Bangalore District Court
S V Gururaj vs M/S Ghatge Patil Transports Pvt Ltd on 2 August, 2025
Com.OS.No.238/2024
KABC170004452024
IN THE COURT OF LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-86) (Commercial Court)
THIS THE 2nd DAY OF AUGUST 2025
PRESENT:
SRI.ARJUN. S. MALLUR. B.A.L.LL.B.,
LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Com.OS.No.238/2024
BETWEEN:
Sri. S V Gururaj
S/o Late Venkata Rao S.V.
Aged about 87 years,
Proprietor, Bengaluru Chennai Logistics
And Gururaj Transport,
R/At No.50, Out House,
Puttanna Road, Near Basavanagudi Police Station,
Basavanagudi, Bengaluru - 560004
: PLAINTIFF
(By Sri. S.Manju Anand, Advocate.)
AND
1. M/S Ghatge Patil Transports Pvt Ltd
Office At No.517-E,
Old Pune-Bengaluru Road,
1
Com.OS.No.238/2024
Near Sayiji Hotel,
Kolhapur - 416001
Rep By Its Managing Director
www.ghatgepatiltransports.com
2. Mr. Tushar Ghatge,
Managing Director
M/S Ghatge Patil Transports Pvt Ltd
Office At No.517-E
Old Pune-Bengaluru Road
Near Sayiji Hotel
Kolhapur - 416001
[email protected]
3. M/S Ghatge Patil Transports Pvt. Ltd,
Branch Office/Godown At:
Hotte Ramanna Compound
Dasanapura Hobli, Tumkur Road
Near Sarkari Akki Godown
Makli Post, Nelamangala Taluk
Bengaluru Rural - 562123
Rep By Its Authorized Signatory
: DEFENDANTS
(Represented By Sri. Mohan C Advocate for D1
D2 and D3 Exparte)
Date of Institution of the suit 12.02.2024
Nature of the suit (suit on
pronote, suit for declaration & Suit for Recovery of Money.
Possession, Suit for injunction
etc.)
Date of commencement of 11.09.2024
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment was 02.08.2025
2
Com.OS.No.238/2024
pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 0 14
(ARJUN. S. MALLUR)
LXXXV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,14,156/-(Rupees
Eleven Lakh Fourteen Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Six
Only) with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of suit till
realization.
2. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as under:-
The plaintiff is the proprietor of Gururaj Transport and
Bengaluru Chennai Logistics and is the owner of the trucks
bearing Nos. KA20-D-6251, KA31-7447, KA51-AF-8052 and
TN24-AR-7042. The plaintiff is indulged in providing
logistic services to the several companies. The defendant
No.1 is the customer of the plaintiff availing logistic
services on regular basis. Defendant No.2 is the Managing
Director of defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 is the3
Com.OS.No.238/2024branch office of defendant No.1 located at Bengaluru. It is
submitted that the defendant No.1 has been availing
logistic services en-route Bengaluru (Makli Godown) –
Chennai- Bengaluru for the past several years with a
maximum 20 trips in a month. As per the terms of
contract the defendant No.1 for the logistic services
availed from the plaintiff was making the payment directly
to crediting it to the two bank accounts held by the
plaintiff in the name of Gururaj Transport with Karnataka
Bank and in the name of Bengaluru Chennai Logistics at
City Union Bank. It is submitted that for the logistic
services availed form 02.10.2020 to 14.02.2021 the
defendant was due to pay the following amounts:
Period Amount
02/10/2020 - 31/10/2020 Rs.3,07,500/-
01/11/2020 - 30/11/2020 Rs.2,78,500/-
01/12/2020 - 31/10/2020 Rs.2,99,875/-
01/01/2021 - 30/01/2021 Rs.2,51,125/-
01/02/2021 - 14/02/2021 Rs.1,22,125/-
Total Rs.12,59,125/-
(b) It is submitted that upon verification of the manifest
and the invoices and bank statements out of the total
amount of Rs.12,59,125/- the defendants have remitted
only a sum of Rs.9,44,375/- and are liable to pay the
balance amount of Rs.3,14,750/- pertaining to the
Bengaluru Chennai Logistics. Further for the period4
Com.OS.No.238/202427.04.2023 to 31.07.2023 the defendant is also liable to
pay a sum of Rs.1,85,065/- and totally the outstanding
amount with respect to Benagluru Chennai Logistics is at
Rs.4,99,815/-. The plaintiff has sent repeated reminders to
the defendant for payment of the balance amount and the
defendant as per the letter dated 11.01.2022 has
confirmed the balance of Rs.5,87,065/-. As per the bank
statement of the plaintiff there is credit of Rs.2,85,500/-
from the defendants. With respect to Gururaj Transport
the defendants have totally credited a sum of Rs.60,000/-
and have remained in outstanding for a sum of
Rs.6,14,321/-. With respect to both logistics the
defendants totally have remained due in a sum of
Rs.11,14,156/-.
