Delhi District Court
M/S Sahai Exclusive Contract Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Global Engineering Services on 9 June, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE - 03, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ No.8493/2016
In the matter of :
M/s Sahai Exclusive Contract Pvt. Ltd.
104, Countrywide Apartment,
98, Gautam Nagar,
New Delhi-110049.
..... Plaintiff
Vs.
M/s Global Engineering Services,
Through its Proprietor
Mr. Firoz Ahmed,
Office at : D-819, Jaitpur Extension,
Part-II, Badarpur,
New Delhi-110044.
.....Defendant
Date of Institution : 16.04.2015
Date on which Judgment
reserved : 05.06.2023
Date of Judgment : 09.06.2023
Result : Decreed
SUIT UNDER ORDER XXXVII OF CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE FOR RECOVERY OF RS.4,00,000/- (RUPEES
FOUR LACS ONLY).
JUDGMENT
This is a suit on behalf of plaintiff company for recovery of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) from the defendant.
2. The narration of the plaint as culled out from the plaint itself is as under:
The plaintiff is a Registered Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act. The plaintiff company is engaged in CS DJ No. 8493/2016 M/s Sahai Exclusive Contract Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Global Engineering Services Page no.1 of 16 the business of Interior Decoration, Civil, Electrical, HAVC, Fire Fighting, Access Control CCTV, Construction and Renovation etc. The present suit is filed through Mr. Anil Chaudhary, Executive of the the Plaintiff company who is authorized by a Resolution passed in the meeting of Board of Directors held on 30.03.2015. The defendant is a Proprietary concern through its Proprietor Mr. Firoz Ahmed who is engaged in supply, installation and commissioning of fire alarm system, audio-video system, video projection system etc. The plaintiff company called for quotations for supply, installation, testing and commissioning of fire alarm system, audio-video system, video projection system for the site at Police Training Centre, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi.
The defendant made an offer to the plaintiff company through an e-mail on 11.11.2013 after visiting the site at which installation work was to be done. Quotations with detailed item-wise breakup were also forwarded alongwith the mail for a total consideration of Rs.49,00,750.88 inclusive of DVAT.
After going through the offer and several rounds of negotiations, the contract amount for the above noted work was settled for a sum of Rs.39,60,002.99 plus Delhi VAT @ 12.5% i.e. Rs.5,44,528.99. The total cost of the work including DVAT was settled for Rs.45,04,531.90. After many rounds of negotiations, the defendant entered into a purchase order dated 05.12.2013 alongwith detailed item-wise breakup with amount specified on respective heads. As per the purchase order, entire work had to be completed within 60 days from the date of the purchase order. As per purchase order, the plaintiff has made an advance payment of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupee Four Lakhs only) to defendant by way of CS DJ No. 8493/2016 M/s Sahai Exclusive Contract Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Global Engineering Services Page no.2 of 16 an account payee cheque bearing No.019309 dated 05.12.2013, drawn on Central Bank of India, Khan Market, New Delhi-110003 under an impression that the work on hand would be carried out by the defendant within the stipulated period of 60 days as the time was specifically made essence of the work contract. The cheque of Rs.4,00,000/- was duly encashed by the defendant on 09.12.2013.
The work progress was to go on floor from January, 2014 for which the defendant was called and contacted by the plaintiff, but the defendant preferred not to respond to the calls of the plaintiff or to revert back to the plaintiff. It was only when the plaintiff had already called the defendant several times, the defendant responded and informed the plaintiff that the work could not be started in time due to delay in supply of materials from his suppliers.
The defendant assured the plaintiff that the work would be started in the first week of February, 2014. However, even after February, 2014, the defendant has failed to honor his promise. Thus, the plaintiff was constrained to call upon the defendant by way of an E-mail dated 12.02.2014 to apprise the plaintiff of one fixed date on which the defendant intended to start the work. However, the defendant failed to respond to the repeated mails of the plaintiff. The plaintiff waited throughout the month of February, 2014 but the defendant did not respond in spite of repeated calls to the defendant by the plaintiff.
