Bangalore District Court
Raghunandan vs Tsi Yatra Private Limited on 19 November, 2025
KABC010213572014
IN THE COURT OF XXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 19th day of November 2025
Present : SRI.VEDAMOORTHY B.S., B.A.(L)., LL.B.,
XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-14)
O.S.No.7611/2014
PLAINTIFF : Mr.Raghunandan,
Aged about 54 years,
S/o Mr.M.S.Gopalan,
Residing at No.59/2A,
South Second Cross,
Oil Mill Road, M.C.Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 033.
(By Sri.Muralidhara C., Advocate)
V/s
DEFENDANTS : 1. TSI Yatra Private Limited,
Unit No.78, 7th Floor,
Tower D, Unitech Cyber Park,
Sector - 39, Gurgaon,
Haryana - 122 002.
2. Mr.Dhruv Shringi, Founder,
TSI Yatra Private Limited,
Unit No.78, 7th Floor,
Tower D, Unitech Cyber Park,
Sector - 39, Gurgaon,
Haryana - 122 002.
3. Mr.Akash Poddar,
2
O.S.No.7611/2014
Chief Operating Officer,
TSI Yatra Private Limited,
Unit No.78, 7th Floor,
Tower D, Unitech Cyber Park,
Sector - 39, Gurgaon,
Haryana - 122 002.
4. Mr.Pradeep Vaidya,
Head - HR & Administration,
Unit No.78, 7th Floor,
Tower D, Unitech Cyber Park,
Sector - 39, Gurgaon,
Haryana - 122 002.
5. MR.Satyajit Mishra,
General Manager,
Unit No.78, 7th Floor,
Tower D, Unitech Cyber Park,
Sector - 39, Gurgaon,
Haryana - 122 002.
6. TSI Yatra Private Limited,
CSRIE No.31, Grape Garden,
1st Floor, 17th H Main,
6th Block, Koramangala,
Bangalore - 560 095.
(By Sri.S.Rupesh Kumar, Advocate)
Date of institution of the suit. 09.10.2014
Nature of the suit Recovery of Money
Date of the commencement of 22.09.2018
recording evidence
Date on which the Judgment 19.11.2025
was pronounced
3
O.S.No.7611/2014
Years Months Days
Total duration
11 01 10
(VEDAMOORTHY B.S.)
XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of money. The suit claim is of Rs.71,92,733/- together with interest at the rate of 18% from 01.02.2013 to 31.12.2016 with Court cost.
2. Breakup of the above claims are as under :-
Sl.No. Particulars Amount in
Rupees
1 Salary for the month of February 2013 82,595/-
2 Salary for the month of March 2013 60,922/-
3 Salary for the month of April 2013 75,466/-
Medical Reimbursement for the months 4 December 2012 to April 2013 at the rate 6,250/-
of Rs.1,250/- per month Driver's Salary reimbursement for the 5 months December 2012 to April 2013 at 20,000/-
the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month Vehicle Repair Reimbursement for the 6 months December 2012 to April 2013 at 17,500/-
the rate of Rs.3,500/- per month 7 Landline telephone Reimbursement for 12,500/-
the months December 2012 to April 2013 4 O.S.No.7611/2014 at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month Leave Travel Allowance (LTA) for the period of April 2012 to March 2013 and 8 65,000/-
for the month of April 2013 at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month Performance Bonus (PLB) for the period 9 April 2013 to December 2016 at Rs.2.00 8,00,000/-
lakhs per year 10 Earned Leave (EL) 50,000/-
Petrol Conveyance Reimbursement for 11 the period December 2012 to April 2013 30,000- at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month Cell Phone Bill Reimbursement for the 12 months December 2012 to April 2013 at 12,500/-
the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month Salary for the period May 2013 to 13 31.12.2016 for 44 months at the rate of 55,00,000/-
Rs.1,25,000/- per month 14 Legal Fees 1,00,000/-
15 Expenses 60,000/-
16 Gratuity and emoluments 1,00,000/-
Compensation for the harassment
17 caused to the plaintiff on account of 2,00,000/-
defendant's misdoings
Total 71,92,733/-
3. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are that the plaintiff was working in the Company engaged in the business of making travel arrangement to various customers across India like providing air, train and bus tickets and making reservations in hotels, etc. On 20.12.2010, he was appointed by Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. as 5 O.S.No.7611/2014 the Regional Manager - South India. During May 2012, Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. merged its business with TSI and the new Company in the name and style of 'TSI Yatra Pvt. Ltd.' (hereinafter called as 'Company' in short) was formed. It is the 1st defendant. Considering the facts that the new company was formed, it required the assistance of the experience of the plaintiff and the plaintiff increased the business of Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. considerably from Rs.4.00 Croes to Rs.77 Crores during the period 2011-12, the plaintiff was transferred to the Company and re- designated as General Manager of Bengaluru Branch. 4 The further case of the plaintiff is that it was a common practice in the Company that the business was carried out on the basis of both upfront payments and providing credit facilities. If the credit was provided to any customers, the plaintiff was always ensure that the customers make payments on time. The Company had no qualms about the same considering the fact that the said method used by the plaintiff increased the business of the Company. Due to several factors, in the end of September 6 O.S.No.7611/2014 2012, the Company faced certain financial problems. In order to revive the Company, Mr.Satya was deputed to ensure that all the outstanding amounts due to the Company are reclaimed. Though it was projected to the employees of the Company that Mr.Satya was deputed for the above purpose, he was given with more responsibilities. During December 2012, the plaintiff was informed that Mr.Satya is the head of his branch, the plaintiff has no power and he has to support Mr.Satya. The plaintiff had an experience of 27 years in the industry and he was the General Manager of the Company. Though, the above act of the Company was completely perplexed the plaintiff, he agreed to do so as he was entirely and truly committed to the Company. He believed the intention of the Company to be true and felt that Mr.Satya would help the Company to revive from its losses. Therefore, the plaintiff agreed to provide his entire support and assistance to the Company despite he being asked to step down from his position and to assist Mr.Satya. Upon taking the charge, Mr.Satya stopped all the credit facilities that was till then provided to 7 O.S.No.7611/2014 some customers. This included the canceling of the credit facilities to one of its customers viz., Shahs Airborne since February 2012 who provided a lot of business to the company. Though Shahs Airborne cleared most of its outstanding dues, it has a sum of Rs.10.50 lakhs outstanding due to the Company. Shahs Airborne was asked to make the payments immediately. While these decisions were taken by Mr.Satya and Mr.Akash Poddar being the Chief Operating Officer of the Company began to question the integrity and loyalty of the plaintiff towards the Company. The plaintiff was mentally harassed to such an extent that he was forced to serve his resignation from the Company. The Company threatened the plaintiff for his resignation else they would terminate and humiliate the plaintiff which would lead to bad image in the industry. Therefore, on 05.06.2013, the plaintiff having no other option was forced to serve his resignation and ended his services with the Company after due service of the notice as per the Appointment Letter. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached the Company for the payment of his salary and 8 O.S.No.7611/2014 other outstanding amounts which were due and payable by the Company to him. On making such a representation, the Company informed the plaintiff that till the plaintiff recovers the outstanding amounts from Shahs Airborne, his outstanding amounts payable from the Company will not be paid to him. Therefore, the plaintiff kept following up Shahs Airborne asking them to repay the outstanding amount to the Company. As per the mail dated 06.05.2013, the Company has linked the plaintiff's salary to the outstanding amount payable by the said Shahs Airborne which is unfair and against the law. After constant follow up by the plaintiff, he could recover Rs.4.50 lakhs from Shahs Airborne and the outstanding amount due from Shahs Airborne at present is Rs.6.00 lakhs. Despite that the Company has not considered the plaintiff's request to clear the full and final settlement for which he is legally entitled to.
