SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18096

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
INTERGRATED WORKPLACE SOLUTIONS – Appellant
Versus
SHRI. ABHILASH MENON – Respondent
COMAP 230 / 2024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO COMMERCIAL APPEAL No.230 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

1. INTEGRATED WORKPLACE SOLUTIONS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.734, 2ND FLOOR, 22ND CROSS ROAD, 3RD SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 102 REP. HEREIN BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, ARCHIE ABRAHAM E-MAIL:FINANCE@IWPSGLOBAL.COM

2. ARCHIE ABRAHAM MAJOR, HAVING HIS OFFICE AT NO.734, 2ND FLOOR, 22ND CROSS ROAD, 3RD SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 102 E-MAIL:FINANCE@IWPSGLOBAL.COM ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHANKAR S. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SHRI ABHILASH MENON SOLE PROPRIETOR, TUCSON VENTURES, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O ANAND KUMAR POTTAYIL, HAVING HIS OFFICE AT NO.3, IMMIDAHALLI MAIN ROAD, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560 066 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KASHYAP N. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

13(1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 R/W ORDER 41, RULE 1 R/W SECTION 96 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN COM.O.S.NO.791/2023, DATED 26-03-2024 ON THE FILE OF LXXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE(CCH-85)

AT BENGALURU CITY AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 26.06.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, DR. K.MANMADHA RAO, J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO)

The present Commercial Appeal No.230/2024 is filed by the Appellants/Defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2024 passed in Com.O.S.No.791/2023, by the LXXXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, (Commercial Court) Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commercial Court’).

2. For convenience of reference, the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Commercial Court in Com.O.S.No.791/2023. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in Com.O.S.No.791/2023, before the Commercial Court.

3. The respondent/plaintiff filed the Commercial Original Suit against the appellants/defendants seeking for recovery of money of sum of Rs.13,75,136/- on the file of LXXXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, (Commercial Court) Bengaluru.

4. The plaintiff-Abhilash Menon, is an entrepreneur and sole proprietor running and operating his business under the name and style of ‘Tucson Ventures’, is engaged in providing end-to-end interior designing solutions, including manufacture and distribution of furniture, furnishings, and décor. It is averred that the defendant No.1 is a partnership firm engaged in architectural and interior design services and defendant No.2 is its Managing Partner who is responsible for day-to-day operations. The defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff in or around July 2021, through defendant No.2, seeking manufacturing services for three projects, namely Call Hub, Red Seer, and Licious for which defendant No.1 was handling the design requirements and procurement of furnishing and décor for the defendant No.1’s client.

5. Defendant No.1 is stated to have issued 19 purchase orders for supply of various materials and installation services, between 28.07.2021 to 14.06.2022,. The parties had agreed that 50% of the consignment value/purchase order value would be paid in advance, 40% upon material delivery, and the remaining 10% after project handover. The plaintiff contends that all materials were supplied in accordance with the specifications and timelines stipulated by the Defendants, and were duly acknowledged and certified by their representatives, without any demur or protest. It is further submitted that the defendants had undertaken to pay applicable GST based on invoices, and a running account was maintained by the plaintiff in respect of the invoices raised and amounts paid by the defendant No.1.

6. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that despite the completion

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top