1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.47 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

M/S F1 INFOTECH (P) LTD.

A PRIVATE LTD. COMPANY DULY REGISTERED

UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE

ED SSC PITAMPURA

NEW DELHI - 110 088

BY ITS DIRECTORS

MR.SUNIL GUPTA & MANISH MONOCHA ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI.B. PRAMOD, ADV.)

AND

M/S TEXONIC INSTRUMENTS

A REG.PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING

ITS OFFICE AT NO.387, 1^ST CROSS

12^TH MAIN, INDIRANAGAR

BENGALURU - 560 038

DULY REP. BY ITS PARTNERS

MR. H. MILAPCHAND

S/O LATE HANSRAJBHANDARI & SANDEEP

2

S/O MR. H. MILACHAND & ALSO

BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY OF THE FIRM

MR. ANILRUNWAL

S/O MR. SUBHASCHANDRUNWAL

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. B. S. SATYANAND, ADV.)

THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 13(1) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015

PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND THEREBY TO SET

ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.12.2020 IN

COM.O.S.NO.5871/2016 BY THE COURT OF THE LXXXIII

ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU

CITY (CCH 84) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY

AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S DEEMED JUST AND

PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE

CASE.

THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD

AND RESERVED ON 16.11.2021 FOR JUDGMENT AND

COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS

DAY, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J, DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This Commercial Appeal is filed under Section 13(1)

of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 by the unsuccessful

defendant, assailing the validity of the judgment and

decree dated 10.12.2020 passed by the LXXXIII Additional

3

City

Civil

and

Sessions

Judge,

Bengaluru

City, in

COM.O.S.No.5871/2016, whereby the suit of the plaintiff

for recovery of Rs.1,33,27,421/- along with interest @

18% p.a. is decreed in part, awarding a sum of

Rs.1,12,89,706/- towards principal and interest on the said

amount

@

9%

p.a.

as

against

the

claim

of

18% p.a.

2. For convenience, parties to this appeal are

referred as per their ranking in the original suit.

3.

The facts relevant for adjudication of this

appeal are summarised as under:

The plaintiff being the wholesale dealer of computer

components received purchase order on 25.03.2015 from

the defendant. The purchase order comprised of three

components

namely

Hardware,

Software

licenses,

Maintenance and service. The order placed by the

defendant referred above is found at Ex.P3.

4

4.

The plaintiff has pleaded that though it has

complied its obligation in terms of purchase order at Ex.P3,

the defendant failed to make the payment. It is the

further case of the plaintiff that series of correspondences

were exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendant

and the controversy relating to arrears payable by the

defendant was not resolved. It is also the case of the

plaintiff that the defendant issued a cheque dated

08.10.2015 for Rs.1,11,17,024/- drawn on Yes Bank

towards discharge of the debt. However, the defendant

requested the plaintiff to defer the presentation of the

cheque for collection. The plaintiff contends that the

indulgence was shown by the plaintiff keeping in mind the

business relationship and the cheque was not presented

for collection on the scheduled date. The plaintiff further

contends that despite sufficient time granted to the

defendant to make good the payment, the same was not

paid. Thus, the suit was filed in Com.O.S. No.5871/2016

5

for recovery of amount Rs.1,33,27,421/- including the

interest @18% p.a. from the defendant.

5.

The defendant contested the suit and denied

the liability to pay the price of software component,

maintenance and service charges specified in Ex.P3-

purchase order. On perusal of the written statement filed

by the defendant particularly paragraphs-P, Q, R and S, it

is no