Delhi District Court
Dr Santokh Singh vs Commonforce Services Pvt Ltd on 26 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF ANUBHAV JAIN,
LD. DISTRICT JUDGE-05, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
DLND010050212018
CS/556/2018
In the matter of :
Dr. Santokh Singh,
Kothi No. 24, Pocket 11A,
Sector 23, Rohini, Delhi - 110085.
....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Common Force Services Pvt Ltd,
116, First Floor, Somdutt Chambers 1, 5,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
2. Ms. Rimpy Soni, Director,
Common Force Services Pvt Ltd,
Regd. Office: 116, First Floor,
Somdutt Chambers 1, 5,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
3. Unitech Limited,
Regd. Office: 6, Community Centre,
Basement, Saket, New Delhi-110017.
(deleted vide order dated 01.04.2025)
4. Mr. Ajay Chandra, Managing Director,
Unitech Limited, Regd. Office: 6,
Community Centre, Basement, Saket,
CS NO. 556/2018 Page No. 1 of 8
Dr. Santokh Singh Vs. Common Force services pvt ltd & ors.
New Delhi-110017.
(deleted vide order dated 01.04.2025)
....Defendants
Suit for Recovery of Rs.35,83,345/- and pendente-lite future interest @
10% per annum from the date of institution of this suit till the date of
final realization thereof from defendant no. 1 and 2.
Date of institution : 29.05.2018
Date when Judgment reserved : 27.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 26.02.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Present suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.35,83,345/- along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 10% p.a. from defendant no. 1 and 2.
FACTS AS PER PLAINT
2. In brief, the facts of the case as stated by the plaintiff in his plaint are that the plaintiff is an advocate and legal consultant enrolled with the State Bar Council of Delhi, who entered into a retainer arrangement in or about August 2016 with defendant no. 1 (a company registered under the Companies Act), through defendant nos. 2 and 4.
2.1 It is averred that as per the agreement, the plaintiff was to render legal services on retainership basis for defendant no. 1 from September 2016 for one year, on an agreed package of about Rs.40,00,000/- p.a. It is further stated that defendant no. 1 subsequently formalised the offer as a CS NO. 556/2018 Page No. 2 of 8 Dr. Santokh Singh Vs. Common Force services pvt ltd & ors. monthly professional fee of Rs.3,33,340/- inclusive of Rs.2,22,000/- as professional fee and Rs.1,11,340/- as establishment expenses from 02.09.2016 to 31.07.2017, subject to termination by one month's notice or remuneration in lieu thereof.
2.2 It is further stated that pursuant to the arrangement, the plaintiff rendered services, however, defendant no. 1 allegedly paid only Rs.2,90,006/- in the fourth week of January 2017 towards the dues for the month of September 2016, leaving an unpaid balance of Rs.33,33,400/- for the remaining period from October 2016 to July 2017.
2.3 It is further stated that the defendants did not pay the plaintiff's agreed professional fee and establishment expenses, though defendant nos. 1 and 2 deducted TDS at 10% on non-salary professional payments under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2017-18 and deposited about Rs.1,32,225/- with the income tax authorities in the plaintiff's name, thereby acknowledging accrual of income to the plaintiff but still withholding the corresponding net dues.
2.4 It is further stated that the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 12.07.2017 calling upon defendant no. 1 to clear his dues at the earliest, warning that failing payment he would initiate legal proceedings, but the amount remained unpaid.
2.5 By way of present suit, the plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs.35,83,345/- comprising Rs.33,33,340/- as principal dues and Rs.2,50,005/- as interest at 10% p.a. from 31.07.2017 till the date of filing, together with pendent lite and future interest at 10% p.a. from the CS NO. 556/2018 Page No. 3 of 8 Dr. Santokh Singh Vs. Common Force services pvt ltd & ors. date of institution till realization, from defendant nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally.
WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT NO.1 & 2
3. The defendants in their written statement, raise preliminary objections that the suit is false, frivolous, vexatious, without cause of action, improperly valued, and filed only to extort money; they deny receipt of any legal notice, assert that the retainership came to an end automatically when they stopped taking legal assistance from the plaintiff and appointed other advocates, and plead that the plaintiff chose not to report for work despite oral communications.
3.1 It is further stated that no further amount is payable beyond the admitted sum of Rs.2,90,006/- and that the plaintiff in fact received what was payable for the works actually done by him till January 2017. It is further stated that the TDS entries is a matter of compliance with the Income Tax Department which, upon reconciliation, did not translate into any liability to pay further sums to the plaintiff, because he was never assigned work after a certain stage and their own legal team was handling litigations.
3.2 The answering defendants further in their written statement, only defendant no. 1 is party to the retainership agreement and that defendants nos. 2 to 4 have been wrongly impleaded as unnecessary parties without privity of contract or personal liability.
3.3 The answering defendants further submit that defendant no. 2 as director has no personal liability; that defendant nos. 3 and 4 have been CS NO. 556/2018 Page No. 4 of 8 Dr. Santokh Singh Vs. Common Force services pvt ltd & ors. impleaded malafide and have no contractual privity with the plaintiff; that no litigation work was assigned to or done by the plaintiff after a point; that he is not entitled to any decree for recovery of the alleged amount or any interest.
