Final Order 8

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: CS No.41 /2019
Infobip Vs. Bhagyawan
Judgment 1 of 11
MHCC010060842019 Lodged on : 18.06.2019
Admitted on : 03.07.2019
Decided on : 17.08.2026
Duration : 07 Y : 02 M : 00 D
Exhibit : 68
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MAZGAON
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.41 OF 2019
Infobip India Private Limited
Having its registered office at Marathon Icon 808, 8th
Floor, Opposite Peninsula Corporate Park, Mumbai
400 013, Maharashtra, India. Plaintiff
VERSUS
Mr. Bhagyawan Manjarekar
Sole Proprietor, Web Soft Technologies, 2nd Floor,
D-20, 2:3, Ashirwad CHS, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400
705, Maharashtra, India.
Also at, 1st Floor, F-51, Haware’s Fantasia, Business
Park, Sector 30A, Near Inorbit Mall, Vashi, Navi
Mumbai - 400 705, Maharashtra, India.
Also at
1st Floor, F-51, Haware’s Fantasia, Business Park,
Sector 30A, Near Inorbit Mall, Vashi, Navi Mumbai –
400 705, Maharashtra, India. Defendant
Appearance :
Adv. Siddhant Pandita : For Plaintiff.
Adv. Ganpat Monde : For Defendant
CORAM : N. B. LAVTE, (C.R.No.31)
DATE : 17.08.2026
***************************************************************
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 17th day of August, 2026)
-- 1 of 11 --
CS No.41 /2019
Infobip Vs. Bhagyawan
Judgment 2 of 11
The Commercial Suit is filed for recovery of Rs.27,53,055.52
with 12% p.a. It is filed by the Constituted Attorney of plaintiff Mr.
Abhishek Anand Apte.
In short, it is the case of plaintiff that:
2. The plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies
Act, 1956 engaged in business of providing international messaging
services. The defendant is a sole proprietor of Websoft Technologies in
the business of website designing & development and digital agency
providing services to enterprises. The defendant had approached
plaintiff to avail international messaging services. Accordingly, they
entered into Messaging Services Agreement Dt.07.03.2015 and the
Addendum No.1 Dt.19.06.2015. It was to be commenced from the date
of signing of the Agreement and Clause No.4 provided price, payment
and services. The agreement provided the transaction was on pre-paid
account basis, whereas addendum provided it would be on pre-paid and
post-paid account basis. The invoice was to be issued on 10th day on
every month and the payment was to be made within 30 days from the
date of invoice. The plaintiff diligently issued invoices, however,
defendant breached the terms and defaulted in making payment.
3. As per schedule I, the pre-paid payment model as per
agreement which requires issuance of invoice within 5 working days
after pre-payment. The plaintiff was also entitled to pass on price
increase pursuant to legislation and regulations. The defendant placed
various orders and services were provided to full satisfaction and
invoices were raised. For initial months, the defendant made payment,
however since November 2015 he defaulted in making the payment
despite availing the services. Vide email Dt.14.01.2016 reminder was
-- 2 of 11 --
CS No.41 /2019
Infobip Vs. Bhagyawan
Judgment 3 of 11
given to clear the outstanding amount and by reply defendant admitted
the amount, but sought time to clear it as the amount was not received
from one of the reseller.
4. On 19.01.2016 defendant made part payment of
Rs.1,00,000/- and notified it by email Dt.19.01.2016 and by reply email
was requested to make payment of at least 50% of outstanding amount.
In reply to same defendant requested time till February 2016. The
plaintiff vide email Dt.20.01.2018 reduced the amount to 30% as
against 50%. By email Dt.05.02.2016 plaintiff called upon defendant to
make payment failing which the services would be shut. In response
defendant agreed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- every month. However, by reply
Dt.08.02.2016 it was informed to defendant that the said payment was
unacceptable. The defendant vide email Dt.08.02.2016 informed that
he will make payment of minimum Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/- till
31.03.2016.
