Failure to respond and present a defense can lead to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.

YOGESH KHANNA, J.

1. This suit is for recovery of money of Rs.1,16,38,850/- along with interest pendentlite @ 18% per annum.

2. The brief facts of the case as alleged in plaint are:

(a) the plaintiff is a registered trust under the Trust Act and has been formed for the purpose of bringing world class and cost effective learning to individuals through internet at their door steps. The defendant is State Open University established by the Government of State of Karnataka under Karnataka State Open University Act, 1994, which was established to advance and disseminate learning and knowledge by a diversity of means, including the use of any communication technology to provide opportunities for higher education to the population, generally through distance education system;

(b) for advancement of its aims and objects, the defendant approached the plaintiff trust to impart various programmes through CD-ROM, internet, counseling, on-line chatting with faculty, practicals and assignments to the students through the support centers created by the plaintiff trust all over the country and thus sought services and facilities of the plaintiff trust and they both initially entered into a collaboration vide a MoU dated June 2007. Thereafter, the plaintiff and defendant also entered into a MoU dated 24.08.2012 as a supplementary MoU with previous MoUs forming an integral part of the latest MoU for the period of 5 years and its renewal was based upon performance and on mutually agreed terms and conditions;

(c) it was further agreed that the plaintiff will provide study centres for delivery of various programs of the university through distance mode and provide back office support for registration/ enrollment of students, deposit of fee to the university account, distribution of study material and delivery of counseling sessions to the students and to arrange conducting of examinations. The defendant's responsibility was to finalize admissions as per rules of the university after receipt of application and fees. The defendant was also responsible for the whole process of examination, evaluation and declaration of the result, issue of marks cards and award of Degree/ Diploma/Certificates to the successful candidates;

(d) it was also agreed that the plaintiff trust shall have all its employees at its payroll. The distance education programmes shall be delivered by the plaintiff through distance education/internet mode all over India and abroad. The plaintiff shall provide study material to the students and all administrative support to the university and act as facilitator between university, study centres and the students;

(e) as per the MoU dated 24.08.2012, plaintiff was fulfilling its duties and responsibilities diligently. The plaintiff provided logistics and administrative support to the defendant in the conduct of various examinations by the university and raised the bills for reimbursement;

(f) the plaintiff sent various letters and reminders dated from 04.06.2015 to 07.09.2016 but, the defendant failed to pay the amount liable to be given to the plaintiff incurred by the plaintiff for conducting above said examination. Rather, defendant sent a notice dated 12.05.2016 seeking explanation of the plaintiff trust as to why the MoU dated 24.08.2012 should not be terminated. It was mentioned in the notice per decision of the Supreme Court in Professor Yashpal &Anr vs. State of Chattisgarh & Anr. dated 11.02.2005, the University Grant Commission has restricted the activities of distance education by the universities in the country to their respective territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, UGC by the letter dated 27.06.2013 directed the defendant university to restrict its area of operation within its territorial jurisdiction. Thus, the board of management of university by its meeting held on 02.08.2014 decided to stop distance programmes vide notification dated 01.07.2015 and 21.09.2015. It was further mentioned in the notice the defendant v