5. What made the plaintiff to file this suit is that if he was allowed to work in the Company, he would retire on 31.12.2016. Till then, he was entitled for salary, 9 O.S.No.7611/2014 increments, promotions, statutory allowances and expenses. The Company is liable to pay the same from the month of February 2013 till 31.12.2016. It is amounting to Rs.71,92,733/-. The plaintiff is legally entitled for the said amount from the Company. The Company agreed and promised to pay the same. But, the Company did not paid it. The Company was not issued the Relieving Letter to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff could not secure any employment after his resignation to the Company. The plaintiff made several requests to the Company to pay the outstanding amount due to him. But, it went in vain. The plaintiff come to know through a reliable source that Shahs Airborne is ready to clear the outstanding dues payable by it to the Company, provided the Company clear the full and final settlement of the plaintiff. However, despite that the Company has not come forward to clear the full and final settlement of the plaintiff. Due to the above illegal act of the Company, the plaintiff undergone mental agony and harassment. Hence, the plaintiff issued a Legal Notice dated 06.03.2014 seeking for the payment of the outstanding 10 O.S.No.7611/2014 dues payable to the plaintiff within 15 days from the receipt of the Notice. The Company has not paid the outstanding amount as claimed by the plaintiff.
6. After due service of summons to the defendants, they have appeared before this Court. Among them, the 1 st defendant filed the written statement. In the said written statement, the 1st defendant admitted that the Company is liable to to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.6,18,844/- and the Company agreed to pay the same to the plaintiff. But, the plaintiff has approached this Court not with clean hands. The plaintiff avoided to execute the a Simple Settlement Deed mutually agreed between the parties. Thereafter, he filed this frivolous suit by making false claim. Defendants No.2 to 6 are not personally liable for the suit claim. Therefore, they are not necessary parties to the suit. The allegations of the plaintiff made against the defendants are denied as false.
7. The contentions of the 1st defendant in the written statement are that the plaintiff was retained by the 11 O.S.No.7611/2014 Company as he was one of the past employees of Yatra. He was transferred and re-designated to Bangalore Branch of the Company as General Manager. Thereafter, gradually certain irregularities started surfacing and by September 2012, the Company suffered huge loss through credit base model payments. In order to revive the Company from loss and to regulate the irregularities, the 4 th defendant was deputed to ensure that all outstanding amount due to the Company are reclaimed and the payment process is regularized. It came to know to the 4th defendant after perusal of the financial records that the plaintiff gave credits to various agents by bypassing the Company Policies and without approval. On several occasions, defendants No.3 and 5 have requested the plaintiff for information of credit facilities provided by him to various debtors. But, he avoided such deliberations by not co- operating. He shown different attitude towards the defendants. The plaintiff himself decided to resign from the Company when the Company required his assistance to receive the losses caused due to the fallout of the credit 12 O.S.No.7611/2014 payment facilities. The plaintiff himself agreed to assist the defendants in reclaiming the due amount from Shahs Airborne. But, during the notice period, the plaintiff did not assist the defendants in any manner. He refused to provide information to the defendants. It was mutually decided by the plaintiff and the Company that the notice pay/ dues shall be cleared by the Company subject to past recovery of the payments of the debtors. But, after re leaving of the plaintiff, he claimed that his dues shall be cleared without deduction of the applicable taxes for which, the Company refused as it is against law. The plaintiff in turn refused to collect his dues and threatened the defendants of dire consequences. The amount recovered from Shahs Airborne was recovered due to the constant follow ups of the defendants and their employees. The plaintiff never took any initiative and he completely disassociated from the responsibilities of recovering the monies before and after his association with the Company. The Company has never denied to make full ad final settlement of the dues to the plaintiff. The plaintiff agreed for settlement for 13 O.S.No.7611/2014 Rs.6,18,844/- and agreed to execute the Settlement Deed. The final draft of the Settlement Deed was e-mailed to his Advocate for its execution. But, the plaintiff and his Advocate never responded. The plaintiff is not entitled for performance bonus during the notice period as he has not taken u any new project during the said period. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
8. Based on the above pleadings of the parties, the following Issues are framed.
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants due of Rs.71,92,733/- towards his salary and other benefits ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the decree as prayed for ?
