Karnataka High Court
Jeeves Consumer Services Pvt. Ltd vs Siddeshwara Enterprises on 12 February, 2024
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5933-DB
COMAP No. 48 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR P.S.DINESH KUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
COMAP NO. 48 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
JEEVES CONSUMER SERVICES PVT. LTD.,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT -AT ALYSSA
BEGONIA AND CLOVER, EMBASSY TECH
VILLAGE, OUTER RING ROAD
DEVARABESANAHALLI VILLAGE
BANGALORE-560 103
REP BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI PRAVEEN KEJRIWAL ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH S GOGI.,ADV.)
AND:
SIDDESHWARA ENTERPRISES
REP. BY SMT KAVITHA
HAVING OFFICE AT
Digitally signed by MALA BESIDE TO MSIL, T 92A
KN GROUND FLOOR, DANERA COMPLEX
CHAITRA NILAYA, 33 WARD
Location: HIGH COURT 60 FEET ROAD
OF KARNATAKA
SHRAVANTHI NAGAR
SHIVAMOGGA
KARNATAKA-577 201 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.C.MOHANA,ADVOCATE)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1-A) OF THE
COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
PRESENT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
AND DECREE PASSED IN COM.O.S. NO. 146/2023 BY THE
COURT OF LXXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5933-DB
COMAP No. 48 of 2024
AT BENGALURU (CCH-87) BY ITS JUDGEMENT DATED
11.08.2023, ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the defendant has challenged
the judgment dated 11.08.2023 in Com.O.S.No.
146/2023 passed by the LXXXVI Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-87) ('Commercial
Court' in short).
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be
referred as per their status before the Commercial
Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are, the defendant is
engaged in the business of providing various after-
sale services, including demonstration, installation,
repair, refurbishment, delivery and warranty services
to the consumers of electronics and home
appliances. The defendant has appointed the
plaintiff as its non-exclusive authorized service
NC: 2024:KHC:5933-DB
partner in Shivamogga by entering into a service
partner agreement on 19.04.2022. On the basis of
the said agreement, the plaintiff has hired the
building by paying monthly rent of Rs.6,000/-,
invested Rs.75,000/- for establishing the franchise
business of the defendant. The defendant had
assured 500 calls per day and believing the
defendant, the plaintiff has made a huge investment
of Rs.11,68,000/-. The defendant did not forward
any calls for attending; the plaintiff waited from the
month of March to August, 2022 by paying salaries
to the Engineers, supporting staff, incurring office
expenses, travelling expenses, etc. Without
providing business, the defendant withdrawn the
franchise agreement, thereby caused huge loss to
the plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff approached Commercial
Court seeking recovery of Rs.11,68,000/-.
4. The defendant appeared through his
Advocate, did not file any written statement, nor
NC: 2024:KHC:5933-DB
contested the suit. On behalf of the plaintiff, one
witness was examined as PW-1 and 16 documents
marked as Exs.P1 to P16. No evidence is let-in on
behalf of the defendant. The Commercial Court after
hearing learned counsel for the plaintiff, decreed the
suit directing the defendant to pay Rs.11,68,000/-
with 18% interest p.a. from March 2022 till the
realization. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant
has filed the instant appeal on various grounds.
5. Heard arguments of Sri. Santhosh S. Gogi,
learned counsel for the defendant and
Sri. C. Mohana, learned counsel for the plaintiff.
6. It is the contention of learned counsel for
the defendant that after the appearance, the
defendant has filed an application for recalling the
order of ex-parte, permitting him to file written
statement and also an application under Section 8 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for
referring the parties to arbitration. The said
NC: 2024:KHC:5933-DB
applications came to be dismissed. Even the request
of the defendant for cross-examination of the
plaintiff is not accepted, no opportunity was provided
to the defendant to lead evidence, argument of the
defendant was not heard, impugned judgment is
technical in nature and he sought for an opportunity
to the defendant to contest the suit.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff
contended that defendant in spite of appearing
through counsel, did not file written statement within
stipulated period, instead unnecessary applications
are made to drag the proceedings. The Commercial
Court has rightly rejected the applications as the
defendant did not participate in the proceedings, the
impugned judgment came to be passed on merits
and he supported the impugned judgment.
8. We have given our anxious consideration to
the arguments addressed on behalf of both the
parties and perused the material on record.
NC: 2024:KHC:5933-DB
9. There is no dispute as to defendant being
involved in the post-sale services and engaged the
services of the plaintiff by entering into an
agreement on 19.04.2022. The plaintiff contends
that the defendant did not provide adequate
business to maintain his establishment. Thereby, he
incurred loss of Rs.11,68,000/-. The defendant
though appeared through counsel, in spite of filing
the written statement kept quiet and after being
placed ex-parte, he filed an application under Order
IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. seeking permission to file
written statement and also an application under
Order Section 8 of the Arbitration Act to refer the
parties to the arbitration. The Commercial Court in
spite of appearance of the defendants through the
counsel, indicated in the impugned judgment that he
is placed ex-parte. The material on record did point
out that the request for cross-examination of the
plaintiff was turned down and both the applications
NC: 2024:KHC:5933-DB
of defendant were rejected. The suit is in respect of
monetary relief. Unless the defendant places his
version of the case, the Commercial Court cannot
render justice and hence passed judgment on
technical grounds.
10. We have perused the impugned judgment.
The Commercial Court accepted the evidence of
plaintiff as there is no defence, nor
cross-examination. The defendant was before the
Court when such judgment was passed. The
Commercial Court ought to have offered an
opportunity to the defendant to contest his case,
then decide the matter on merits, giving opportunity
to both the parties. Hence, the impugned judgment
is not a judgment rendered on merits, it is a
technical judgment which calls for interference.
11. At the same time, we are conscious of the
time spent by the Commercial Court as well as the
plaintiff. Hence, the defendant has to compensate
NC: 2024:KHC:5933-DB
the plaintiff adequately. Hence, it is a case for
remand, without reference to merits of the case.
Accordingly, the appeal merits consideration, in the
result, the following:
ORDER
i) This appeal is allowed;
ii) Impugned judgment and decree is
set aside;
iii) The suit is restored to the
Commercial Court to the stage of
pleadings;
iv) Commercial Court is requested to
permit the parties to complete their
pleadings and thereafter, to decide
the case on merits;
v) The proceedings shall be completed
in an outer limit of four months from
the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order;
vi) Without further notice, parties shall
appear before the Commercial Court
on 18.03.2024;
NC: 2024:KHC:5933-DB
vii) The defendant is directed to pay
Rs.30,000/- to the plaintiff towards
costs on the first date of hearing
before the Commercial Court.
viii) Refund of court fee in accordance
with law.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
PA / KNM
CT:HS