Answering defendants further denied all the averments so made by plaintiff in his plaint and prayed for dismissal of the present suit.
4. It is pertinent to state in here that, as per the record, the written statement so filed defendant no.1 and 2 was directed to be taken on record, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- as per order dated 31.10.2019. Further, in order dated 23.04.2024, Ld. Predecessor of this court while observing that the cost of Rs.10,000/- so imposed on 31.10.2019 was not paid, granted one more opportunity to answering defendants to pay the said cost. Since the said cost was never paid, the defense so raised by the defendants shall not be considered in the present judgment in hand.
5. Perusal of record further reveals that the suit was proceeded ex- parte against the defendants by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 18.12.2020. Further, defendant no.1 and 3 moved an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC seeking set aside the ex-parte order and same was allowed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 23.04.2024, subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- upon each of the defendants. That thereafter, defendant no.1 and 3 moved an application seeking review of the order dated 23.04.2024, however same was dismissed on 01.04.2025, since none appeared on behalf of defendant no.1.
CS NO. 556/2018 Page No. 5 of 8Dr. Santokh Singh Vs. Common Force services pvt ltd & ors.
6. Further perusal of record reveals that on 01.04.2025, plaintiff withdraw the suit against defendant no. 3 and 4.
EVIDENCE
7. That plaintiff, during the course of its evidence, filed affidavit in evidence of Sh. Mandeep Singh, PW-1, who further relied upon the following documents:-
Ex.PW-1/1: Special Power of Attorney in the favour of Mandeep Singh.
Ex.PW-1/2: Retainership contract between plaintiff and defendant no. 1 and 2.
Ex.PW-1/3 (colly): ITR of plaintiff. Ex.PW-1/4: List of equity share holders of Defendant no. 1 & 2.
Ex.PW-1/5: Legal Notice sent by plaintiff Ex.PW-1/6: Auditor Report for the year 2023-24 regarding Defendant no. 1 & 2.
8. I have heard the arguments and perused the case file carefully.
9. By way of present suit, plaintiff has claimed recovery of Rs.33,33,340/- from defendant, for his retainership fees from 01.10.2016 to 31.07.2017 and Rs.2,50,005/- towards interest upon the said amount along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 10% per annum.
CS NO. 556/2018 Page No. 6 of 8Dr. Santokh Singh Vs. Common Force services pvt ltd & ors.
10. Plaintiff in order to prove his case has placed on record copy of retainership agreement Ex. PW1/2, as per which plaintiff Santokh Singh was offered a position of legal adviser with company on retainership basis w.e.f. 02.09.2016 till 31.07.2017 at professional fees of Rs.2,22,000/- per month, further with establishment expenses upto limit of Rs.1,11,340/- per month.
11. Although, as discussed above that the written statement of the defendant could not be considered on record, however, it is settled proposition of law that admission made by the party against its own interest can be considered. The defendant no.1 and 2 in their written statement have duly admitted that they have only paid an amount of Rs.2,90,006/- to the plaintiff till date. It is stated that since no work was assigned by the defendant to the plaintiff, the retainership agreement came to an end automatically. Answering defendant further admitted deduction of TDS, as stated by the plaintiff in his plaint.
12. Once, it is admitted by the defendant that they have entered into retainership agreement with the plaintiff herein and it is further admitted that the defendants have paid merely an amount of Rs.2,90,006/- to the plaintiff till date against the said retainership agreement, it was for the defendants to show or prove that they have terminated the said retainership contract.
13. As discussed above, since the written statement of defendant no.1 and 2 was not considered on record, the defense so taken by them in their written statement could not be considered. Be that as it may,even if the said written statement is considered by this court, there is nothing CS NO. 556/2018 Page No. 7 of 8 Dr. Santokh Singh Vs. Common Force services pvt ltd & ors. stated or placed on record by the defendant to show that they terminated the said retainership contract dated 02.09.2016 with the plaintiff herein.
14. Considering the fact that it is duly admitted by the defendant that the retainership agreement was entered into with the plaintiff and that till date only Rs.2,90,006/- is paid by the defendant to the plaintiff and further considering that no evidence has been led by the defendant in order to support the defense so raised by him, the suit of the plaintiff stands decreed for an amount of Rs.33,33,340/-. The plaintiff has further claimed interest @ 10 % on the said amount. Since the retainership contract does not state or mention about interest on unpaid amount and further considering that interest @ 10 % p.a. is exhorbited, this court is of the view that interest @ 6% per annum from the date when the said amount is due till the payment of the same shall serve the interest of justice.
15. In view of the same, the suit of the plaintiff stands decreed. He is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.33,33,340/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date when said amount is due. It is further made clear that since retainership contract was entered into with defendant no.1 company and same being separate legal entity, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed against defendant no.1 only.
Digitally signed ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV Announced in the open Court JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.26 on 26.02.2026 16:20:30 +0530 (Anubhav Jain) District Judge-05 (New Delhi District) Patiala House Courts, New Delhi CS NO. 556/2018 Page No. 8 of 8
Dr. Santokh Singh Vs. Common Force services pvt ltd & ors.