Bangalore District Court
M/S L N Enterprises vs M/S V.K.Digital Network Pvt Ltd on 6 November, 2021
[C.R.P. 67] Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE
AT BANGALORE [CCH.No.87]
Present:
Sri.SUNIL ANDANEPPA SHETTAR, B.Sc., LLB., (SPL)
LXXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE
Dated this the 6th day of November, 2021
Com.O.S.No.5365/2018
Plaintiff/s : M/s L N Enterprises
A partnership firm having its office
At No.37, 4th Main,
NGR Layout Main Road,
Roopena Agrahara,
Madiwala Post,
Bengaluru 560 068
Represented by its partners
Sri.Naryana Reddy.
(By Sri.B.S.D. Advocate)
- Vs -
Defendant/s : 1. M/s V.K.Digital Network Pvt Ltd,
No.204, Avvai Shammugam Salai,
Royapettah,
Chennai 600014
Rep by its Managing Director.
2. M/s V.K.Digital Network Pvt Ltd,
No.25, N.P.S.R Plaza,
7th Cross, Vasanthanagar,
Bengaluru 560 0052
Represented by its Manager,
2 O.S.No.5365/2018
3. Mr.Senthil Kumar,
Chief Technical Officer,
M/s V.K.Digital Network Pvt Ltd.,
No.204, Avvai Shammugam Salai,
Royapettah,
Chennai 600014.
4. Mr.Castro
Chief Financial Officer,
M/s V.K.Digital Network Pvt Ltd,
No.204, Avvai Shammugam Salai,
Royapettah,
Chennai 600014.
(D.1, 3 and 4 by K.K.K Advocate)
(D.2 placed expate)
Date of institution
of the suit : 25.07.2018
Nature of the suit
[suit on pronote, suit : Recovery of money
for declaration and
possession, suit
for injunction]
Date of the commencement
of recording of the evidence : 05.04.2021
Date on which the
Judgment was pronounced : 06.11.2021
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration 03 03 12
(SUNIL.A.SHETTAR)
LXXXVI Addl. City Civil Judge
Bangalore.
3 O.S.No.5365/2018
JUDGMENT
This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for judgment and decree directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.16,44,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Only) with current and future interest at the rate of 18% p.a from the date of suit till realization.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiffs' case are as under:
The plaintiff is a partnership firm by virtue of partnership deed dated 09.12.2010 having its office at the address mentioned in the cause title of the plaint and dealing in the business of internet cable TV, IP TV, telecommunication accessories and services. The plaintiff had approached the defendant No.2 during the month of August 2016 for providing Digital Cable TV service through internet protocol signal from Chennai to Gowribidnur and had held a detailed discussion with the defendants No.1 and 2 in the month of July 2016. As per the said discussion, the defendant No.2 had agreed to 4 O.S.No.5365/2018 provide IP signals as early as possible and informed the defendant No.3 to provide the same, but the defendants were not able to provide signals as agreed for the period 4-5 months. In the meanwhile the plaintiff has deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- by Neft/RTGS on 26.10.2016 and another sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by RTGS on 08.11.2016 to account of the defendants for providing cable TV services.
3. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the cable TV signals were provided to the plaintiff only on 05.01.2017, but without set-top boxes. After frequent requests and reminders through telephone and e-mails, the defendants had promised to provide 50 HD and 50 SD set-top boxes on 07.02.2017 to the plaintiff and same were activated on 15.02.2017. It is the allegation of the plaintiff that the defendants had not activated Kannada and Telugu TV channels which are very popular in and around Gowribidnur as promised by them.
4. It is also the case of the plaintiff that during the month of March 2017 Analog system was removed by department of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India 5 O.S.No.5365/2018 (TRAI) and set-top boxes were made compulsory. But the defendants have not bothered to send set-top boxes to the plaintiff and have failed to activate prime Kannada and Telugu channels resulting in loss to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has to invest huge amount for installing five dish antennas and installation of twenty kilometers of OFC/Cable for not providing the signals by the defendants. The plaintiff apart from financial loss has also lost reputation in his business for not providing proper service to his customers.
