Association
General Body Meeting documents
dated 24.09.2023
Ex.D.7 : Invoice issued by K.I.A.
Consultants
Ex.D.8 : Certificate under Section 63(4)(c)
Part A of B.S.A. 2023.
[Shyam Prakash]
IX ADDL. JUDGE & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
Digitally signed
by
SHYAMPRAKASH SHYAMPRAKASH
Date: 2026.01.24
12:40:07 +0530