5. Vide email Dt.09.02.2016 they informed defendant that
Rs.15,66,000/- is outstanding and by reply email Dt.17.02.2016
defendant informed that he will make payment of Rs.4,00,000/- per
month. By email Dt.13.07.2016 defendant sought time to make
payment. Further emails exchange reveals defendant sought time to
make payment, which resulted in locking the account of defendant. As
per the invoices, more particularly mentioned in para No.19 of the
plaint, there is an outstanding amount of Rs.20,46,077.52. On
13.12.2017, legal notice was issued. Inspite of receiving it, defendant
failed to make payment. On 26.09.2018 again second demand notice
was issued. The defendant willfully defaulted in making payment,
though admitted the liability. Hence, suit.
-- 3 of 11 --
CS No.41 /2019
Infobip Vs. Bhagyawan
Judgment 4 of 11
6. Pursuant to issuance of writ of summons, the defendant
appeared. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application for Summary
Judgment No.01/2019 to which reply was filed. The application for
Summary Judgment came to be rejected on 11.08.2021. Thereafter,
affidavit-in-reply was treated as Written Statement and marked as
Exh.5. The defendant challenged the suit on the ground of
maintainability as a Summary Suit. The addendum No.1 at page 38 to
41 of plaint and the one annexed to the plaint is different. Therefore,
the documents produced is fake and fabricated documents. Therefore,
the addendum No.1 cannot be read in evidence which fact was
informed by his Advocate by email Dt.20.11.2019. The inspection of
document was not given. None of the invoices are signed by either of
the parties. Therefore, they cannot be relied. It is not signed by
defendant acknowledging the same. No cause of action arose to file the
suit and is filed with malafide intention and with ulterior motives.
7. It is his specific defence that the plaintiff approached him to
avail their services for messaging system. After discussion, plaintiff
offered him pre-paid plans for digital messaging system. Considering
the sales committed by him to clients, plaintiff approached with
proposal for joint venture. Though it was rejected, plaintiff offered him
post-paid plans which was again denied as the terms were not suitable.
Therefore, no any agreement was entered into. The plaintiff used to
give log in ID for each service provider and defendant had at least three
log in accounts, however, plaintiff fraudulently and without knowledge
uploaded post-paid plan. When inquired, plaintiff informed that as
defendant was having good sale turnover hence the company is offering
it at good rate where defendant can earn profit. It was again denied
with instructions to stop the post-paid services.
-- 4 of 11 --
CS No.41 /2019
Infobip Vs. Bhagyawan
Judgment 5 of 11
8. Later on, plaintiff started demanding money towards the
alleged post-paid plans. As he had given credit period to the clients and
terms to pay when the amount was recovered from clients, which
plaintiff allowed. The plaintiff themselves had offered post-paid plans to
some of his clients. By email addressed by plaintiff showing ready and
willing to give further 30% discount. Therefore, the entire transaction
was at the instance of plaintiff. It was the plaintiff, who wanted to have
a joint venture with big clients of defendant for which they approached
for more discount of 30%. The defendant was never put to knowledge
about post-paid plans initiated in his log in ID. In the month of February
2016, the log in ID was stopped.
9. In view of pleadings of the parties, my Predecessor framed
issues vide Exh.8. The same are reproduced below on which I have
given my findings alongwith reasons as under:
Sr. ISSUES FINDINGS
1. Do plaintiff prove plaintiff and defendant had entered into
the Messaging Services Agreement Dt. 07.03.2015 and
Addendum No.1 Dt.19.06.2015?
Affirmative
2. Do plaintiff prove he provided international messaging
services to defendant as per Agreement Dt.07.03.2015 and
Addendum No.1 Dt.19.06.2015?
Affirmative
3. Do plaintiff prove he is entitled to recover amount of
Rs.27,53,055.52 (Rs.20,46,077.52 plus interest at the rate
of 12% p.a from the date of default) from the defendant
towards services rendered by it as per the Agreement? If
yes, at what rate of interest?
Affirmative
At 12% p.a
4. Do defendant prove that the documents produced by
plaintiff are fake and fabricated documents?
Negative
5. Do defendant prove that plaintiff had fraudulently without
knowledge of defendant uploaded post-paid plans and fixed
on the login ID of defendant?
Negative
6. What order as to costs? As per final
order.
-- 5 of 11 --
CS No.41 /2019
Infobip Vs. Bhagyawan
Judgment 6 of 11
7. What order and decree? As per final
order.