The conduct of the defendant was a clear indication that he had taken a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- fraudulently from the plaintiff because the defendant was not interested in starting the contract work. Thus, the plaintiff was constrained to contact another CS DJ No. 8493/2016 M/s Sahai Exclusive Contract Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Global Engineering Services Page no.3 of 16 Contractor for the aforesaid work who quoted higher price for the same work as was contracted with the defendant. In this process the plaintiff had incurred a loss of Rs.5,00,000/- due to breach of the contract by the defendant.
The said advance sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was taken by the defendant from the plaintiff with a mala fide intention by misrepresenting to the plaintiff that the defendant honors its work commitments. However, the defendant never intended to perform the work contract entered into with the plaintiff. The only intention of the defendant in entering into the contract was to extract money from the plaintiff. The plaintiff waited for the defendant throughout the year 2014 that better sense will prevail upon him and he will return the advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- but he never came forward.
The plaintiff demanded back the money vide letter dated 02.05.2014 alongwith interest as per prevailing market rate. The defendant in spite thereof wrongfully withheld the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- of the plaintiff as he did not refund the same even after receipt of demand letter dated 02.05.2014 and legal notice dated 24.02.2015, therefore, the defendant is liable for interest @ 18% per annum from the date of demand letter dated 02.05.2014. The plaintiff thereafter sent a legal notice dated 24.02.2015 to the defendant through its counsel calling upon the defendant to refund Rs.4,00,000/- and an interest @ 24% per annum from the date of issuance of the cheque as well as Rs.5,00,000/- for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to breach of contract by the defendant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice. The defendant was duly served with the notice as per the Track record. The defendant although received the notice but he neither CS DJ No. 8493/2016 M/s Sahai Exclusive Contract Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Global Engineering Services Page no.4 of 16 bothered to comply with the notice nor did he send any response/ reply to it.
3. Defendant combated the present suit by filing the written statement as under:
The plaintiff company had been working in collaboration procured in contract with M/s NBCC as the main client for NIA office at 7 th floor, NDCC Building, C.P., N. Delhi and demanded quotation for supplying of Fire Alarm System as per Rule 33 of the Delhi Fire Service Rules 2010. There was requirement of installation of fire prevention and fire safety equipments. The defendant has a good knowledge, experience, reputation and good will in the market in the field of installation and supply of equipments in the Fire Fighting and Fire Alarm work in Govt. Office through main Contractor. Therefore the plaintiff approached the Defendant for execution of works at the site i.e. M/s NIA office at 7th Floor, NDCC Building, C.P. for supplying the materials. After negotiation of rates by both the parties and being fully satisfied with the competitive rates given by defendant, the defendant had issued a letter Ref.- GES/SEC/NIA/01 Dated 20.05.2013 and final list on 21.05.2013 referencing to Mr. Mohan S. Rawat of plaintiff company. The plaintiff company was ready to give contract for supplying the Fire and Detection equipments etc to M/s NBCC contract at M/s NIA office at 7th Floor, NDCC Building, C.P. of 7th floors to the defendant.
The defendant thereafter supplied the materials at the instructions of plaintiff at the site of NIA office and had issued a Performa Invoice PI-085 dated 08.10.2013 for Rs.8,86,419.62 including CS DJ No. 8493/2016 M/s Sahai Exclusive Contract Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Global Engineering Services Page no.5 of 16 VAT taxes for supplying material for fire alarm materials respectively. The plaintiff company had also received Smoke Detector Bosch FAP (116 No.) and Detector Base (116 No.) on 31.07.2013 through Delivery Note No.-DC-068 and thereafter again on 22.11.2013 of three materials.
Defendant had supplied the materials as per the approved drawings and specifications provided in the original contract of M/s NBCC under instructions and supervision of Engineer In- Charge looking for Fire Fighting work and Plaintiff Company. On account of relations developed with plaintiff, the defendant had received and permitted the plaintiff for part payment i.e. three installments for Rs. Two Lakhs, Three Lakhs, and Rs. Four Lakhs. That the two cheques of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- were also drawn on M/s Central Bank of India of Plaintiff Bank. Both the cheques were encashed by defendant on 5th July 2013 & 28th Nov. 2013 respectively. The answering defendant has filed a Bank Statement of his Banker M/s Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jasola, N. Delhi. The Bank Statement shows that the cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- was also encashed by defendant banker M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank on 5th July 2013.