5. The plaintiff has paid service charges of Rs.7,500/- to the defendants. The plaintiff has also paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- by way of two cheques dated 22.03.2017 drawn on Canara Bank, HSR Layout Branch, Bangalore towards refundable interest fee security deposit for providing one Gospell EDGE QAM, one HP 1920G Switch and four GOSPEL IRD and the defendants have issued a certificate stating that the said materials have no commercial value and are completely for own 6 O.S.No.5365/2018 use. The plaintiff in all has paid a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- to the defendants.
6. It is the allegation of the plaintiff that the defendants were not able to fulfill the agreed terms and conditions and failed to honor their commitment and hence, the plaintiff with no other option has to disconnect the IP Signal. The plaintiff has collected back the set-top boxes provided to its customers and the said set-top boxes and equipments of the defendants were kept safely at the plaintiff's premises. The plaintiff has requested the defendants several times through phone calls and emails to disconnect/deactivate the IP signals and to take back their equipments and refund an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- paid by the plaintiff, but the defendants have failed to do so.
7. It is also the case of the plaintiff that he has not earned a single rupee from the contract with the defendants and has suffered huge financial loss. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for refund of Rs.9,00,000/- and also an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards other expenses such 7 O.S.No.5365/2018 as setting up an office, installing dish antennas, buying of OFC etc., The plaintiff is also entitled for interest on Rs.9,00,000/- from 22.03.2017 to 22.03.2018 amounting to Rs.1,44,000/-. Since the defendants have failed to pay the said amount a legal notice was issued to them on 26.04.2018 calling upon them to make payment, but they have failed to do so. Hence, on these grounds the plaintiff has prayed to decree the suit.
8. The cause of action for the suit is mentioned as it arose on 26.10.2016, and 22.03.2017 when the defendants received the amount from the plaintiff and also on 26.04.2018 being the date of legal notice.
9. In response to the suit summons, the defendants No.1, 3,and 4 have appeared through their counsel and defendants No.1 and 4 have resisted the suit by filing their written statement. Inspite of service of suit summons upon the defendant No.2, it has failed to appear and hence, defendant No.2 has been placed exparte.
8 O.S.No.5365/2018
10. The defendants No.1 and 4 have filed their common written statement and resisted all the claims of the plaintiff. It is the specific contention of the defendants that the plaintiff had approached the defendant No.2 during the month of August 2016 for providing digital TV cable services through internet protocal (IP) signals from Chennai to Gowribidnur and the defendant No.2 had agreed to provide IP signals as early as possible. A formal agreement came to be entered between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, wherein the defendant No.1 had approached Railtel Corporation India Ltd. (RCIL), Ministry of railways for carrying TV signals and IP signals from Chennai to Gowribidnur via Bangalore. Since the content to the broadcaster have a commercial value as per TRAI, selection of package and adding or deleting the channels were absolutely at the disposal of the plaintiff as he was provided complete access to user credentials. The defendant company had good amount of stock during the implementation of digitization of cable TV and the plaintiff had demanded ten thousand boxes for which he had not 9 O.S.No.5365/2018 paid any advance payment. The IP services provided by RCIL was completely maintained by RCIL and it is the responsibility of RCIL, if there is any dropping in signals or quality by way of electronic ticking system, where no abnormal tickets have raised.
11. It is also the case of the defendants that they have paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards quarterly amounts to RCIL. All the equipments provided by the defendants to the plaintiff were obtained by loan and always remain the property of defendant company. The defendants have entered into a contract with RCIL for transformation of signal within lockin period of one year irrespective of use of service and has to bear the expenses. The defendants have provided hardware services of commercial value i.e., Gospel EDGE worth Rs.3,00,900/-, PSU switch worth Rs.44,800/-, package recharge worth Rs.13,304/-, dropping charging worth Rs.9,32,000/- and boxes worth Rs.19,500/-. The signals were delivered to the plaintiff in time and to the satisfaction of the plaintiff. The responsibility of the 10 O.S.No.5365/2018 defendant company was only to deliver TV signals and all packages and payments for business module were as per the TRAI Act. The defendants are not concerned with the earning of the plaintiff as the plaintiff has collected subscription from the customers. It is the allegation of the defendants that the plaintiff company has suddenly stopped payments and arrears as against various invoices submitted by the defendants for the supply of signals. The entire cost of executing IP signals was borne by the defendants and the plaintiff has failed to pay the accumulated sum of Rs.13,88,574/- to the plaintiff as per the invoices.