(c) It is submitted that during the month of March
2023 defendant No.1 requested to share the bank
statements of Bengaluru Chennai Logistics and Gururaj
Transport which were duly sent to the defendants along
with the typed copy of the ledger statement and inspite of
it the defendants have failed to clear the outstanding
amounts. The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated
07.08.2023 calling upon the defendants to clear the
outstanding amount with interest at 24% p.a. to which a
false and untenable reply has been issued by the
5
Com.OS.No.238/2024
defendants. The plaintiff also instituted PIM proceedings in
PIM No.2447/2023 in which the defendant did not
participate and the same was closed as a non-starter.
Hence the suit.
3. On service of summons the defendant No.1 appeared
and filed written statement contending that the suit of the
plaintiff is baseless, frivolous and unsustainable and that
there is no amount outstanding towards the plaintiff by
the defendant in any manner as the defendant has
cleared the entire amount invoiced by the plaintiff as per
the statement of account maintained with the defendant
and the present suit is filed only with a malafied intention
to make unlawful gains. The defendant No.1 contends that
defendant No.2 is a Managing Director who cannot be
made a party in his personal capacity and defendant No.3
is the branch office of defendant No.1 which is also not a
necessary party to the suit and therefore the suit is bad
for misjoinder of parties. It is further contended that the
suit is filed for recovery of the amounts after lapse of
three years of the invoice and therefore the suit is barred
by limitation. The defendant No.1 has undertaken para
wise denial of all the averments made in the plaint and
categorically contends that all the amounts that were due
6
Com.OS.No.238/2024
to be paid to the plaintiff has been duly credited to the
respective bank accounts of the plaintiff maintained at
Karnataka Bank under the name Gururaj Transport and at
City Union Bank under the name Bengaluru Chennai
Logistics and there is no amount whatsoever due any to
be paid by the defendant. All through the written
statement by denying each and every paragraphs the
defendant has consistently maintained a stand that they
have cleared all the amounts that were due to plaintiff
and nothing remains to be paid. The defendant No.1 seeks
for dismissal of suit with costs.
4. On service of summons the defendant Nos. 2 and 3
remained absent and have been placed exparte.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following
issues and additional issues have been framed:
ISSUES
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the
defendants are liable to pay a sum
of Rs.11,14,156/- with interest @
24% per annum with respect to the
availment of services of Bangalore –
Chennai Logistics and Gururaj
Transport in transactions with the
plaintiff?
7
Com.OS.No.238/2024
2) Whether the defendants
substantiate that the suit is barred
by limitation?
3) Whether the defendants
substantiate that the suit is bad for
misjoinder of parties?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
the suit claim as prayed?
5) What order or decree?
6. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked
documents at Ex.P.1 to P.43. The authorized
representative of defendant No.1 examined himself as
D.W.1 and got marked documents at Ex.D.1 and D.7.
7. Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff
who has also filed memo with several citations. Heard the
learned counsel appearing for the defendant No.1.
Perused the entire material on record.
8. My answer to the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the Negative.
Issue No.2 : In the Negative.
Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.4 : In the Negative.
8
Com.OS.No.238/2024
Issue No.5 : As per final order for the
following.
REASONS
9. ISSUE No.3:- The defendant No.1 has taken a specific
defence that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties. It is
contended that the logistic services from the plaintiff was
availed by defendant No.1 having its head office at
Kohlapur, Mahasrashtra and the same has been made as a
party to the suit. Defendant No.2 is the Managing Director
of defendant No.1 who has been arrayed as a party in the
personal capacity and defendant No.3 is the branch office
of the defendant No.1 located at Bengaluru. It is
contended that a Managing Director of a Company cannot
be made personally liable for the dues owed by the
company and so also the branch office cannot be made as
a party to the proceedings when principal office is already
a party to the proceedings. To refute the said contention
no convincing arguments has been put forth by the
learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is a settled position of
law that the Managing Director and Directors of a
Company cannot be made personally liable for the
amounts due by the Company or for the claims made
against the company. The company itself has got a
9
Com.OS.No.238/2024
separate legal entity and unless there exists a clause
which makes the Director or the Managing Directors
personally liable for the acts of the company, the
Managing Director and Directors in their personal capacity
cannot be made as parties to a litigation. The plaintiff has
not placed on record any materials in evidence to infer
that the Managing Director become personally liable for
the dues allegedly owed by the Company.
