Karnataka High Court
Sri Amarnath vs Kanthamaney Polymer Pvt. Ltd on 18 June, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21015
RFA No. 917 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 917 OF 2016 (MON)
BETWEEN:
SRI.AMARNATH,
S/O.NABHIRAJAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF FE DESIGNS,
NO.35, 2ND FLOOR,
VANIVILAS ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.LOKESH.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KANTHAMANEY POLYMER PVT. LTD.,
Digitally signed by
OFFICE AT: F-17(I), PHASE-I,
PREMCHANDRA M R IDA, JEEDIMETLA,
Location: HIGH HYDERABAD - 500 055
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY
ITS MANAGING DIRECTORS,
P.S. RAVICHANDER.
2. SRI.P.S.RAVICHANDER,
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KANTHAMANEY POLYMER PVT LTD.,
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
3. SMT. UMA RAVICHANDER
DIRECTOR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21015
RFA No. 917 of 2016
HC-KAR
KANTHAMANEY POLYMER PVT LTD.,
W/O P.S.RAVICHANDER,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
R2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT:
C/O A.G.MURALI
NO.616/2, 4TH CROSS,
CHIKKA BANASWADI,
BANGALORE - 560 043.
...RESPONDENTS
(V/O DATED 12.10.2023 - R1 TO 3 ARE SERVED
BY WAY OF PAPER PUBLICATION)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 OF THE CPC.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS
UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
Sri. Lokesh C., counsel for the appellant, has appeared in
person.
An emergent notice to the respondents was ordered on
05.06.2018. A perusal of the daily order sheet depicts that
notice to the respondents is held sufficient vide order dated
12.10.2023.
2. This is an appeal from the Court of XXXIX Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
NC: 2025:KHC:21015
HC-KAR
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to by their ranking and status before the Trial Court.
4. The plaint averments are these:
The plaintiff, Amarnath, is a Proprietor of FE Designs and
owns a dealership of CYPE dealing in the business of Software.
It is said that the plaintiff and defendant No.3 are college
mates and they were friends. After a long time, defendant No.3
met plaintiff at his office in November 2011 and requested a
hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/-, agreeing to repay the same with
interest. The plaintiff arranged Rs.7,65,000/- and paid the said
amount through online transfer i.e., Net Banking. The plaintiff
paid Rs.6,50,000/- to the company account - defendant No.1 in
two payments i.e., Rs.4,50,000/- on 22.03.2012 and
Rs.2,00,000/- on 26.03.2012 and Rs.1,15,000/- to defendant
No.2 in two payments i.e., Rs.65,000/- on 24.03.2012 and
Rs.50,000/- on 26.03.2012. After receipt of the said amount,
they acknowledged the same and sent a reply to the plaintiff
through email and also undertook to pay the amount within
three months with interest. Defendant No.3 did not pay the
principal or the interest amount till August 2013. However, she
NC: 2025:KHC:21015
HC-KAR
made certain payments on different dates. After the said
payments, she was still due Rs.10,39,000/- towards interest
and principal. Despite several demands, the defendants did not
come forward to pay the amount, and they postponed the
payment on one pretext or the other pretext. Under these
circumstances, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking recovery of
money.
After service of the suit summons, the defendants did not
appear before the Court. Hence, they were placed ex parte.
Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed
issues. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked
the documents as exhibits. The Trial Court vide Judgment and
Decree dated 18.02.2016 dismissed the suit. Hence, the
present appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC.
5. Counsel for the appellant urged several contentions.
Heard the arguments and perused the appeal papers and the
records with care. Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on
the following decisions.
(1) B. SRIKANTH VS. ERUKALA LAXMI
SUVARNAMUKHI - 2006 (3) ALD 62.
NC: 2025:KHC:21015
HC-KAR
(2) JAY AMBE INDUSTRIES, PROPRIETOR SHRI
DINESHKUMAR BAJRANGLAL SOMANI VS.
GARNET SPECIALITY PAPER LTD - (2022) 01 GUJ
CK 0013.
6. The short point that requires consideration is
whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit.
7. The facts are sufficiently said, and the same does
not require reiteration. The issue falls within a narrow compass
and relates to the payment of money. The Trial Court dismissed
the suit solely on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to
issue legal notice prior to the filing of the suit. The dismissal of
the suit on this count is erroneous. The reason is apparent. A
legal notice is not always mandatory before claiming or
recovering money, it is a strong and often recommended first
step. It provides formal notification of ones intention to pursue
legal action if the money is not repaid. Furthermore, a demand
notice is not always mandatory before filing a money suit. A
demand notice can significantly strengthen the plaintiff's case.
The Trial Court has overlooked this aspect of the matter and
erroneously dismissed the suit.
NC: 2025:KHC:21015
HC-KAR
Ex.P.1 is the Statement Transaction of the account
maintained by the plaintiff in ICICI Bank. A perusal of the same
reflects the payment of Rs.4,50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- made
to KANTHA MANEY. The material on record depicts that the
defendants had borrowed the money and undertook to repay
the same. However, they did not do the needful. The Trial
Court unnecessarily dealt with the matter as if it's a case of
proof of electronic evidence, which is not so. It is significant to
note vide order dated 16.09.2015, the defendants were placed
ex-parte before the Trial Court, and before this Court, they
have not contested. To conclude, I can say only this much that
the plaintiff has established his case and he is entitled to the
relief. As already noted above, the issue falls within a narrow
compass, pleadings are quite simple and the documents
exhibited are also minimum. There is nothing much to
elaborate.
8. The Judgment and Decree dated 18.02.2016 passed
by the XXXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in
O.S.No.2533/2015 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set
aside. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed. The plaintiff is entitled
NC: 2025:KHC:21015
HC-KAR
to recover a sum of Rs.10,39,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Thirty
Nine Thousand only) with 6% interest per annum from the date
of suit till realization. The Registry concerned is hereby directed
to draw the decree accordingly.
9. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
TKN