The last Rs. Four lakhs payment got through cheque no. 019209 drawn on M/s Central Bank of India and deposited on 05.12.2013 by the defendant. So the payment of Rs.4,00,000/- was not advance of any new purchase order as stated in plaint by plaintiff but it was full and final payment of last order/invoice issued by the defendant. The defendant has never received any advance payment of Rs. Four lakhs from plaintiff against new Purchase order. The plaintiff has concealed the said facts before the Court. The defendant had never accepted any proposal/offer for CS DJ No. 8493/2016 M/s Sahai Exclusive Contract Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Global Engineering Services Page no.6 of 16 supplying of fire alarm system at the site of Police Training Centre, Jaroda Kalan, N. Delhi. The proposal was still pending before filing the present suit against the Defendant. The Plaintiff has forged the signature of defendant and manufactured fabricated documents against the defendant and filed the present suit.
4. Replication also came to be filed on behalf of plaintiff against the written statement wherein the plaintiff dis-affirmed the case of the defendant and reiterated its averments made in the plaint.
5. The consummation of the pleadings was followed by framing of issues which are as under:
Issue no.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount as prayed for? OPP Issue no.2: Whether the defendant has no liability to pay any amount to the plaintiff as per the defence taken in the WS? OPD Issue no.3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendente-lite and future interest as claimed, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
6. Plaintiff was then called upon to lead evidence during which Sh. Mohan Singh Rawat, was examined as PW-1 vide his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and who relied upon the documents i.e. copy of resolution is Ex.PW-1/1, copy of e-mail dated 11.11.2013 and copy of detailed quotations are Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, copy of purchase order dated 05.12.2013 is Ex.PW-1/4, photocopy of cheque of Rs.4,00,000/- alongwith bank statement for the period from 01.12.2013 to 10.12.2013 Mark A (colly), copy of e-mail dated 12.02.2014 is Ex.PW-1/5, copy of demand letter dated 02.05.2014 along with postal receipt are Ex.PW-1/6 CS DJ No. 8493/2016 M/s Sahai Exclusive Contract Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Global Engineering Services Page no.7 of 16 and Ex.PW-1/7, copy of legal notice dated 24.02.2015 is Ex.PW-1/8, postal receipt is Ex.PW-1/9, postal track report is Ex.PW-1/10, certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW-1/Y.
7. PW-1 was then cross-examined on behalf of defendant and thereafter plaintiff's evidence stood closed vide order dated 08.06.2022.
8. Defendant then led its evidence by examining Sh. Firoz Ahmad as DW-1 vide his affidavit Ex.DW-1/1 and the documents i.e. letter of copy dated 20.05.2013 as Ex.DW-1/A (OSR), revised quotation as Ex.DW-1/B (colly), delivery note dated 31.07.2013 as Ex.DW-1/C (OSR), delivery receipt dated 22.11.2013 as Ex.DW-1/D (OSR), account statement as Ex.DW-1/E (OSR), proforma Invoice dated 08.10.2013 as Ex.DW-1/F (OSR), photocopy of bank deposit slips dated 26.11.2013 and 06.12.2012 as Mark G-1 and G-2, account statement (OBC) Account no. 14401131000632 as Ex.DW-1/H (OSR), Email dated 05.02.2014 as Ex.DW-1/I (OSR).
9. DW-1 was also cross-examined on behalf of plaintiff and after formal closure of defendant evidence, final arguments were advanced.
10. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff broached the case by referring to the facts and correspondence between the parties particularly the e- mails in relation to the quotations and purchase order dated 05.12.2013 in respect of which advance payment cheque of Rs.4 lacs was given to the defendant. It is further argued that since defendant failed to supply any material as per the schedule, he is liable to refund the amount alongwith interest. Ld. Counsel also referred to the testimony of the CS DJ No. 8493/2016 M/s Sahai Exclusive Contract Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Global Engineering Services Page no.8 of 16 witnesses in support of his arguments.