REASONS
10. In order to prove the suit claim, the plaintiff company
examined Arpita Sandeep Jadhav (Head of Regulatory and Compliance)
vide Exh.10 and additional evidence affidavit vide Exh.16. Reliance is
placed on the following documents namely 65-B Certificate (Exh.18),
Messaging Services Agreement (Exh.19), Postal Receipts,
acknowledgment, returned envelops (Exh.20 to Exh.29), emails (Exh.30
to Exh.37), Addendum No.1 (Exh.38). Again in view of order passed in
Notice of Motion No.1052/2024, the plaintiff filed compilation of
documents vide Exh.44 and the emails were marked as Exh.45 to
Exh.62, 28 invoices Exh.65 colly, copy of legal notice Exh.66.
11. In view of Advocate of defendant filing discharge pursis
Exh.67, to safeguard the interest of defendant, Notice on Court Motion
was issued to him. However, inspite of repeated steps taken by plaintiff
to serve, the postal envelop returned with remark “left”. Therefore, by
detail order Dt.02.07.2026, suit proceeded further. The defendant failed
to engage an Advocate to defend him, failed to conduct the cross
examination of witness of plaintiff nor filed his evidence.
AS TO ISSUE NOS.1, 2, 4 & 5 :
(As all the issues are interlinked with each other, therefore, to avoid
repetition they are discussed together)
12. Heard Adv. Siddhant Pandita for plaintiff. No any argument is
advanced from the side of the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff
company that in view of the Messaging Services Agreement (Exh.19)
and Addendum No.1 (Exh.38) they provided defendant with
-- 6 of 11 --
CS No.41 /2019
Infobip Vs. Bhagyawan
Judgment 7 of 11
International Messaging Services. They issued invoices and an amount
of Rs.27,53,055.52 is due and outstanding. The defendant had filed
reply/leave to defend which was later on treated as Written Statement
in which he admitted that he is engaged in the business of providing
Digital Services to various clients. He also admitted plaintiff
approaching him to avail their services and offering pre-paid plans,
however, took defence that he never consented for post-paid plans and
plaintiff without his knowledge uploaded post-paid plan. Whereas, in
para 11, defendant took defence that the plaintiff themselves offered
post-paid plans to some of his clients. Defence of fabrication of
Addendum No.1 is also taken.
13. According to Adv. Pandita, the defendant in his written
statement is blowing hot and cold from the same pipe as at one moment
he is admitting the Messaging Services Agreement and Addendum No.1
and services enjoyed, however, denying the post-paid plan. As the
defendant failed to conduct cross-examination of witness of plaintiff,
therefore, pleadings, documents and evidence have gone unchallenged
and are deemed to be admitted. As regards the defence of forgery, Adv.
Pandita submitted that the burden was on the defendant to prove the
same, which he failed as he failed to step in the witness box. Therefore,
the defence of forgery and fabrication is not proved. He lastly submitted
that the emails filed along with 65-B Certificates shows defendant
admitting the liability, but prayed for time to make the payment which
itself proves the liability. Therefore, according to him, the plaintiff is
entitled for decree as prayed.
14. From pleadings of the parties, it is not disputed that they
entered into Messaging Services Agreement (Exh.19) and Addendum
-- 7 of 11 --
CS No.41 /2019
Infobip Vs. Bhagyawan
Judgment 8 of 11
No.1 (Exh.38). The services provided are also not disputed. Though
defendant took defence about fabrication and forgery of Addendum
No.1 (Exh.38), however, no any evidence to that effect is filed on record
and as already discussed above, defendant failed to grace the witness
box to justify his defence. On the contrary, after the issuance of the
invoices Exh.65 colly, there is lot of communication by email between
the parties.
15. The material emails are email Dt.14.01.2016 (Exh.45) sent by
plaintiff to defendant seeking urgent payment of outstanding amount.
In reply Dt.14.01.2016 (Exh.46) defendant sought one week time to
make payment as he was expecting Rs.12.27 Lakhs from the reseller.
The further email Exh.47 shows payment of Rs.1 Lakh by defendant. By
email Exh.48, plaintiff asked defendant to at least make payment of
50% of the total amount due. By reply email Exh.49, defendant sought
time till first week of February 2016 to make balance payment of 50%
amount. By email Exh.50, plaintiff asked defendant to deposit at least
30% of the total amount due. By email Exh.51, defendant paid Rs.1
Lakh and agreed to pay Rs.2 Lakhs every month to clear the outstanding
before 30.06.2016.
