IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1673 OF 2019 (MON)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI T.G.RANGANATH, S/O GOVINDARAJU IYANGAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/A NO.523 “OM SAI RAM”, III MAIN II PHASE, BSK III STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085.

2. MS GEM COFFEE INTERNATIONAL LTD NO.93/2, PANCHAJANYA, VANIVILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU – 560 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS Digitally MANAGING DIRECTOR, signed by RAMYA D SRI. T.G.RANGANATH Location: …APPELLANTS HIGH COURT (BY SRI. MUDUKANAGOUDA R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

OF KARNATAKA AND:

SRI R. NANJUNDA GOWDA S/O K M RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/A NO.21, 4^TH BLOCK

7^TH CROSS, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BHADRINATH.R, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.02.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.4621/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. This appeal is filed by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2019 passed in O.S.No.4621/2004 on the file of XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-18)¹ thereby, the suit filed for recovery of money is decreed in part.

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short

3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

4. Heard the arguments from both the sides and perused the materials available on record.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE:

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the 1^st defendant is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and the 2^nd defendant is the managing director of the company. The 2^nd defendant and the plaintiff are friends; therefore, the 2^nd defendant asked for hand loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff and the plaintiff advanced hand loan of Rs.6,00,000/- to the 2^nd defendant for running the business of the company/1^st defendant on 25.03.2001. Towards repayment of the same, the 2^nd defendant also issued post-dated cheque bearing No.445578 dated 30.06.2001 drawn on Centurion Bank Ltd., Cunningham Road Branch, Bengaluru on assurance given by the 2^nd defendant. When the plaintiff presented the said cheque, the said cheque was dishonored and thereafter, the plaintiff has got issued legal notice of demand by way of telegraphic notice demanding the defendants to pay the loan amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, but there was no response from the 2^nd defendant. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of money.

6. The defendants appeared through their Advocates and filed written statement contending that the defendants had not received a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.03.2001 and the defendants had not issued any cheque to the plaintiff towards repayment of loan as stated by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendants denied all the averments made in the plaint and pray to dismiss the suit.

7. It is further averred in the written statement that the defendants had paid Rs.8,50,000/- before the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.230/2005 through DD No.449570 dated 26.02.2009 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and deposited a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- in SLP. Crl.No.9036/2008 and the same was withdrawn by the plaintiff towards full and final settlement between the parties. Also the defendants have taken contention that the plaintiff has filed complaints before the CMM Court in C.C.Nos.7373 and 7379 of 2003 by misusing the cheques, which did not belong to the defendants and for the same reason, both the complaints were dismissed on 01.0