11. Per contra, on behalf of defendant, it was canvassed that the sum of Rs.4 lacs was the pending dues in respect of the previous transaction between the parties and in respect of which a proforma invoice was also generated. Ld. Counsel further urged that in the e-mail dated 12.02.2014 there is no mention of advance payment of Rs.4 lacs, which also substantiates the stand of the defendant that it was justified in appropriating the said sum of Rs.4 lacs towards the previous dues. Ld. Counsel also canvassed that the plaintiff had concealed the previous transaction between the parties, but PW-1 avowed during his cross- examination that previous transaction was there, which he claims having been settled for Rs.5 lacs, but there is no evidence which could substantiate the said plea.
12. Upon hearing Ld. Counsel for plaintiff Sh. Gyan Prakash and Ld. Counsel for defendant Sh. Dinesh Mehra, my issue wise findings are indicated as under:
13. Issue no.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount as prayed for? OPP And Issue no.2: Whether the defendant has no liability to pay any amount to the plaintiff as per the defence taken in the written statement? OPD 13.1 Issue no.1 and 2 are being dealt with together, being interlinked. Laconically, dispute between the parties is in regard to the receipt of payment of Rs.4 lacs paid by the plaintiff in favor of the defendant by way of cheque bearing no.019209 drawn on Central Bank CS DJ No. 8493/2016 M/s Sahai Exclusive Contract Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Global Engineering Services Page no.9 of 16 of India dated 05.12.2013, which is admitted to be duly encashed by the defendant. The controversy, therefore, lies in a narrow compass as the plaintiff is claiming the said payment to be an advance payment towards purchase order dated 05.12.2013 Ex.PW1/4, whereas the defendant is claiming the said payment to have been adjusted towards the final payment of the previous work undertaken by the defendant upon the instructions of the plaintiff, against which a proforma invoice no.PI-085 dated 08.10.2023 for Rs.8,86,419.62/- was raised.
13.2 Plaintiff, in order to underpin its case against the defendant, got examined PW-1 who proved his authorization to depose on behalf of the plaintiff company vide resolution dated 12.12.2016 and 07.08.2019 Ex.PW-1/1. He deposed that defendant made an offer to the plaintiff company through an email Ex.PW1/2 on 11.11.2013 after visiting the site at which the installation work was to be done, against the detailed quotation Ex.PW1/3. He further deposed that after going through the offer and several rounds of negotiations, the contract amount for the said work was settled for a sum of Rs.39,60,002.99/- exclusive of VAT @ 12.5% i.e. 5,44,528.99/-. Further, after many rounds of negotiations, a purchase order dated 05.12.2013 Ex.PW1/4 was issued, which was accepted by defendant and in respect of which advance payment of Rs.4 lacs was made, which was encashed by the defendant, but despite following up with defendant, defendant did not start the work, and the plaintiff was constrained to initiate the present suit to recover the advance amount of Rs.4 lacs.
13.3 In regard to the aforesaid case of the plaintiff and consequent deposition, the stand of the defendant in the written statement is that he had never accepted any proposal/offer for supply of CS DJ No. 8493/2016 M/s Sahai Exclusive Contract Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Global Engineering Services Page no.10 of 16 fire alarm system at the site of police training centre, Jaroda Kalan, New Delhi and the proposal was still pending before filing the present suit against the defendant. The defendant has also claimed that the plaintiff has forged the signatures of defendant and manufactured and fabricated documents against him.
13.4 In cross examination of PW-1, however, this stand of the defendant was not specifically confronted to the witness that the proposal in regard to the installation of fire alarm at PTC Jaroda Kalan was still pending. PW-1 was not specifically questioned as to the email dated 11.11.2013 and detailed quotations Ex.PW1/2 and PW1/3, meaning thereby that the defendant has not challenged the said email and the detailed quotations in respect of the installation of fire alarm. Furthermore, PW-1 has also relied upon purchase invoice dated 05.12.2013 Ex.PW1/4 for Rs.39,60,002.99/- for supplying installation, testing and commissioning of fire alarm system, as claimed in the plaint, which is stated to be received and accepted by the defendant. The said invoice, in the middle, contains one endorsement, which has not specifically marked, and which now for the purpose of reference is marked as point A on Ex.PW1/4. The proprietor of defendant/DW-1 was confronted with Ex.PW1/4 and the relevant extract of his cross examination is reproduced as under:
" .....It is wrong to suggest that I had received a cheque of Rs.4 lacs on the date of purchase order which was received and accepted. Documents Ex.PW1/4 and their annexures were not signed by me, however, it appears to be my signature and handwriting. It is further admitted that every page of Ex.PW1/4 and annexures which runs in 9 pages bears my signature and seal but I cannot say that this paper was signed by me. I have not signed the PO Ex.PW1/4 so I am not bound to supply the material with the plaintiff CS DJ No. 8493/2016 M/s Sahai Exclusive Contract Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Global Engineering Services Page no.11 of 16 company at PTC auditorium...."
