Bangalore District Court M/S Padmashree Enterprises vs Nagprint Productions on 28 March, 2024 IN THE COURT OF LXXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH87) (Commercial Court) THIS THE 28th DAY OF MARCH 2024 PRESENT: SMT. LATHAKUMARI M. M.A., LL.M., (CCH86) C/c LXXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. Com.O.S.No.137/2024 BETWEEN: M/s Padmashree Enterprises DTDC Courer & Cargo Ltd., #1244, Opp.Shell Petrol Pump Magadi Main Road, Jaimuni Rao Circle, A.D.Halli, Bengaluru560079, Rep by proprietor Sri.Srinivasamurthy Email [email protected] Phone No.9241432344 : PLAINTIFF (Represented by H.D Advocate) AND Nagprint productions #56, Shreyas School Building, 4th D Cross Road, Sannakki Bayaly, Kamakshipalya, Magadi Main Road, Bengaluru560079 Represented by manager Email ID [email protected] Phone No.9380973144 : DEFENDANTS Com.O.S.No.137/2024 2 (Represented by S.K Advocate) Date of Institution of the suit 23.01.2024 Nature of the suit (suit on pronote, suit for declaration & Possession, Suit for injunction Suit for recovery etc.) Date of commencement of recording of evidence Date on which judgment was 28.03.2024 pronounced Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s 00 02 05 (LATHAKUMARI M.) C/c LXXXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. JUDGMENT This is plaintiff's suit to pass judgment and decree directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.20,96,522.70/ together with interest at the rate of 12% to the plaintiff from the date of suit till realization of the amount with cost and to grant such other reliefs as this court may deem fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case is that, the plaintiff is a recognised franchisee of DTDC courier service for delivery of parcels and has made a good name in delivery business through both domestic and international shipments. The defendant has utilized Com.O.S.No.137/2024 3 services rendered by the plaintiff for shipment of its products since 2013. For having utilize the delivery service rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant, defendant has made certain payments against the invoices raised by the plaintiff for delivery services. However became defaulter by not making the payment properly in time to the plaintiff and thereby payment got accumulated. It is further contended that there was an understanding between plaintiff and defendant that though individual bills were issued, defendant used to pay some amount in lump sum after accumulation of bills. In this process since the year 2015, the amounts have been kept in balance and the defendant used to pay towards said credit some lump sum amount which used to be deducted from the balance pending amount as per the register maintained by the plaintiff. As per total invoices raised by the plaintiff out of Rs.58,87,864.15/ defendant has made payment of Rs.37,91,247/ and rest of the amount of Rs.20,96,522.70/ is yet to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. Inspite of repeated request and demand defendant has neither paid the balance amount nor responded properly to the plaintiff request. In one of the occasion, the defendant has issued a bogus list with cheque numbers and Com.O.S.No.137/2024 4 amounts alleging, for having already made the payment to the plaintiff for the delivery services rendered to it. Said list provided is nothing but a bundle of lies. Plaintiff never received any amount as described in the list submitted by the defendant. Plaintiff has render services to the defendant till February 2021. Though defendant assured to make the payment as early as possible dodging the same on one or the other grounds and also requesting the plaintiff that due to covid19 pandemic, some more time. Hence plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 12.05.2023 calling upon the defendant to clear the amount due i.e. Rs.20,96,522.70/ which was later calculated by the plaintiff and not the amount of Rs.28,31,626/ as mentioned in the legal notice. Plaintiff also initiated Preinstitution mediation vide PIM No.2191/2023 before the District Legal Service Authority (DLSA). However, defendant failed to clear the amount due with interest. Hence, this suit for the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. On issuance of suit summons to the defendant through RPAD which was served