12. It is further contended that the plaintiff has suddenly stopped payments against the invoices amounting to Rs.4,88,574/- against the services provided by the defendants. The plaintiff company is making use of the materials provided by the defendants and making profits out of the said installation and keep on postponing the payments. No reasons has been assigned by the plaintiff for non payment of dues. The defendants have 11 O.S.No.5365/2018 claimed the counter claim of Rs.4,88,574/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of invoice till the date of payment and prayed to dismiss the suit.
13. The defendants have denied and disputed all the claims made against them and also the allegations made against them.
14. On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties and the materials available on record, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants having provided cable TV signals to the plaintiff on 05.01.2017 failed to activate prime Kannada and Telgu channels and thereby not fulfilled the agreed terms and conditions and commitments?
2. Whether there is any cause of action for the plaintiff to file this suit?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitle for the recovery of amount deposited with the defendants along with interest and damages in all amounting to Rs.16,44,000/- as claimed?
4. What order or decree?12 O.S.No.5365/2018
Additional issues
1) Whether the defendants No.1 to 4 prove that the plaintiff firm has failed to pay the accumulated sum as per the invoices for the services rendered by them?
2) Whether the defendants No.1 to 4 further proves that they are entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,88,574/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a from the plaintiff firm?
15. The plaintiff in order to prove its case has got examined one of its partner as P.W.1 and got marked the documentary evidence, which are at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20.
16. The defendants in order to substantiate their claim have got examined their authorized signatory as D.W.1 and got marked the documentary evidence which are at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4.
17. The advocate for the plaintiff has filed his written argument on the main suit. Having heard the arguments of the counsel for the plaintiff and considering the pleadings of the respective parties, as well as the oral and documentary available on record I answer the above issues as under:
13 O.S.No.5365/2018
Issue No.1 : In the Negative Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative Addl issue No.1 : In the Negative Addl issue No.2 : In the Negative Issue No.4 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS
18. Issues No.1 to 3 and additional issues No.1 and 2 :- Since all these issues requires common discussion they will be taken up together for discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
19. On going through the pleadings of the respective parties the fact that the defendants had agreed to provide IP signals to the plaintiff is not at all disputed. Admittedly, there is no written agreement between the parties to the suit in respect of providing IP signals by the defendants to the plaintiff.
20. It is the specific claim of the plaintiff that it had approached the defendant No.2 in the month of August 2016 and as per the discussion held in the month 14 O.S.No.5365/2018 of July 2016, the defendant No.2 had agreed to provide IP signals as early as possible. Accordingly, the plaintiff has deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 26.10.2016 and another sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on 08.11.2016. It is the allegation of the plaintiff that the defendants have failed to provide IP signals as agreed and the set-top boxes were provided and activated only on 15.02.2017. It is also alleged that the defendants have failed to provide popular kannada and telugu channels as agreed. It is also the case of the plaintiff that due to the negligent Act of the defendant and not providing the proper signals, equipments in time, the plaintiff has to invest money for providing the signals to its customers and thereby suffered loss. Now the plaintiff is seeking refund of Rs.9,00,000/- with interest and also loss sustained by him. 21. On the other hand, the defendants No.1 and 4 by denying all the claims of the plaintiff and also the allegations made against them have claimed a counter claim for Rs.4,88,574/- against the plaintiff for the services provided by them as per the invoices. 15 O.S.No.5365/2018
22. As per the averments of the plaint, the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants is a for providing of IP signals by the defendants to the plaintiff and hence, the nature of the transaction is commercial as defined U/s 2 (1) (c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the specified value of the subject matter of the suit as defined U/s 2 (c) (I) of the said act is more than Rs.3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs Rupees Only) and hence, this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
23. The partner of the plaintiff in order to substantiate his claim has got examined himself as P.W.1 and has reiterated the averments of the plaint and got marked the documentary evidence which are at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 are the documents which goes to show that the plaintiff is a partnership firm involved in the business of internet cable TV, IP TV etc., Ex.P.7 is the statement of account of the plaintiff wherein the payments made by the plaintiff to the defendants are forthcoming and the same is not at all disputed by the defendants. Ex.P.8 is the catalog along with channel list. 16 O.S.No.5365/2018 Ex.P.9 is the delivery chalan dated 26.02.2017 for having delivered the equipments by the defendants to the plaintiff. Ex.P.10 is the bill dated 07.02.2017 with respect to the equipments delivered to the plaintiff. Ex.P.11 is the letter dated 07.02.2017. Ex.P.12 is the email communications from page No.37 to 45. Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.20 are the office copy of the legal notice dated 26.02.2018, postal receipts, copy of postal e-tracking, returned postal cover and the postal acknowledgment.