Similarly defendant No.3 which is branch office of
defendant No.1 also cannot be arrayed independently.
When the principal office of the defendant company is
made as a party any liable casted upon it would naturally
cover all its branch offices and therefore what is to be
decided by the Court is whether the defendant No.1
company become liable to honor the suit claim or not.
Therefore as rightly contended by the learned counsel for
defendant No.1, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are neither
necessary nor proper parties for the present suit and the
suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties. Accordingly, I answer
Issue No.3 in the Affirmative.
10. ISSUE No.2:- The defendant No.1 has taken a
specific contention that suit is barred by limitation. The
defendant No.1 in par 6(d) of the written statement
10
Com.OS.No.238/2024
contends that the claim is filed after there years and
therefore suit is barred by limitation. It is settled position
of law that limitation is a mixed question of law and facts.
For the purpose of ascertaining whether the suit is within
time or not it is required to see the cause of action which
according to the plaintiff arose in the year 2019 and again
in the month of October 2020 when the logistic services
were availed and in the month of February 2021 when the
defendant sent a mail denying the liability to pay the dues
claimed by the plaintiff. The suit has been filed in on
12.02.2024 which is well within the period of limitation
and therefore the contention of the defendant that suit is
barred by limitation cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I
answer Issue No.2 in the Negative.
11. ISSUE Nos.1 and 4:- These issues are interlinked
with each other and to avoid repetitions of facts and
evidence they are taken up together for answering.
(a) The plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and has
got marked documents at EX.P.1 to P.43. Ex.P.1 is the bank
account statement pertaining to Gururaj Transport
maintained at Karnataka Bank for the period 01.01.2019
to 26.12.2019. Ex.P.2 to P.6 are the manifest receipts for
11
Com.OS.No.238/2024
the months October 2020, November 2020, December
2020, January 2021 and February 2021. Ex.P.7 to P.10 are
all the handwritten letters dated 24.03.2020 issued by the
plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.P.11 to P.15 are again
handwritten letters issued by the plaintiff dated
30.09.2020, 16.10.2020, 13.11.2020, 15.12.2020 and
16.12.2020. Ex.P.16 to 19 are the handwritten letters
issued by the plaintiff dated 15.01.2021, 31.01.2021,
16.02.2021 and 28.02.2021. Ex.P.20 and 21 are the
handwritten letters dated 12.05.2022 and 01.06.2022.
Ex.P.22 to 24 are the handwritten letters issued by the
plaintiff dated 10.01.2023, 25.04.2023 and 01.05.2023 all
addressed to the defendant. In all these letters the
plaintiff has called upon the defendant to clear the
outstanding amounts. Ex.P.25 is the postal receipts.
Ex.P.26 to 28 are the letters dated 21.03.2022 and
25.03.2022 and complaint dated 21.03.2022 which is
given to the police station regarding non-payment of the
dues. Ex.P.29 is the email dated 11.09.2022 refuting
payment of Rs.1,20,000/- pertaining the old balance
amount which is said to be the mail sent by the
defendant. Ex.P.30 is the letter dated 17.07.2023 sent by
the plaintiff to the defendant along with it the defendant
has enclosed the bank statements. Ex.P.31 is the legal
12
Com.OS.No.238/2024
notice dated 07.08.2023 and Ex.P.32 is the reply notice in
which the defendant has once again called upon the
plaintiff to furnish authenticated copies of the bank
statement with bill copies, Form No.48 within 15 days.
Ex.P.33 are the copies of the documents that has been
sent in response to the reply notice. Ex.P.34 is the ledger
statement of the defendants from 01.01.2017 to
25.03.2023 pertaining to both Bengaluru Chennai
Logistics and Gururaj Transport. Ex.P.35 is the non-starter
report in PIM 2447/2023. Ex.P.36 to 38 are the notarized
copies of the Aadhar Card, Voter ID and PAN Card of P.W.1.
Ex.P.39 is the printouts of the whatsapp messages
exchanged with the defendant. Ex.P.40 is the bank
statement of the bank account maintained at City Union
Bank with respect to Bengaluru Chennai Logistics. Ex.P.41
are printouts of the emails dated 01.06.2022, 10.01.2022
and 02.05.2023. Ex.P.42 is the certificate under Sec.63(4)
(c) of BSA 2023 with respect to Ex.P.36 to 41. Ex.P.43 is
the letter dated 11.01.2022 wherein the defendant has
confirmed balance amount due at Rs.5,87,025/-.
