Delhi District Court
Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute Of Technology on 18 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI,
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA
COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016
CNR No. DLSW010005192016
IN THE MATTER OF:
SH. PURNA NAND
Propreitor of M/s Purna Nand,
Office:- E-4/13, Sector 7,
Rohini, New Delhi-110088. ........Plaintiff
Versus
NETAJI SUBHASH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Azad Hind Fauj Marg,
Sector 3, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110078
(Through its Director) .......Defendant
Date of institution 13.08.2012
Date of reserving judgment 13.10.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment 18.10.2025
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction, and recovery of ₹80,75,450/- along with interest. The RICHA brief facts of the case are as under:
GUSAIN SOLANKI Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN PLAINT SOLANKI Date: 2025.10.18 1 The plaintiff is the sole proprietor of M/s Purna Nand and 16:24:02 +0530 is engaged in the business of construction. The defendant had issued a tender notice for construction of a "Sports Complex -
Step Seating Arrangement." The plaintiff's tender was accepted, and acceptance letter bearing no. F-201(1512)/SE(P)/07-08/ E.Cell/NSIT/204/7441 dated 20/21.02.2008 was issued for a CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 1/36 tender amount of ₹88,31,258/-. The defendant directed the plaintiff to furnish a performance guarantee of ₹4,41,563/- within fifteen days of issuance of the said letter. The stipulated period of the contract was six months, reckoned after twenty-two days from the date of issue of the said acceptance letter. 2 The defendant, vide letter dated 26.03.2008, directed the plaintiff to contact the Assistant Engineer on or before 28.03.2008 for taking possession of the site and commencing the work. Thereafter, an agreement bearing no. 01/P/EE(P)/NSIT/08- 09 was executed on 06.06.2008, wherein the date of start of work was recorded as 28.03.2008 and the date of completion as 27.09.2008.
3 The plaintiff had, prior to the execution of the work, addressed a letter dated 29.10.2007 to the Executive Engineer of the defendant, requesting consideration of enhanced rates of items at the time of deciding the tender. Though no written response was given, the plaintiff was assured that the same would be considered at the appropriate stage. Digitally 4 The plaintiff completed the work in all respects on signed by RICHA RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
2025.10.18 23.02.2011, whereafter a completion certificate was issued, 16:24:06 +0530 recorded in Measurement Book (MB) No. 630. The said certificate affirmed that no defects were found, all surplus material had been removed, and that the Engineer-in-Charge was satisfied with the quality of the work.
5 The plaintiff, vide letter dated 16.03.2011, requested the defendant to disconnect the electricity supply provided for execution of the work as the same stood completed and the site had been duly handed over to the defendant department. 6 The plaintiff further addressed a letter dated 19.04.2011 CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 2/36 seeking approval of extension of time along with details of hindrances. However, no action was taken by the defendant on the said request.
7 On 19.09.2011, the plaintiff submitted a letter to the Executive Engineer, vide diary no. 1218, requesting release of the final bill along with 24% interest from the date the payment became due. He also sought approval of extension of time and rates of extra and deviated items. A reminder was sent on 21.11.2011 vide diary no. 5133.
8 Instead of acting upon these requests, the defendant issued a show cause notice bearing reference no. F-201(724)/MDC/08- Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI 09/E.Cell/NSIT/908 dated 24.11.2011, received by the plaintiff SOLANKI Date:
2025.10.18 16:24:09 +0530 on 28.11.2011, containing false allegations against him merely because he was pursuing his legitimate dues.
9 The plaintiff contends that the defendant falsely alleged that he had forged the signatures of Dr. S.N. Sinha on the drawings used in construction and on the design mix report. It is urged that this allegation was raised for the first time after completion of the work, contrary to Clause 11 of the agreement which obligated the defendant to issue all drawings, designs, and written instructions through the Engineer-in-Charge. The plaintiff submits that once the work stood completed under the supervision of the defendant's officers and a completion certificate was issued, the defendant is estopped from raising such false allegations.
10 The plaintiff submitted a detailed reply to the said show cause notice on 05.12.2011, which was received by the defendant on 07.12.2011 vide diary no. 5630.