24. The defendant in order to substantiate his claim has got examined herself as D.W.1 and has reiterated the averments of the plaint and got marked the documentary evidence which are at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4. Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 are the documents pertaining to the defendant No.1 and its purchaser is authorized letter issued by defendant No.1. Ex.D.2 and D.3 are the documents pertaining to the defendant No.1 and its purchaser. Ex.D.4 is the invoice date 01.06.2017.
25. As discussed above the plaintiff in all has made a payment of Rs.9,00,000/- to the defendants for 17 O.S.No.5365/2018 providing IP signals i.e., cable TV services and for supply of equipments and the same is not at all disputed by the defendants. Admittedly, there is no written agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants and when such being the facts and circumstances of the case, the burden is upon the plaintiff to establish that the defendants have failed to provide the signals as agreed and hence he is entitled for refund of the entire amount of Rs.9,00,000/-. The learned advocate for the plaintiff in his written arguments has relied upon various judgments reported in AIR 1991 Delhi 315, civil appeal No.6197/2000 between Alka Bose V/s Parmatma Devi and others and RFA No.1163/2002 clubbed with RFA No.1164/2002 of Karnataka High Court between S.V.Narayanaswamy V/s Savithramma, wherein the validiity of an oral agreement has been discussed at length. As per Sec.92 of the Indian Evidence Act a valid oral agreement is of value and can be enforced in the court of law. In the case on hand the existence of the oral agreement and the transaction betwween the plaintiff and the defendant is not at all 18 O.S.No.5365/2018 disputed and hence the claim of the plaintiff and the defendant relies upon the proof of the terms of the agreement. The oral and documentary evidence available on record goes to show that initially the plaintiff has made a payment of Rs.2,00,000/- on 26.10.2015 and another sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on 08.11.2016 to the defendants and the defendants have provided the TV signals to the plaintiff on 05.01.2017. The documentary evidence available on record also reveals that 50 HD and 50 SD set top boxes were provided by the defendants to the plaintiff and activated them on 15.02.2017.
26. At this point of time it is relevant to go through the cross examination of P.W.1 dated 09.07.2021 at page No.8 and 9, which throws light on the agreed terms between the parties to the suit and the same is reproduced hereunder:
"There was no written agreement between plaintiff and defendant No.1 in respect of supply of IP signals. Witness volunteers that the manager of defendant No.2 had orally agreed that they would provide IP signals to 19 O.S.No.5365/2018 the plaintiff firm. It is true to suggest that the defendant No.1 and its manager had agreed for supply of IP signals. There is no written contract between the plaintiff firm and the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 had provided IP signals in the month of January 2017. No condition was imposed by the defendant No.1 for depositing the amount in respect of supply of IP signals. It is also true to suggest that in order to obtain the IP signals, the party have to pay broad casting charges to the government. It is true to suggest that the defendant prior to providing IP signals to the plaintiff firm has to pay broad casting charges to the government. Witness volunteers that the payment of broad casting charges is applicable only to the pay channels.