13.5 It is noted from the aforesaid extract that DW-1 has not unequivocally denied his signatures on purchase order Ex.PW1/4, as he has stated that it appears to be his signature and handwriting. In the absence of any specific denial in regard to the acceptance of purchase order Ex.PW1/4, the same is deemed to be admitted and proved. Otherwise also, upon comparing the signatures at point A on Ex.PW1/4, from the admitted signatures of defendant in his affidavit Ex.DW1/1, the signatures are found to be identical, and thus, it can be safely concluded on the preponderance probabilities that the purchase order Ex.PW1/4 was received and accepted by the defendant. In the said purchase order dated 05.12.2013, it has been categorically mentioned that the sum of Rs.4 lacs is being paid as an advance amount and the said sum of Rs.4 lacs, which is found to have been received by the defendant, is also shown to have been paid by way of cheque of contemporaneous date i.e. 05.12.2013. Thus, it can be said that the plaintiff has discharged its onus of proving the payment of Rs.4 lacs as an advance sum towards purchase order Ex.PW1/4, unless the defendant is able to discharge the onus, which is now shifted upon him, to demonstrate that the said admitted sum of Rs.4 lacs was paid towards pending dues of the previous work done by him at the instruction of the plaintiff.
13.6 Defendant/DW-1 has deposed that he had supplied the materials at the site of NIA office and had issued a proforma invoice no.PI-085 dated 08.10.2023 for Rs.8,86,419.62/- including paid taxes for supplying material of fire alarm. The plaintiff company had also received smoke detector Bosch FAP (116) and detector base (116) on 31.07.2013 through delivery note no.DC-068 and thereafter again on 22.11.2013. It has also deposed by DW-1 that defendant initially received a part CS DJ No. 8493/2016 M/s Sahai Exclusive Contract Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Global Engineering Services Page no.12 of 16 payment of Rs.2 lacs and Rs.3 lacs from the plaintiff by way of cheques which was encashed by defendant on 05.07.2013 and 28.11.2013. It is further the deposition that the sum of Rs.4 lacs, which is in dispute between the parties, was towards full and final payment of the last order/invoice issued by defendant.
13.7 Plaintiff/PW-1, though in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, has repudiated any such agreement of supplying of material for Rs.8,86,419.62/- however, in cross examination of PW-1, he acknowledged to have received the material against delivery note dated 31.07.2013 and 22.07.2013 however, PW-1 oppugned the figure of Rs.8,86,419.62/- and postulated that the said transaction was settled in entirety in the sum of Rs.5 lacs which is admittedly being received by the defendant by way of two cheques of Rs.2 lacs and Rs.3 lacs. The fact that plaintiff/PW-1 had initially failed to disclose the previous transaction/dealing between the parties, would not give any handle to the defendant to evade its liability towards the present transaction.
13.8 Let us now also find out if the stand of the defendant that the previous work order for supply of fire-alarm equipments was finalized for Rs.8,86,419.62/- including VAT. Defendant/DW-1 has relied upon letter dated 20.05.2013 Ex.DW-1/A, however there is no material to establish that said letter was received and approved on behalf of plaintiff at any point of time. Cross-examination of DW-1 also reveals that said letter was claimed to have been sent through mail but on perusal of the court record no such mail was found. DW-1 voluntarily said that he had a meeting with Mr. Lalit Sahai, Managing Director of the plaintiff company who has orally made purchase order and allowed supply and commenced the material to start the work. Even if this voluntary CS DJ No. 8493/2016 M/s Sahai Exclusive Contract Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Global Engineering Services Page no.13 of 16 statement is to be believed, the same is only to the extent of supply of the material, but there is no material that plaintiff had agreed upon the figure i.e. Rs.8,86,419.62 against supply of the said material. Defendant/ DW- 1 had also relied upon proforma invoice dated 08.01.2013 Ex.DW-1/F but that proforma invoice cannot be equated with the final invoice raised upon the plaintiff against supply of the material. Moreover, said proforma invoice is dated 08.10.2013, whereas admittedly the final delivery receipt is dated 22.11.2013 meaning thereby that proforma invoice was prepared even before the supply of final delivery and, thus, on this premise also the said proforma invoice cannot be said to be the final invoice. Upon further perusal of cross-examination of DW-1 in regard to the issuance of alleged proforma invoice, it is observed that DW-1 has attempted to stonewall the queries put to him in this regard and the responses given by him are not in consonance with his own stand.