12. Against the evidence of the plaintiff the authorized
representative of defendant No.1 examined himself as
D.W.1 reiterating the averments made in the written
13
Com.OS.No.238/2024
statement. He has got marked documents at Ex.D.1 to
D.7. Ex.D.1 is the board resolution in favour of D.W.1.
Ex.D.2 is the account extract issued by ICICI Bank
evidencing the payments made to the plaintiff. Ex.D.3 is
the letter issued by Yes bank dated 07.01.2025. Ex.D.4 is
the statement containing the invoice details with respect
to the services availed from the plaintiff the amounts paid.
Ex.D.5 is the summary of payment details. Ex.D.6 is the
bill wise detailed statement. Ex.D.7 is the statement of
the bank account of the defendant No.1 commencing from
the period 01.10.2020 to 30.06.2022 which are marked as
Ex.D7(a) to (d). The bank statement produced at Ex.D.7
carries numerous entries and the entries pertaining to the
payments made to plaintiff has been given under a
consolidated table by the defendant.
13. With these evidence on record it is required to see
whether the plaintiff has been able to prove that the
defendants still owes the suit claim as prayed. P.W.1 has
been subjected to cross-examination and in the course of
cross-examination P.W.1 deposes that there was no
written contract between himself and defendant No.1 and
he further deposes that the first bill raised by him was on
24.03.2020 for Rs.8,99,821/- and deposed that the
14
Com.OS.No.238/2024
defendant has paid a sum of Rs.2,85,500/-. He further
deposes that no invoices are raised with respect to the
services provided by him and he has not produced the
details regarding the services rendered under Gururaj
Transport. Further in the cross-examination P.W.1 deposes
that the defendant was not making payment in lump-sum
but in intervals of Rs.10, 15 and 20,000/- which has been
reflected in the bank statements produced at Ex.P.1 and
P.40. Further in the cross-examination P.W.1 also deposes
that he has not gone through the documents produced by
the defendants and also has not discussed with his
counsel regarding the documents. D.W.1 has also been
subjected to cross-examination and he admits having
availed the services of the plaintiff from 01.12.2020 to
31.12.2020 and also from 02.10.2020 to 30.10.2020,
02.11.2020 to 29.11.2020. He further deposes that all
payments were made through bank and first payment is
made on 13.10.2020. D.W.1 categorically denies the
suggestion that there is a shortfall in the payments made
and reiterates that defendant No.1 has made all the
payments that has been due to the plaintiff.
14. Whether the defendant No.1 has remained in due to
pay any amount to the plaintiff or whether the plaintiff has
15
Com.OS.No.238/2024
been completely compensated for all the services
provided by him has to be culled out from the documents
tendered in evidence. It is the case of the plaintiff that
with respect to Gururaj Transport the payments were
made to the bank accounts maintained at Karnataka Bank
and with respect to Bengaluru Chennai Logistics the
payments were made to the bank account at City Union
Bank. In the course of evidence the manifest receipts for
the months October 2020 to February 2021 are marked as
Ex.P.2 to P.6 and it is not forthcoming from the plaint
pleadings whether the amounts mentioned in all those
manifests are due by the defendants or whether any
payments are made and some portion has been remaining
to be paid. It is the specific pleadings that from
02.10.2020 to 14.02.2021 the total value of the services
provided by the plaintiff is Rs.12,59,125/- of which there is
payment of Rs.9,44,375/- and there is balance of
Rs.3,14,750/- regarding Bengaluru Chennai Logistics and
also a sum of Rs.1,85,065/- for the period 27.04.2023 to
31.07.2023. Further it is the case of the plaintiff that with
respect to Gururaj Transport there is shortfall of
Rs.6,14,321/-. The defendant No.1 in his evidence has
categorically deposed that there were no bifurcations
being made while making the payments and the
16
Com.OS.No.238/2024
payments are made as a whole for the services rendered
by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not maintained any
ledger accounts separately to Gururaj Transport and
Bengaluru Chennai Logistics. The bank account statement
produced at Ex.P.1 standing in the name of Gururaj at
Karnataka Bank for the period 01.01.2019 26.12.2019
which shows there is total payment of Rs.48,09,500/-. The
bank account statement produced at Ex.P.40 maintained
at City Union Bank discloses that from 04.10.2022 to
23.12.2021 there is a payment of Rs.32,44,969/- and from
19.01.2020 to 27.04.2023 there is a payment of
Rs.4,21,200/-. The entries in the bank statements do not
correspond with the claim that has been made by the
plaintiff. According to the plaintiff there is shortfall of
Rs.4,99,815/- and Rs.6,14,321/- between 02.10.2020 to
14.02.2021, 27.04.2023 to 31.07.2023 and as on
24.03.2020. The defendant has also produced the bank
statements at Ex.P.7(a) to (d) which discloses the last
payment being made on 27.04.2023 commencing from
24.12.2020 and totally a sum of Rs.30,65,100/- being
paid. These differences in the entries in the bank account
statements has not been clarified by the plaintiff in the
course of his evidence or in the cross examination of
D.W.1. During the cross-examination of D.W.1 the plaintiff
17
Com.OS.No.238/2024
has not confronted him with the entries that are found in
the bank account statements at Ex.P.1 and P.40 and also
the statement of account at Ex.D.7(a) to (d). Thus no
cogent and clear evidence is forthcoming on part of the
plaintiff as regards the exact amount due from the
defendant.
