IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 248 OF 2014 (MON)

BETWEEN:

MS ADINA CUXTON AGED ABOUT 36 YARS, D/O MR. ELDRED CHARLES JOHN CUXTON, R/AT 3^RD FLOOR, MARUTHI NILAYA, BEHIND SNEHA BAKERY, DODDAKANNEHALLI, SARJAPUR ROAD, CARMALARAM P.O., BANGALORE - 560 035.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHOBHA BHAVIKATTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S INDUS INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL A DIVISION OF M/S.INDUS TRUST, A REGISTERED TRUST UNDER THE INDIAN TRUSTS ACT 1881, Digitally signed by BILLAPURA CROSS, SARJAPUR, ARUNKUMAR M S BANGALORE - 562 125 Location: HIGH BY ITS CEO AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, COURT OF LT.GEN.ARJUN RAY, PVSM, VSM.

KARNATAKA …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B V NIDHISHREE, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:08.11.2013 PASSED IN O.S.3769/2011 ON THE FILE OF XIX-ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Regular First Appeal is preferred by the defendant in OS No.3769 of 2011 on the file of the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City, challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.11.2013.

2. Facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of this appeal are that, the plaintiff claims to be a Trust registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 running an Institution known as "Indus International School". It is further stated in the plaint that, the defendant was appointed as a English Teacher as per the Appointment Letter dated 15.12.2008 with effect from 01.08.2009 with an initial probationary period of six months. The salary of the defendant was ₹36,000 per month and the employment of the defendant was confirmed by letter dated 01.02.2010. It is further stated in the plaint that, the defendant has failed to attend the work from 17.07.2010 without informing the plaintiff-Institution and therefore, it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has violated Clause (3) of the terms and conditions of the Agreement said to have entered between the plaintiff-Institution and the defendant. It is further pleaded in the plaint that, since the defendant has failed to give notice for her absence from the duty, which clearly violates the Agreement and as there is a breach of contract by the defendant, she is liable to pay 2 (two) months salary as per Clause (3) of the Agreement which amounts to ₹72,000.

3. It is further pleaded in the plaint that, in view of cessation of work by the defendant without intimating the plaintiff-Institution, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 17.08.2010. The defendant has replied to the same by reply letter dated 01.09.2010. It is also stated in the plaint that, the defendant has sent an E-mail dated 17.02.2010 which is her resignation to the post as a Teacher from Plaintiff-Institution and therefore, the plaintiff has filed suit in OS No.3769 of 2011 before the trial Court seeking recovery of ₹72,000/- with interest from the defendant.

4. After service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The defendant admits that she has been appointed as a English teacher on 15.12.2008 with effect from 01.08.2009 on a probationary period of six months and thereafter, she was continued in the plaintiff- Institution. It is also stated in the Written Statement that, the son of the defendant-Sean, aged about six years was studying in the plaintiff- Institution and was admitted to first standard for the Academic Year 2009-10. Since the environment in the school premises was not good and had caused mental agony to the son of the defendant, same has caused mental stress to the defendant as well and as such, the defendant has brought to the notice of the Class Teacher regarding the way of tr