Bangalore District Court M/S Technosys vs Arvind Lifestyle Brands Limited on 12 December, 2024 KABC170005762024 IN THE COURT OF LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH85) (COMMERCIAL COURT), BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 PRESENT SRI.RAMAKANT CHAVAN, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl) LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. Com.O.S.No.308/2024 PLAINTIFF: M/s Technosys A Sole Proprietorship being a Regd. MSME Having its Regd. office at No.402, 1st Floor, Ramanjaneya Road, Srinagar Bengaluru 560 050 Rep. by its Sole Proprietor and Managing Director Ramachandran R. S/o Gopalkrishnan Ramesh Aged about 34 years (By Smt.Sruti Chaganti, Adv.) AND DEFENDANT: Arvind Lifestyle Brands Ltd., Having its Regd. office at Arvind Mills Premises, Naroda Road, Railwaypura Post, Ahmedabad 380 025 2 Com.O.S.No.308/2024 Having its corporate office at Du Parc Trinity, 8th Floor, 17 M. G. Road, Bengaluru 560 001 Rep. by its Authorized representative (By Sri.Raunaq Chatterjee, Adv.) Date of Institution 26.02.2024 Nature of suit For recovery of money Date of First Case 16.07.2024 Management Hearing Date of commencement of 20.07.2024 recording of evidence Date on which judgment 12.12.2024 pronounced Time taken for disposal Years Months Days 1) From the date of First 00 04 26 Case Management Hearing 2) Total duration 00 09 16 LXXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH85) Commercial Court, Bengaluru JUDGMENT This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for directing the defendant to pay the value of 25 Debit Notes bearing Nos.001/DR/2223 to 025/DR/2223 dated 25.05.2022 3 Com.O.S.No.308/2024 for a total sum of Rs.25,22,750/ with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of the suit till recovery and cost of the suit. 2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case are that, the plaintiff is a registered proprietorship concern, dealing in the business of providing private safety and security systems and services for homes and businesses. The plaintiff was initially owned by Gopalkrishnan Ramesh and it is registered under GST also. The said Gopalkrishnan Ramesh died on 02.04.2021. The business passed to the hands of his son Ramachandran R. who became the sole proprietor of the plaintiff firm. It is further pleaded that, on 22.10.2019, the defendant entered into a Service Agreement to avail remote surveillance and monitoring services at stores belonging to it from the plaintiff for a period of 60 months on payment of a service fee. A sum of Rs.11,47,500/ also came to be paid in advance by the defendant to the plaintiff upon the terms agreed. The remote surveillance and monitoring services offered by the plaintiff entailed the installation and operation of various Security and Communication Devices (Intrusion Alarm, CC TV systems, SIM cards, WiFi routers and other allied devices) at the premises of the defendant. The plaintiff installed the Remote Surveillance and Monitoring Device Kits between 23.01.2020 and 03.03.2020, each unit costing about Rs.85,500/ excluding tax, in 44 stores belonging to the defendant. The Delivery Challans in respect of the same were duly acknowledged by the defendant. The 4 Com.O.S.No.308/2024 complete list of installations was also furnished to the defendant through service reports and was duly acknowledged by it. It is further pleaded that, as per the Clause No.16(iv) of the Service Agreement, it was agreed by the parties that, the absolute ownership of all Security and Communication Devices installed would exclusively rest with the plaintiff and that the defendant would be their custodian obligated to extend them to the same degree of care as it would its own assets. It is also agreed that, in the event inter alia of the loss of the installations, the defendant would bear the costs of service, repair or replacement of such installations. Once the devices came to be installed in the stores of the defendant, the plaintiff commenced its remote surveillance and monitoring services on 05.03.2020 and submitted its monthly service reports along with invoice for service charges as agreed. It is further pleaded that, despite the plaintiff fulfilling its obligations under the Service Agreement and providing continuous se