It is true to suggest that the defendant No.1 after obtaining the permission from RCIL, Ministry of Railways, Chennai has provided IP signals to the plaintiff firm. It is true to suggest that we have made payment of Rs.2,00,000/- on 26.10.2016 and another sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on 08.11.2016 to the defendant No.1 . It 20 O.S.No.5365/2018 might be a fact that the defendant No.1 has paid the said amount to the RCIL chennai and then supplied IP signal to the plaintiff firm. "
27. It can be gathered from the oral and documentary evidence available on record that the initial payment of Rs.5,00,000/- i.e., 2,00,000/- on 26.10.2015 and another sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on 08.11.2016 made by the plaintiff to the defendants is towards the supply of IP signals and the oral and documentary evidence also reveals that the IP signals were provided by the defendants and the plaintiff has utilized the same. The only contention taken by the plaintiff is that the defendants have not provided the IP signals as early as possible and the required set top boxes were not provided and activated and also the kannada and Telugu channels were not activated, which were popular at Gowribidanur, The plaintiff has not placed any materials on record to show that the defendants had also agreed to activate kannada and Telugu channels. It can be gathered from the oral evidence of the parties that the defendant 21 O.S.No.5365/2018 No.1 had an understanding with Railtel Corporation India Limited (RCIL), Ministry of Railways for carrying TV signals and IP signals from Chennai to Gowribidnur and the content to the broadcaster has a commercial value as per TRAI guidelines. Hence, in the absence of proof of agreement for providing the kannada and Telugu channels by the defendants, the contention of the plaintiff cannot be considered. The plaintiff having availed the services of the defendant in providing IP signals and the initial payment of Rs.5,00,000/- is towards the supply of IP signals, the said amount cannot be claimed as a refundable amount. As per the materials available on record the initial payment of Rs.5,00,000/- was made by the plaintiff to the defendants in the month of October and November 2016 and the IP signals were provided and activated by the defendants on 05.01.2017. The plaintiff has not placed any materials on record to show that the defendants have to provide and activate the IP signals within a particular period of time. No time frame has 22 O.S.No.5365/2018 been fixed for supply of the signals after the payment of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
28. The materials available on record also reveals that 50 HD and 50 SD set up boxes were provided by the defendants on 07.02.2017 and the same were activated on 15.02.2017. Even in case of providing set up boxes by the defendants no material has been placed by the plaintiff that they are bound to supply the set up boxes. It is an admitted fact that the analog system was removed by TRAI in the month of March 2017 and set top boxes were made compulsory. Under such circumstances in the absence of an agreement with respect to the supply of set top boxes, the plaintiff must make a payment for supply of set up boxes. Admittedly the plaintiff has not made any payment to the defendant for supply of set top boxes. Hence, under the facts and circumstances of the case the plaintiff is not entitled for refund of initial payment of Rs.5,00,000/- since he has utilized IP signals.
23 O.S.No.5365/2018
29. Now the question before the court is whether the plaintiff is entitled for refund of remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. The remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/- according to the plaintiff was paid by way of two cheques dated 22.03.2017 towards refundable interest free security deposit for providing the equipments and the defendants had issued a certificate stating that the said equipments has no commercial value. On the other hand the defendants claim that said amount of Rs.4,00,000/- which was paid by the plaintiff was towards quarterly amounts to RCIL. But there is no agreement to the effect that the plaintiff has to pay the quarterly amount to RCIL. The oral evidence available on record goes to show that the said amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants for having supplied the equipments by the defendants and the said equipments have to be returned back to the defendants. The plaintiff i.e., P.W.1 in his evidence as well as in his plaint has stated that the equipments are kept safe in his premises and he is ready to hand over same to the defendants. When such being 24 O.S.No.5365/2018 the facts of the case the plaintiff has to handover the said equipments to the defendants and inturn the defendants have to refund the said amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the plaintiff. Since the said amount of Rs.4,00,000/- has been paid by the plaintiff to the defendnats towards the supply of equipments, the defendants have to refund the said amount to the plaintiff after receiving the equipments supplied by them.
30. The plaintiff has also claimed another sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the defendants as expenses for setting up the office at Gowribidnur, installing dish antennas, buying of OFC, office rent, electricity, office furniture, staff salary, UPS purchase/maintenance and loss of loosing sub operators, loss of reputation in the business circle and also interest from 22.03.2017 to 22.03.2018 on Rs.9,00,000/- which comes to Rs.1,44,000/-. As already discussed above admittedly there is no written agreement between the parties to the suit and the parties are bound by the oral agreement. The burden is upon the plaintiff to establish that the defendants had agreed to 25 O.S.No.5365/2018 pay the loss incurred by the plaintiff. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we will have to invoke Sec.73 of the Indian Contract Act, which lays down the provision relating to damages. It provides that the party, who breaches a contract, is liable to compensate the injured party for any loss or damage caused, due to the breach of contract. Under this section, the burden of proof lies on the injured party i.e., the plaintiff herein. The P.W.1 in his cross examination at page No.9 para No.2 has admitted that he has not furnished the estimation bills for installation of dish anntennas, OFC cabel etc., Absolutely there are no materials available on record to prove that there is an agreement with the defendants that they will have to bear the burden of setting up office, installation of anntenas etc as claimed by him. The plaitniff has utterly failed to prove that he has sustained loss of lossing sub operators, loss of business and also loss of reputation. Except the email correspondences and the copy of legal notice no material has been placed by the plaitniff to prove his investments in establishing hte office 26 O.S.No.5365/2018 and the investment made by him and also the loss sustained by him. No statement of account of hte plaintiff has been furnished. As already discussed above the defendants have not agreed to bear the burden of investment by the plaintiff and apart from that the plaintiff has utterly failed to established that he has sustained loss to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-. There is no proof of breach of contract on the part of the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the refund of the said amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards loss. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant is come to an end and the plaintiff is entitled for refund of Rs.4,00,000/- paid by him towards supply of equipments subject to handing over the said equipments to the defendants.
