THE CHAIRMAN vs M/S NETWORK DETECTIVE AGENCY PVT LTD

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50654-DB
COMAP No. 496 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010623472025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN

COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 496 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

THE CHAIRMAN
CSR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,
NO.32, CSRIF, GRAPE GARDEN,
TH
RESIDING AT 4/A, 17 H MAIN ROAD,
TH
6 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU-560 095.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.N.JAYADEVA.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S NETWORK DETECTIVE AGENCY PVT LTD
TH TH
NO.69,35 MAIN, 7 CROSS,
KUVEMPUNAGAR (KAS OFFICERS LAYOUT),
BTM II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 068,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI. KUSHALAPPA M P
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.VENKATESH AITHAL.,ADVOCATE)

THIS COMAP FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1A) OF THE
COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN COM.O.S.NO.412/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE
HON’BLE LXXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE BENGALURU (CCH-90) AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 11.06.2025 PASSED IN
COM.OS.NO.412/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE LXXXIX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU










Digitally
signed by
MALA K N
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50654-DB
COMAP No. 496 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010623472025


(CCH-90) AT BENGALURU CITY, AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND
DISMISS THE SAID COM.O.S.NO.412/2024 AND GRANT SUCH
OTHER RELIEFS AS DEEMED JUST IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN
THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)

This intra-court appeal is preferred by the defendant,
being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2025
passed by the LXXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru (for brevity, ‘Commercial Court’ ), in Com.O.S.
No.412/2024, whereby the suit was decreed in favour of the
plaintiff and the defendant was ordered to pay a sum of
Rs.38,55,341/- along with interest at the rate of 18% from the
date of suit till realization, with costs.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall
hereinafter be referred to by their respective ranks before the
Commercial Court.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50654-DB
COMAP No. 496 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010623472025


I. Facts of the Plaintiff:

3. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff is that it is a
Company engaged in providing security services to industries,
commercial establishments, offices, houses and apartments.
The defendant had approached the plaintiff for obtaining
security services to the defendant’s organization and, pursuant
thereto, the plaintiff rendered security services in terms of the
work orders. According to the plaintiff, the defendant availed
such services and initially made payments in accordance with
the agreed terms and conditions.

4. It was further contended that the defendant
maintained a running account with the plaintiff and made part
payments. The plaintiff, therefore, adjusted the payments on a
First-In First-Out basis. According to the plaintiff, after giving
credit to the payments made by the defendant, a sum of
Rs.24,98,763/- remained outstanding as on 31.12.2021, apart
from interest of Rs.13,56,578/- calculated at 18% per annum
up to 28.02.2024.

5. It was also the case of the plaintiff that the
defendant had acknowledged the outstanding payment of

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50654-DB
COMAP No. 496 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010623472025


Rs.20,40,840/- as on June, 2020 and Rs.22,21,679/- as on
July, 2020. Further, despite repeated personal requests,
emails, letters and telephone calls, the defendant failed to clear
the outstanding amount. The plaintiff, therefore, issued a legal
notice dated 04.04.2022 demanding payment of
Rs.28,08,535/-. Thereafter, the plaintiff initiated pre institution
mediation before the District Legal Services Authority,
Bengaluru.

6. As the defendant failed to appear in the said
proceedings, a Non Starter Report came to be issued,
whereupon, the plaintiff pursued the present commercial
suit. In support of its case, the plaintiff examined its Managing
Director, Shri.Kushalappa M.P., as PW1 and marked documents
at Ex.P1 to Ex.P15.The defendant chose neither to cross
examine PW1 nor to adduce any oral or documentary evidence
in support of its case. Consequently, the oral and documentary

evidence adduced by the plaintiff remained uncontroverted.

II. Order of the Commercial Court:
7. In its order, the Commercial Court considered the
material on record, inter alia , the agreement and work order at

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50654-DB
COMAP No. 496 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010623472025


Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, the statement of outstanding dues along with
the invoices at Ex.P4, and the outstanding statement
acknowledged by the defendant at Ex.P5, the email
correspondence at Ex.P7, the legal notice and reply notice at
Ex.P9 and Ex.P12.On an overall consideration of these
documents along with the evidence of PW1, the Commercial
Court held that the plaintiff had established its claim and,
accordingly, decreed the suit with costs, directing the
defendant to pay a sum of Rs.38,55,341/- along with interest
at 18% per annum from the date of the suit till realization.

8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree
dated 11.06.2025 passed in Com.O.S.No.412/2024, the
defendant has preferred the present appeal under Section
13(1-A) of the Act.