15. In the course of evidence the plaintiff has also
produced a ledger statement which is marked as Ex.P.34
from 01.01.2017 to 25.03.2023 of both Bengaluru Chennai
Logistics and Gururaj Transport. On perusal of the said
ledger statement it consists of various overwritings and
entries and that does not clearly stipulate whether the
amounts are received or not. It carries numerous debit
and credit entries and certain overwritings. The ledger
statement is also not certified by the plaintiff and there is
no material having the defendant confirmed the balance
due as mentioned in the ledger statement. Therefore the
ledger statement at Ex.P.34 becomes an inadmissible
document. As mentioned above the entries that are seen
in the bank statement at Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.40 do not
correspond with the claim that has has been made by the
plaintiff. Moreover as regards the claim that has been
made there are no documents and the plaintiff himself
18
Com.OS.No.238/2024
admits that no invoices have been raised and only the
manifest and it is also not clear from the pleadings
whether the entire amount under each of the manifest is
due or whether there are part payments or there are
payments made completely with respect to any of the
manifest. There has been no cogent and clear pleadings
regarding the details of the bills under which the amount
was due from the defendant, part payments with respect
to any of the bills made and the outstanding amount due.
The claim of the plaintiff having not been substantiated by
any cogent and satisfactory documentary evidence it
cannot be said that the plaintiff would be entitled to
recover the suit claim as prayed.
16. The learned counsel for the plaintiff also laid
emphasis upon the letter at Ex.P.43 dated 11.01.2022
which is an admitted document wherein the defendant
has admitted due of a sum of Rs.5,87,025/-. Subsequent
to the said email there are some payments made which is
reflected in the bank statement at Ex.P.40 till 27.04.2023
commencing from 19.01.2022 showing payment of a sum
of Rs.4,21,200/-. The bank account statement produced
by the defendant at Ex.D.7 also indicates the payment
made from 11.04.2022 till 27.04.2023 which amounts to
19
Com.OS.No.238/2024
Rs.4,16,900/- which is more than the amount that has
been claimed under the said mail at Ex.P.43.
17. During the course of arguments the learned counsel
for the plaintiff has relied upon the following decisions and
the observations made there in:
1. AIR 1953 SC 225, Hiralal vs. Badkular equivalent
to A. Raghavamma vs. Chenchamma, wherein it is
observed as under:
The Apex Court while considering a case for
money recovery in a suit h eld that a party which
is in possession of account book, kept by him
and from which the balance could be
ascertained, should produce the same before the
Court. In absence thereof, an adverse inference
is to be drawn against him.
2. AIR 1966 SC 405, Bharath Singh vs. MST.
Bhagirathi, wherein it is observed as under:
The Apex Court observes that ‘Admission is
substantive evidence” continuing admission is
the best piece of substantive evidence that an
opposite party can rely upon, though not
conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless
successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous”.
3. AIR 1983 SC 684, State of Bihar vs. Radha
Krishna Singh, wherein it is observed as under:
The Apex Court observes that “admissibility of a
document is one thing and its probative value20
Com.OS.No.238/2024quite another these two aspects cannot be
combined. A document may be admissible and
yet may not carry any conviction and weight of
its probative value may be nil.
4. (2011) 5 SCC 496, Muthu Karuppan vs. Parithi
Ilamvazhuth, wherein it is observed as under:
The Apex Court is of the view that “the filing of a
false affidavit should be effectively curbed with a
strong hand. It is true that the observation was
made in the context of contempt of Court
proceedings, but the view expressed must be
generally endorsed to preserve the purity of
judicial proceedings”.