31. The defendnats have also claimed a recovery of a sum of Rs.4,88,574/- against the plaintiff for having provided the services. The D.W.1 who is the representative of defendant No.1 company has deposed before the court and reiterated the averments of the 27 O.S.No.5365/2018 plaint. Admittedly D.W.1 is not the person who was present at the time of entering into an oral agreement between the parties to the suit. The D.W.1 in his cross examination dated 26.08.2021 has admitted that he has not furnished any separate documents to show that an amount of Rs.2,338.25 has been deducted as mentioned in Ex.D.4. No notice has been issued by the defenants claiming the counter claim prior to institution of this suit. The documentary evidence placed by the defendants are not sufficient to hold that the plaintiff is liable to pay the amount as cliamed in the counter claim. The defendants have utterly failed to prove the counter claim. Hence, under the facts and circumstances of the case the defendants are not at all entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,88,574/- with interest. On the other hand the plaintiff is successfuly establishing the fact that he is entitled for refund of Rs.4,00,000/- only subject to return of equipments supplied by the defendants. The plaintiff is also successful in establishing that their exists a cause of action for him to institute the suit. Hence, I answer issue 28 O.S.No.5365/2018 No.1, additional issue No.1 and additional issue No.2 in the 'Negative', issue No.2 in the 'Affirmative' and issue No.3 'Parlty in the Affirmative'.
32. Issue No.4:- Since I have answered issue No.1, additional issue No.1 and additional issue No.2 in the 'Negative', issue No.2 in the 'Affirmative' and issue No.3 'Parlty in the Affirmative', I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff against the defendants is hereby partly decreed with costs.
It is hereby ordered and decreed that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% P.a from the date of suit till realization subject to the plaintiff returning the equipments supplied by the defendants within one month from the date of suit.
29 O.S.No.5365/2018
It is hereby further ordered and decreed that the suit of the plaintiff for remaining amount is hereby dismissed.
It is hereby further ordered that the counter claim of the defendants No.1 and 4 is dismissed.
Draw the decree accordingly.
[Dictated to the stenographer, online transcribed & computerized by her, corrected on computer and signed by me then pronounced in the Open Court, dated this the 6th day of November, 2021] (SUNIL.A.SHETTAR) LXXXVI Addl. City Civil Judge Bangalore.
30 O.S.No.5365/2018ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
P.W.1 : Narayana Reddy List of documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of the deed date 09.12.2012 Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of acknowledgment of registration of firms Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of form No.1 Ex.P.4 : Certificate of GST Ex.P.5 : Registration certificate Ex.P.6 : Rental agreement 22.11.2016 Ex.P.7 : Statement of account of the plaintiff Ex.P.8 : Catalog along with channel list Ex.P.9 : Delivery chalan dated 16.02.2017 Ex.P.10: Bill dated 07.02.2017 Ex.P.11: Letter dated 07.02.2017 Ex.P.12: Email communications Ex.P.13: Office copy of the legal notice dated 26.02.2018 Ex.P.14 to Ex.P.17: Postal receipts Ex.P.18: Postal e-tracking Ex.P.19: Return postal cover Ex.P.20: Postal acknowledgment List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defendant/s:
D.W.1 : Prasad.G.N 31 O.S.No.5365/2018 List of documents marked on behalf of the defendant/s :
Ex.D.1 : Authorized letter Ex.D.2 : Invoice dated 23.05.2017 Ex.D.3 : Invoice dated 01.04.2017 Ex.D.4 : Invoice dated 01.06.2017 LXXXVI Addl. City Civil Judge Bangalore.