III. Grounds of Appeal:
9. On the other hand, the defendant has contended
that even assuming that the defendant were to admit its
liability to the extent of Rs.20,40,840/- as in June 2020, the
present suit was instituted only on 16.09.2024. As such, the

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50654-DB
COMAP No. 496 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010623472025


present suit would be barred by limitation and is liable to be
dismissed on the said ground.

10. The defendant has further disputed the existence of
any running account maintained between the parties. It is
contended that the Commercial Court has failed to consider
that the accounts between the parties had not been reconciled.
Another objection raised by the defendant is that the plaintiff
had not produced any Board Resolution authorising it to
institute the present suit.

11. However, we may note that the defendant had not
filed its written statement before the Commercial Court. In this
regard, it was contended that the defendant could not take
necessary steps within time to defend the suit by filing its
written statement, due to a communication gap between their
counsels and themselves.

12. On the basis of the aforesaid contentions, the
defendant has sought that the judgment and decree passed by
the Commercial Court be set aside.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50654-DB
COMAP No. 496 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010623472025


IV. Point for consideration:
13. We have heard Shri. B.N. Jayadeva, learned counsel
appearing for the defendant, and Shri. S. Venkatesh Aithal,
learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff. We have also
carefully perused the records of the case before us. As such,
the point which arises for our consideration in the present
appeal is:
“Whether the defendant has made out any
ground to interfere with the judgement and
decree of the Commercial Court?”

V. Analysis and Reasons:
14. Having considered the rival contentions and the
material on record, we are of the view that the defendant has
not been able to persuade us to set aside the judgment of the
Commercial Court.

15. On a perusal of the order of the Commercial Court,
we find that reliance has been placed on Ex.P2, being the
agreement dated 04.12.2018, and Ex.P3, being the work order
dated 27.11.2018, to ascertain the plaintiff’s engagement for
providing security services to the defendant. Further, it was
noted that from Ex.P4 that an amount of Rs.24,98,763/-

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50654-DB
COMAP No. 496 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010623472025


remained outstanding towards the principal amount, in addition
to the interest of Rs. 13,56,578/-, totally amounting to
Rs.38,55,341/-. Further, Ex.P5 was also relied upon to come to
the finding that defendant had acknowledged the outstanding
amount of Rs.19,95,475/- payable to the plaintiff as on
27.08.2020.

16. The Commercial Court also took into consideration
Ex.P7, being the email correspondence exchanged between the
parties with regard to the outstanding payments, as well as
Ex.P9, the legal notice dated 04.04.2022, wherein the plaintiff
had demanded a sum of Rs.28,08,535/- along with interest at
18% p.a., and Ex.P12, which is the reply notice issued by the
defendant.

17. More importantly, we may note here that the oral
evidence of PW1 and the documentary evidence referred to
above, remained wholly unchallenged. The defendant neither
cross examined PW1 nor adduced any oral or documentary
evidence to rebut the evidence produced by the plaintiff.
Consequently, the evidence led by the plaintiff remained
uncontroverted. In such circumstances, an adverse inference

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50654-DB
COMAP No. 496 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010623472025


can be drawn against the defendant’s case as per Section 119
of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

18. As such, we are of the considered opinion that
based on the oral and documentary evidence before the
Commercial Court, the Commercial Court had rightly decreed
the suit in favour of the plaintiff. As such, we find no infirmity
in the order of the Commercial Court and that the defendant
has not made out any grounds to interfere with the order of the
Commercial Court.

19. In such circumstances, the defendant, having failed
to avail the opportunity available before the Commercial Court,
cannot now seek remand as a matter of course in the present
appeal.

20. However, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice, since
the interest awarded by the Commercial Court is on the higher
side, we deem it appropriate to modify the rate of interest.
Accordingly, the interest payable on the decretal amount shall
stand reduced from 18% per annum to 7.5% per annum,

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50654-DB
COMAP No. 496 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010623472025


payable from the date of the suit till the date of realization.
Except for the aforesaid modification with regard to the rate of
interest, all other findings and conclusions recorded by the
Commercial Court are affirmed.

Accordingly, we pass the following;
ORDER

(i) The Commercial Appeal is partly allowed ;

(ii) The judgment and decree dated 11.06.2025
passed by the LXXXIX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Com.O.S.
No.412/2024, stands modified;

(iii) The appellant/defendant is directed to pay a sum
of Rs.38,55,341/- along with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of suit till
realization, accordingly decree be drawn.

Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE

Sd/-
(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
JUDGE

KNM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18