16. The further email Exh.54 by defendant wherein he agreed to
pay minimum Rs.5 Lakhs and upto Rs.10 Lakhs as against the
outstanding till 31.03.2016. Again by email Exh.56, defendant agreed
to pay Rs.1 Lakh per week. By email Dt.13.07.2016 Exh.57, defendant
again sought time to clear outstanding balance by end of October, 2016.
The further emails goes to show defendant sought extension of time to
make payment. If all the emails Exh.45 to Exh.62 exchanged between
the parties are taken into consideration, there is no any dispute raised
-- 8 of 11 --
CS No.41 /2019
Infobip Vs. Bhagyawan
Judgment 9 of 11
by the defendant about the services provided, outstanding amount or
forgery/fabrication. On the contrary, the emails sent by defendant from
time to time shows that he sought extension of time to clear the dues
and twice paid Rs.1 Lakh each.
17. Therefore, there is clear cut admission of outstanding amount.
At no point of time, the defendant objected the alleged fabrication of
Addendum No.1 (Exh.38). The original Addendum No.1 and the copy
of it (Exh.38) are perused and there seems to be no any fabrication as
both of them bears the same contents. The invoices Exh.65 colly and the
emails clearly shows that an amount of Rs.20,46,077.52 is the
outstanding amount which defendant agreed to pay by installments as
per the emails sent but failed. Therefore, the defence of fabricating the
documents and fraudulently uploading post-paid plan is devoid of any
merit. If it was, then the defendant would not have admitted the
outstanding liability and seeking time to clear the dues. There is no any
email by defendant raising objection about uploading post-paid plan
without his knowledge. Therefore, the issues are answered accordingly.
AS TO ISSUE NO.3:
18. While answering issue Nos.1 & 2, it is held that the plaintiff
and defendant entered into Messaging Services Agreement and
Addendum No.1. The plaintiff provided Messaging Services to
defendant and raised invoices Exh.65 colly. However, defendant failed
to pay the outstanding amount inspite of seeking time to clear the dues.
From the invoices Exh.65 colly there is clearcut outstanding dues of
Rs.20,46,077.52 which plaintiff is entitled to. As the contract was
commercial in nature, interest of 12% p.a is just and proper rate of
interest. At the cost of repetition, the evidence affidavit of witness of
-- 9 of 11 --
CS No.41 /2019
Infobip Vs. Bhagyawan
Judgment 10 of 11
plaintiff in absence of cross-examination has gone unchallenged,
therefore deemed to be admitted. The defendant failed to grace the
witness box to shift the onus on plaintiff in respect of fabrication of
document and fraudulent uploading post-paid plan without his
knowledge. Hence, issue No.3 is answered in the affirmative.
AS TO ISSUE NOS.6 & 7 (Jointly) :
19. In view of my affirmative finding to issue Nos.1 to 3, the
plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.27,53,055.52 (Rounded as
Rs.27,53,056/-) with 12% p.a on principal amount of Rs.20,46,077.52
with cost of suit. In the result, I proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
1. The Commercial Suit No.41 of 2019 is decreed with cost.
2. The defendant is directed to pay to plaintiff an amount of
Rs.27,53,055.52 (Rounded as Rs.27,53,056/- (Rs.Twenty
Seven Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand and Fifty Six Only) with
12% p.a on principal amount of Rs.20,46,077.52 from the date
of filing of the suit till realization.
3. The decree be drawn up accordingly.
4. The R & P be sent to Record Department.
( N. B. Lavte )
Judge, (C.R.No.31)
Dt.: 17.08.2026 City Civil Court, Mazgaon,
MUMBAI.
Dicated on : 17.08.2026
Signed by HHJ on : 18.08.2026
-- 10 of 11 --
CS No.41 /2019
Infobip Vs. Bhagyawan
Judgment 11 of 11
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
18.08.2026 4.15 p.m. Prachi Y. Potdar
Stenographer - Grade I
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri. N. B. Lavte
(C.R.NO. 31)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
17.08.2026
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 18.08.2026
Judgment/order uploaded on 18.08.2026
-- 11 of 11 --