5. AIR 1970 SCC 652, AKK Nambiar vs. Union of
India, wherein it is observed as under:
The Apex Court was in the view that “the
importance of verification is to test the
genuineness and authenticity of allegations and
also to make the deponent responsible for
allegations. In essence verification is required to
enable the Court to find out as to whether it will
be safe to act on such affidavit evidence. In
absence of proper verification, affidavits cannot
be admitted in evidence.
6. AIR 1998 DEL 332, Delhi Lotteries vs. Rajesh
Aggarwal, wherein it is observed as under:
The Apex Court is on the view that ” A person
who is well, acquainted with the facts of the case
is the only competent person to verify the
pleadings and where the pleadings have not21
Com.OS.No.238/2024been verified as per the requirement of the code,
it cannot be held that there has been compliance
of the mandatory provisions of law” .
7. 2018 SCC Online Del10881, Burger King
Corporation vs. Techchand Shewakramani & Ors“,
wherein it is observed as under:
A single judge of the Delhi High Court, while
contemning the practice of indiscriminate denials
of the documents filed by a party to a suit,
observed that “such denials are completely
bereft of merit and tend to prolong the trial in a
suit”. She further opined that “the purpose of
admission/denial is to deny only those
documents whose existence, genuinity or
authenticity is disputed and not to merely harass
the opposite side into proving each and every
document with certified copies/original”. The
Court, in this case, observed that documents
which are publicly available and are verifiable,
such as trademark certificates, copyright
certificates from India and other countries,
documents issues by a governmental authorities
and documents such as e-mail correspondences,
legal notices, replies, internet printouts etc.
ought not to be permitted to be denied.
8. 2019 SCC Online Del 9656, Tullio Giusi Spa vs.
House of Trims Pvt Ltd, wherein it is observed as
under:
The Delhi High Court criticized the practice of
making bare denials of documents without22
Com.OS.No.238/2024providing substantial reasoning. The Court noted
that such denials were an attempt to shift the
burden of poof onto the opposing party for every
document, which could lead to unnecessary
delays in litigation. The Court emphasized that
issues should only be framed based on
substantial pleas rather than on mere denials,
reinforcing that bare denials do not constitute a
valid basis for framing issues in commercial
disputes.
9. 1968 0 Supreme(cal) 69, Mahendralal Ambalal
Gandi vs. Samstipur central Sugar Co. Ltd., wherein
it is observed as under:
On the question of evasive denial, the Court
agreed upon the observation of Supreme Court
that, if the denial of a fact is not specific but
evasive, the said fact shall be taken to be
admitted. In such an event, the admission itself
being proof, no other proof is necessary.
10. (2008) 12 SCC 481, K.D.Sharma vs. Steel
Authority Pvt., Ltd., wherein it is observed as under:
The Apex Court is of the view that “Suppression
and concealment of material facts is
impermissible to a litigant or even as a technique
of advocacy. In such cases the Court is duty
bound to discharge rule nisi and such applicant is
required to be dealt with for contempt”.
11. AIR 2012 SC 1727, Maria Margarida Sequeria
Fernandes vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria“, wherein it23
Com.OS.No.238/2024is observed as under:
The Apex Court further observed that “false
pleading and forged or fabricated documents in
the records furnished by them to the Court
should be rejected by the face value”
12. AIR 2005 SC 1805 & Transport Corporation of
India Ltd vs. Ganesh Poly Techniques Ltd., Sheikh
meheboob @ Hetak vs. State of Maharashra, wherein
it is observed as under:
Combinedly the Apex Court has summarized the
law that a “party who is in possession of
evidence must adduce it for assisting the Court
in reaching the logical conclusion by the Court.
Otherwise, the Court may draw an adverse
interference against the said party. The law
requires to draw an adverse interference only if
the evidence is withheld knowingly and
purposely and not by omission”.
13. AIR (2010) SC 3823, Ritesh Tewari vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh, wherein it is observed as under:
The Apex Court is of the view that “The truth
should be the guiding star in the entire judicial
process. ‘Every trial is a voyage of discovery in
which truth is the quest’. An action at law is not
a game of chess, a litigant cannot prevaricate
and take inconsistent positions. It is one of those
fundamental principles of jurisprudence that
litigants must observe total clarity and candour
in their pleadings.
14. (1995) 1 SCC 242, Noorduddin vs. K.L.Anand,
24
Com.OS.No.238/2024wherein it is observed as under:
The Apex Court is of the view that “Equally, the
judicial process should never become an
instrument of appreciation or abuse or a means
in the process of the Court to subvert justice.
15. AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4303. Sudhir Kumar @
S.Baliyan vs. Vinay Kumar G.B, wherein it is observed
as under:
The Supreme Court ultimately rules that the High
Court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s application to
produce additional documents was erroneous. It
highlighted the procedural technicalities should
not impede justice when a party seeks to present
relevant evidence necessary for a fair
adjudication of the case. This ruling underscored
the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that all
relevant evidence is considered in legal
proceedings, even if procedural missteps occur.
16. AIR 1970 SC 326, Ram Prasad Sharma vs. State
of Bhihar, wherein it is observed as under:
The Apex Court is of the view that ” it has been
held that even if the entry was made in an
official record by the concerned official in the
discharge of his official duty, it may have weight
but still may require corroboration by the person
on whose information the entry has been made
and as to whether the entry so made has been
exhibited and proved.
25
Com.OS.No.238/2024
18. I have gone through the all the above decisions the
learned counsel for the plaintiff during the course of
argument was not able to demonstrate as to how the
observations made therein would support the plaintiff’s
case in any manner. In the result for the aforesaid reasons
I answer Issue Nos.1 and 4 in the Negative.
19. Issue No.5:- For the aforesaid reasons and in view of
the findings arrived at issue Nos.1 to 4, I pass the
following.
ORDER
Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
Office to send soft copy of the
judgment to respective parties on their
email if furnished.
[Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me then pronounced in the
Open Court, dated this the 2nd day of August 2025]
(ARJUN. S. MALLUR)
LXXXV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
26
Com.OS.No.238/2024
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PLAINTIFF:
PW-1 Sri.S.V. Gururaj
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE
PLAINTIFF
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of the Karnataka Bank
statement.
Ex.P.2 to 6 Original manifest receipts for the months of
October 2020 (page 95 to 166), November
2020 (page 167 to 214), December 2020
(page 215 to 294), January 2021 (Page 295
to 353), February 2021 (Page 354 to 383)
Ex.P.7 to 4 original hand written letters dated
10 24.03.2020.
Ex.P.11 to Hand written letters dated 30.09.2020,
15 16.10.2020, 13.11.2020 15.12.2020 and
16.12.2020.
Ex.P.16 to Hand written letters dated 15.01.2021,
19 31.01.2021, 16.02.2021, 28.02.2021.
Ex.P.20 Hand written letters dated 12.05.2022 and
and 21 01.06.2022.
Ex.P.22 to Hand written letters dated 10.01.2023,
24 25.04.2023, 01.05.2023.
Ex.P.25 Postal receipts 8 in numbers.
Ex.P.26 to Letters dated 21.03.2022 and 25.03.2022
28 and complaint dated 21.03.2022.
Ex.P.29 Letter dated 09.04.2022.
Ex.P.30 Letter dated 17.07.2023 with postal receipt.
Ex.P.31 Office copy of the legal notice dated
07.08.2023 with postal receipt and
acknowledgments.
27
Com.OS.No.238/2024
Ex.P.32 Reply notice dated 01.09.2023.
Ex.P.33 Office copy of the documents sent to
defendant through post (subject to
objections)
Ex.P.34 Ledger statement of the defendants from
01.01.2017 to 25.03.2023 of Bengaluru –
Chennai logistics and Gururaj Transport.
Ex.P.35 Non starter report in PIM No.2447/2023.
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of the Karnataka Bank
statement.
Ex.P.2 to 6 Original manifest receipts for the months of
October 2020 (page 95 to 166), November
2020 (page 167 to 214), December 2020
(page 215 to 294), January 2021 (Page 295
to 353), February 2021 (Page 354 to 383)
Ex.P.7 to 4 original hand written letters dated
10 24.03.2020.
Ex.P.11 to Hand written letters dated 30.09.2020,
15 16.10.2020, 13.11.2020 15.12.2020 and
16.12.2020.
Ex.P.16 to Hand written letters dated 15.01.2021,
19 31.01.2021, 16.02.2021, 28.02.2021.
Ex.P.20 Hand written letters dated 12.05.2022 and
and 21 01.06.2022.
Ex.P.22 to Hand written letters dated 10.01.2023,
24 25.04.2023, 01.05.2023.
Ex.P.25 Postal receipts 8 in numbers.
Ex.P.26 to Letters dated 21.03.2022 and 25.03.2022
28 and complaint dated 21.03.2022.
Ex.P.29 Letter dated 09.04.2022.
Ex.P.30 Letter dated 17.07.2023 with postal receipt.
Ex.P.31 Office copy of the legal notice dated
07.08.2023 with postal receipt and
acknowledgments.