13.9 It is the ambitious contention of Ld. Counsel for defendant that in the email dated 12.02.2014 Ex.PW-1/5, there is no mention of the sum of Rs.4 lacs being an advance payment, but, in view of the purchase order Ex.PW-1/4 having been proved satisfactorily, mere non- mentioning of the aforesaid fact of the advance payment in the email dated 12.02.2014 or in any other correspondence between the parties is of no significance.
13.10 The emerged factual position in this case can also be looked from another angle and Section 59 to 61 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 can be applied herein which lay down rules regarding the appropriation of payments. Under Section 59 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, it is stated that if the debtor owes several debts to the creditor, and makes a payment CS DJ No. 8493/2016 M/s Sahai Exclusive Contract Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Global Engineering Services Page no.14 of 16 to any of them and later requests the creditor to apply the payment to the discharge of a particular debt, and if the creditor agrees to this request, he is bound by such appropriation. The appropriation may be implied or expressed by the creditor. The basic idea is that when money is paid, it is to be applied according to the express Will of the payer and not the receiver. If the party to whom the money is offered does not agree to apply it according to the Will of the party offering it, he must refused it and stand upon the rights which the law has given him. In the instant case as well, when the plaintiff has made an advance payment of Rs.4 lacs to the defendant in relation to the purchase order Ex.PW-1/4, the defendant was not obliged to appropriate the said advance towards the alleged pending dues and in case he intended to do so, appropriate remedies available as per law were to be availed.
13.11 In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion, it stands established that plaintiff has paid sum of Rs.4 lacs by way of cheque dated 05.12.2013 to the defendant as an advance payment towards the commission of work as per Ex.PW-1/4, and which cheque was duly encashed by the defendant, but the defendant having failed to fulfill its obligation, is bound to return the amount.
Issue no.1 and 2 are decided in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant.
14. Issue no.3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendente- lite and future interest as claimed, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP 14.1 The burden to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. Plaintiff/PW-1 has deposed in regard to the interest component that the copy of demand letter dated 02.05.2014 Ex.PW-1/6 was served upon the CS DJ No. 8493/2016 M/s Sahai Exclusive Contract Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Global Engineering Services Page no.15 of 16 defendant through postal receipts Ex.PW-1/7, however in the prayer clause, pendente lite and future interest till realization at the rate of 18% per annum is claimed. Also in the notice Ex.PW-1/6, no specific time period is mentioned as to when the defendant was called upon to return the sum of Rs. 4 lacs. Thus, it is deemed expedient that if the notice Ex.PW-1/6 was served upon the defendant within 07 days from the date specified in the postal receipt Ex.PW-1/7 i.e. 08.05.2014, the defendant is bound to pay the interest from 15.05.2014 onwards as per Section 3 (1) (b) of the Interest Act. But, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be served by awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum instead of 18% per annum, as sought.
Issue no.3 is accordingly disposed of.
15. In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendant in the sum of Rs.4 lacs, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from dated 15.05.2014 till the institution of the suit. Plaintiff is also entitled to pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favor of plaintiff. Decree sheet be drawn up. Deficient Court fee, if any, be deposited in due course. Announced & dictated in the open court on 09.06.2023 (Navjeet Budhiraja) Additional District Judge-03 South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi 09.06.2023 Certified that this judgment contains 16 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Navjeet Budhiraja) Additional District Judge-03 South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi 09.06.2023 CS DJ No. 8493/2016 M/s Sahai Exclusive Contract Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Global Engineering Services Page no.16 of 16