Bangalore District Court ProTrain Sports Llp vs White Owl Sports Pvt. Ltd on 3 January, 2022 IN THE COURT OF LXXXIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. (CCH90) Present: Sri.S.J.Krishna, B.Sc., LL.B., LXXXIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Dated: 03rd January 2022 Com.O.S.No.274/2018 PLAINTIFF : ProTrain Sports LLP, A limited Liability Partnership registered under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 and having its registered office at Flat No.102, SMR Vinay Vatika Apartments, Maruthi Sevanagar, Bengaluru560 033. Represented herein by its Designated PartnerMr. Sanjeev Rakhra (By Sri.D.K.S., Advocate, Bengaluru) Vs DEFENDANT : White Owl Sports Pvt. Ltd. A private Ltd., Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office A1, 1st Floor, Epsilon, Office Building, Yemalur Main Road, Off HAL Airport Road, Bangalore560037 Represented by its Director Mr.Zahir Laliwala 2. Homerun Sports Pvt. Ltd. A private limited company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office A1, 1st Floor, Epsilon, Office Building, Yemalur Main Road, Off HAL Airport Road, Bangalore560037 Represented herein by its Managing DirectorMs.Monica Zahir Laliwala. (EXPARTE) /2/ Com.O.S.No.274/2018 Date of Institution of suit : 21.09.2019 Nature of suit : Suit for Recovery of Money (suit on pronote, suit for declaration and possession suit for injunction, etc.,) Date of commencement : 08.12.2021 of recording of evidence Date of judgment : 03.01.2022 Total duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s 02 01 12 (S.J.KRISHNA) LXXXIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. (CCH90) JUDGMENT The plaintiff has filed this suit for the recovery of ₹.58,33,387/ with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization against the defendants. The summary of the case of the plaintiff is as follows: 2. The plaintiff is involved in the business of sportswear and sports gears and is supplier of branded sports wears, accessories and merchandise under the brand name ARMR. The plaintiff LLP is represented by Mr.Sanjiv Rakhra in terms of a Board Resolution dated 01.07.2019. 3. The defendant No.1 owns and operates SPORTXS, which is a known multi brand sports goods retail chain selling sports /3/ Com.O.S.No.274/2018 merchandise from various manufactures and brands. Mr.Zahir Laliwala approached the plaintiff in the month of AprilMay 2015, evincing interest in doing business with the plaintiff. Subsequently an understanding was arrived at and business between defendant No.1 and the plaintiff commenced. The terms and conditions of the commercial relationship between defendant No.1 and the plaintiff is recorded in the Vendor Registration Form and in the agreement of supply dated 13.05.2015. 4. As per the agreement between the parties, the sales understandings were on a saleorreturn basis (SOR), where purchase orders would be placed by defendant No.1 with the plaintiff, and the plaintiff would supply such goods to the stores of defendant No.1 through a nominated transporter. Invoices were generated on the purchase order. The defendant No.1 would sell the goods through their stores and periodically generate sales reports of the quantity of goods sold. Payment was to be made every 15 days for the quantity sold by the defendant No.1. 5. The purchase order was placed by the defendant No.1 on 27.05.2015 and the goods were supplied on 1st June 2015 against invoice No.197 and 198 dated 31.05.2017. The first sales report was given to the plaintiff on 2nd July 2015 (for the sales in June 2015) and the