Ex.P.32 Reply notice dated 01.09.2023.
Ex.P.33 Office copy of the documents sent to
28
Com.OS.No.238/2024
defendant through post (subject to
objections)
Ex.P.34 Ledger statement of the defendants from
01.01.2017 to 25.03.2023 of Bengaluru –
Chennai logistics and Gururaj Transport.
Ex.P.35 Non starter report in PIM No.2447/2023.
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of the Karnataka Bank
statement.
Ex.P.2 to 6 Original manifest receipts for the months of
October 2020 (page 95 to 166), November
2020 (page 167 to 214), December 2020
(page 215 to 294), January 2021 (Page 295
to 353), February 2021 (Page 354 to 383)
Ex.P.7 to 4 original hand written letters dated
10 24.03.2020.
Ex.P.11 to Hand written letters dated 30.09.2020,
15 16.10.2020, 13.11.2020 15.12.2020 and
16.12.2020.
Ex.P.16 to Hand written letters dated 15.01.2021,
19 31.01.2021, 16.02.2021, 28.02.2021.
Ex.P.20 Hand written letters dated 12.05.2022 and
and 21 01.06.2022.
Ex.P.22 to Hand written letters dated 10.01.2023,
24 25.04.2023, 01.05.2023.
Ex.P.25 Postal receipts 8 in numbers.
Ex.P.26 to Letters dated 21.03.2022 and 25.03.2022
28 and complaint dated 21.03.2022.
Ex.P.29 Letter dated 09.04.2022.
Ex.P.30 Letter dated 17.07.2023 with postal receipt.
Ex.P.31 Office copy of the legal notice dated
07.08.2023 with postal receipt and
acknowledgments.
Ex.P.32 Reply notice dated 01.09.2023.
Ex.P.33 Office copy of the documents sent to
defendant through post (subject to
objections)
29
Com.OS.No.238/2024
Ex.P.34 Ledger statement of the defendants from
01.01.2017 to 25.03.2023 of Bengaluru –
Chennai logistics and Gururaj Transport.
Ex.P.35 Non starter report in PIM No.2447/2023.
Ex.P.36 to Notarized copies of the Aadhar card, Voter
38 ID and PAN Card. (marked after comparing
the same with the originals and original
returned back to the plaintiff counsel with
direction to produce the same if
subsequently to do so)
Ex.P.39 Printout of the WhatsApp messages
exchanged with the defendant.
Ex.P.40 Certified bank statement of City Union
Bank, Basavanagudi Branch, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.41 Printout of the emails dated 01.06.2022,
10.01.2023 and 02.05.2023.
Ex.P.42 Certificate u/S 63(4)(C) of BSA, 2023 with
respect to Ex.P.36 to P.41.
Ex.P.43 Copy of the letter dated 11.01.2022
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
DEFENDANT
D.W.1 Sri. Sandip Patil
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF
THE DEFENDANT
Ex.D.1 Board resolution.
Ex.D.2 Certified account extract issued to ICICI
bank.
Ex.D.3 Letter issued by Yes Bank dated
07.01.2025.
Ex.D.4 Printout of invoice details. (subject to
relevancy and proof)
Ex.D.5 Summary of payment details. (subject to
relevancy and proof)
30
Com.OS.No.238/2024
Ex.D.6 Statement showing bill wise details.
(subject to relevancy and proof)
Ex.D.7(a) Certified copy of the bank account
to (d) statements of Yes Bank for the period
01.10.2020 to 31.03.2021, 01.04.2021 to
30.06.2021, 01.07.2021 to 09.07.2021,
14.07.2021 to 31.07.2021, 01.08.2021 to
31.08.2021, 03.09.2021 to 18.09.2021,
23.09.2021 to 30.09.2021, 01.10.2021 to
01.10.2021, 07.10.2021, 07.10.2021,
11.10.2021 to 30.10.2021, 03.11.2021 to
03.11.2021, 08.11.2021 to 11.11.2021,
16.11.2021 to 29.11.2021, 01.12.2021 to
18.12.2021, 23.12.2021 to 23.12.2021,
28.12.2021 to 28.12.2021, 19.01.2022 to
19.01.2022, 31.01.2022 to 31.01.2022,
08.03.2022 to 08.03.2022, 11.04.2022 to
11.04.2022, 26.04.2022 to 28.04.2022,
04.05.2022 to 04.05.2022, 09.05.2022 to
09.05.2022, 29.06.2022 to 30.06.2022 in 4
volumes.
(ARJUN. S. MALLUR)
LXXXV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
31