3. What decree or order ?
9. To prove the above, the plaintiff has produced his oral evidences as PW1. He has produced the documentary evidences Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. On behalf of the defendants, the authorized representative of the 6 th defendant by name Srinivasa M. has produced his oral evidences as DW1. During 14 O.S.No.7611/2014 cross-examination of PW1, Ex.D1, Ex.D2 and Ex.D4 are marked on behalf of the defendants through confrontation to PW1. Through DW1, Ex.D3 was marked.
10. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsels for the plaintiff and the defendants. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has relied the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Thangam & another V/s Navamani Ammal (Civil Appeal No.8935/2011 dated 04.03.2024). Perused the materials available on record.
11. My answers to the above issues are as follows;
Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative, Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative, Issue No.3 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS
12. ISSUES No.1 AND 2 :- The findings on these Issues are inter-related. Therefore, these issues are taken together for consideration.
To prove these issues, on the part of the plaintiff, he has produced the oral evidences as PW1. He filed his affidavits by way of examination-in-chief and further examination-in-chief. 15
O.S.No.7611/2014 In the affidavit filed by him by way of his examination-in- chief, he reiterated the facts averred in the amended plaint. PW1 in his affidavit filed by way of further examination-in- chief has deposed that during May 2012, Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. merged its business with TSI and a new Company in the name and style of TSI Yatra Pvt. Ltd. was formed. It is the 1 st defendant Company. He was transferred to the 1 st defendant Company and re designated as the General Manager at its Bangalore Branch. On 29.05.2012, the 1 st defendant Company issued a letter informing that he will be entitled for performance linked bonus.
13. In support of the above oral evidences, the plaintiff has also produced the documentary evidences Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. Among them, Ex.P1 is the Letter of Transfer and re- designation of the plaintiff as General Manager dated 26.05.2012 issued by the 1 st defendant, Ex.P2 is the copy of the E-Mail massage dated 09.02.2013 sent by the plaintiff about his resignation, Ex.P3 is the copy of the E-Mail massage dated 06.05.2013 sent by the 3 rd defendant, Ex.P4 is the copy of the Notice dated 06.03.2014 issued by the 16 O.S.No.7611/2014 plaintiff to the defendants, Ex.P5 is the Postal Receipts, Ex.P6 is the Statement Account of the Bank Account of the plaintiff, Ex.P7 to Ex.P13 are the Pay-Slips of the plaintiff, Ex.P14 is the E-Mail Letter dated 09.02.2013, Ex.P15 is the copy of the Offer Letter dated 25.10.2010, Ex.P16 is the copy of the Letter dated 29.05.2012, Ex.P17 is the copy of the Letter dated 23.10.2012 and Ex.P18 is the Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
14. Per contra, on behalf of the defendants, the authorized representative of the 6th defendant by name Srinivasa M. has produced his oral evidences as DW1. He filed his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. Its contents are the reiteration of the facts averred in the written statement. During cross- examination of PW1, Ex.D1, Ex.D2 and Ex.D4 are marked on behalf of the defendants through confrontation to PW1. Among them, Ex.D1 is the E-Mail massage of the 3 rd defendant dated 11.02.2013, Ex.D2 is the Draft copy of the Settlement Deed and Ex.D4 is the certified copy of the Orders in Criminal Petition No.307/2016 dated 29.08.2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court f Karnataka. Through DW1, the 17 O.S.No.7611/2014 Certified copy of the Board Resolution is marked as Ex.D3.
15. PW1 and DW1 are cross-examined by their respective adverse parties. DW1 has admitted in his cross-examination that the written statement and his affidavit filed by way of his examination-in-chief are prepared by the Legal Team of the 6th defendant Company and he has no personal knowledge of the contents of the same. Therefore, the oral evidences deposed by DW1 in his affidavit filed by way of examination- in-chief are not worth to believe.
16. It appears from the written statement averments and the suggestions made to PW1 during his cross-examination on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiff was re- designated in the 1st defendant Company as General Manager for Bangalore Branch; his nature of work; his salary, emoluments, Bonus, deductions; Notice of Resignation dated 09.02.2013 issued by the plaintiff to the 3 rd defendant and the claim made by the plaintiff to settle his dues and arrears with Experience Letter, Relieving Letter and Form No.16 are are undisputed facts. The liability of the 1 st defendant to pay 18 O.S.No.7611/2014 Rs.6,18,844/- is admitted fact. They are the following claims of the plaintiff.
Sl.No. Particulars Amount in
Rupees
1 Salary for the month of February 2013 82,595/-
2 Salary for the month of March 2013 60,922/-
3 Salary for the month of April 2013 75,466/-
Medical Reimbursement for the months 4 December 2012 to April 2013 at the 6,250/-
rate of Rs.1,250/- per month Driver's Salary reimbursement for the 5 months December 2012 to April 2013 20,000/-
at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month Vehicle Repair Reimbursement for the 6 months December 2012 to April 2013 17,500/-
at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per month Landline telephone Reimbursement for the months December 2012 to April 7 12,500/-
2013 at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month Leave Travel Allowance (LTA) for the period of April 2012 to March 2013 and 8 65,000/-
for the month of April 2013 at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month 9 Performance Bonus (PLB) 2,00,000/-
10 Earned Leave (EL) 21,779/-
4 days salary for the month of May 11 14,332/-
2013 19 O.S.No.7611/2014 Petrol Conveyance Reimbursement for the period December 2012 to April 12 30,000- 2013 at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month Cell Phone Bill Reimbursement for the 13 months December 2012 to April 2013 12,500/-
at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month Total 6,18,844/-
17. As per the plaintiff, the outstanding from Shas Airborne was Rs.10.50 lakhs. The admission of the defendants in their written statement and during cross-examination of PW1 that out of the said outstanding, Shas Airborne has paid Rs.4.50 lakhs and due to pay Rs.6.00 lakhs to the Company. It appears from the contents of Ex.P3 that the 3 rd defendant informed the plaintiff to collect the money from Shas Airborne and to get his money from the Company. In the light of the above contention of the 3rd defendant, I read the contents of Ex.P1. Clause No.22 of Ex.P1 reads as follows:-
"It is management's policy that no credit be extended to the company client by any employee without the prior approval of the Management. It is clearly understood that you are not authorised to extend credit on your own discretion and in the event that credit is extended by you, your personal account will be 20 O.S.No.7611/2014 debited immediately and you will be responsible for the recovery of the amount from the party to whom credit has been extended by you."
18. PW1 has admitted during cross-examination that he had only right to give the Travel Hospitality to other travel agencies on credit basis. He has deposed that he was giving the credit facility with the permission of the Head Office, he has documents to show the same and he will produce the documents in that regard in future. But, the plaintiff has not produced any such documents. Despite the above terms and condition, the 1st defendant admitted its liability to pay Rs.6,18,844/- to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.6,18,844/- from the 1 st defendant.
19. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Thangam & another V/s Navamani Ammal (Civil Appeal No.8935/2011 dated 04.03.2024) relied by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the principles that the facts admitted are not required to be proved is relied. In view of the said principles of law, the plaintiff need not prove his claim of Rs.6,18,844/- from the 1st defendant. 21
O.S.No.7611/2014
20. The additional claims of the plaintiff are as follows:-
Sl.No. Particulars Amount in
Rupees
Performance Bonus (PLB) for the period 1 April 2013 to December 2013 at Rs.2.00 6,00,000/-
lakhs per year 2 Earned Leave (EL) 28,221/-
Salary for the period May 2013 to 3 31.12.2016 for 44 months at the rate of 54,85,668/-
Rs.1,25,000/- per month 4 Legal Fees 1,00,000/-
5 Expenses 60,000/-
6 Gratuity and emoluments 1,00,000/-
Compensation for the harassment 7 caused to the plaintiff on account of 2,00,000/-
defendant's misdoings
21. The above claims of the plaintiff are from the date of his resignation and till 31.12.2016 keeping in view of his entitlement with other statutory allowances and expenses as agreed and promised by the Company to pay. Though, the defendants have not specifically denied the said claim of the plaintiff, in view of the above judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, this Court in its discretion called the plaintiff to prove the said facts. Therefore, the plaintiff requires to prove the said claim by producing reliable and cogent evidences. It appears from the contents 22 O.S.No.7611/2014 of Ex.P1 that bonus is payable only if eligible and covered under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act 1965 and the gratuity is payable if eligible as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972. Admittedly, the plaintiff gave resignation to his employment of the Company. He has not illegally terminated from his employment by the Company. PW1 has admitted in his cross-examination that from May- 2013 to 31.12.2016, he has not worked for the Company; he is entitled for performance bonus if he reached the target achievement and the entitlement of the quantum of target achievement is mentioned in Ex.P17. Since, the plaintiff has not worked for the Company from May-2013 to 31.12.2016, the plaintiff cannot make the above claims as a matter of right. Though, the contention of the plaintiff is that the defendants have forced and threatened him to give resignation to his employment, except his self-testimony, the plaintiff has not produced any evidences to prove the said allegation. None of the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff are proving the above allegations. 23
O.S.No.7611/2014
22. During cross-examination of PW1, he has admitted Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. As per the contents of Ex.D2, the 1 st defendant offered for settlement of the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants by paying Rs.6,18,844/- to the plaintiff. It is not materialized. PW1 in his cross- examination has admitted that after filing of the suit, the defendants gave demand draft for Rs.6,18,844/- and the plaintiff has not received it. He has further deposed in his cross-examination that he claimed Rs.71,92,733/- as damage amount. The plaintiff has not produced any evidences to show that he has sustained the damages which can be quantified accordingly. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the plaintiff has not proved that he is entitled for Rs.71,92,733/- as claimed in the suit.
23. The plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum on his claim amount from 01.02.2013 till 31.12.2016. There is no contract between the plaintiff and the defendants to pay such interest. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the interest as claimed. For the above reasons, the plaintiff is entitled for only Rs.6,18,844/- from 24 O.S.No.7611/2014 the 1st defendant. Hence, I answer Issues No.1 and 2 partly in the Affirmative.
24. ISSUE No.3 :- In view of the findings on Issues No.1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be partly decreed with proportionate cost. Hence, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDERS The suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with proportionate cost.
The 1st defendant is hereby directed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.6,18,844/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Four only).
The suit against defendants No.2 to 6 is hereby dismissed.
Draw the decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by her, printout taken, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court today on this the 19 th day of November 2025).
(VEDAMOORTHY.B.S) XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
25
O.S.No.7611/2014 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Plaintiff :-
PW1 : Raghunandan.
List of documents exhibited for Plaintiff :-
Ex.P1 : Appointment letter, Ex.P2 & 3 : E-mail messages, Ex.P4 : Office copy of the Legal Notice, Ex.P5 : Postal Receipts, Ex.P6 : Account Statement, Ex.P7 to 13 : Pay Slips, Ex.P14 : Copy of E-mail, Ex.P15 to 17 : Copies of Letters, Ex.P18 : Certificate.
List of witnesses examined for the Defendants :-
DW1 : Srinivasa M. List of documents exhibited for the Defendants :-
Ex.D1 : E-mail message,
Ex.D2 : Copy of Settlement Deed,
Ex.D3 : Certified copy of Resolution,
Ex.D4 : Certified copy of Order.
Digitally signed by
VEDAMOORTHY VEDAMOORTHY B S
BS Date: 2025.11.19
17:55:35 +0530
(VEDAMOORTHY.B.S)
XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.