11 It is averred that the defendant did not grant any CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 3/36 opportunity to the plaintiff to explain his position and remained silent until the plaintiff issued a legal notice. 12 The plaintiff sent a legal/demand notice dated 04.01.2012 seeking release of his dues. However, instead of finalising the contract and paying his arrears, the defendant vide letter dated 17.01.2012 stated that payment would be released only after a successful core test and informed that a complaint had been lodged against the plaintiff. No copy of such complaint was supplied to him.
13 The plaintiff replied to the said letter on 24.01.2012. 14 The defendant thereafter, vide letter dated 13.02.2012, informed the plaintiff that a vigilance enquiry was pending in respect of the work and that the final payment would be released Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
2025.10.18 16:24:14 only after completion of such enquiry and acceptance of the +0530 report by the competent authority.
15 On 05.03.2012, the plaintiff received another letter requiring his presence at site on 06.03.2012 to witness the core test. The plaintiff was compelled to bear the expenses of ₹1.25 lakhs for the said test, with an assurance that the same would be reimbursed along with the final bill. The result of the core test was satisfactory, as conveyed by the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 24.04.2012. Despite this, the final bill was neither passed nor paid. The plaintiff again wrote a letter dated 09.05.2012 requesting a copy of the core test report and release of his arrears. However, instead of doing so, the defendant, without issuing any further show cause notice, passed an order dated 04.07.2012 bearing reference no. F-201(1724)/MDC/08- 09/E.Cell/NSIT/342/1452, blacklisting and debarring the plaintiff from participating in future tenders for one year, solely to delay CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 4/36 payment of his dues.
16 The plaintiff has raised the following claims:
Claim No. Details of claim Amount in ₹
1 Final Bill 15,00,000
2 Interest @ 18% from 23.08.2011 to 22.08.2012 2,70,000
3 Release of bank guarantee 4,41,563
4 Loss of ₹10,132 per day for 457 days 46,30,450
a) 1000 shuttering plate @ ₹1 per day for 457 4,57,000 days
b) 800 prop @ ₹2 per day for 457 days 7,31,200
c) 3 watchmen @ ₹7,000 per month for 15 3,15,000 months
d) 1 supervisor @ ₹8,000 per month for 15 1,12,000 months
e) 1 engineer @ ₹21,000 per month for 15 3,15,000 months Digitally signed by
f) 18 labour @ ₹200 per day for 457 days 16,45,200 RICHA
g) 200 steel channel @ ₹2 per day for 457 days 1,82,800 RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
2025.10.18
h) 500 wooden plank @ ₹0.50 per day for 457 1,14,250 16:24:18 +0530 days
i) Interest @ 24% on materials valued at ₹25 7,50,000 lakhs lying at site for 457 days 5 Damages due to prolongation of contract from 14,00,000 27.08.2008 to 23.02.2011 6 Withheld amount 1,00,000 7 Reimbursement of testing charges 50,000 8 Reimbursement of core test charges 1,25,000 TOTAL 80,75,450
17 With respect to Claim No. 1, the plaintiff submits that the amount pertains to work duly executed and recorded in the MB which remains in the defendant's possession. He calls upon the defendant to produce the same or to file its own bill, if prepared. The plaintiff relies upon his letter dated 08.07.2009 for submission of rates of three items.
18 As regards Claim Nos. 2 and 3, the plaintiff submits that CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 5/36 since the work stood completed, he is entitled to interest and release of the performance guarantee.
19 In relation to Claim Nos. 4 and 5, the plaintiff asserts that the loss and damages were occasioned due to delays attributable solely to the defendant. He states that he was ready with all requisite materials, labour, and resources but was prevented from utilising them due to the defendant's non-cooperation and inaction.
20 As to Claim No. 6, the plaintiff contends that ₹1,00,000/- was wrongfully withheld from the seventh running bill without disclosure of any reason.
21 For Claim Nos. 7 and 8, the plaintiff submits that under Clause 17 of the Specifications and Conditions of Contract, the Digitally RICHA signed by RICHA GUSAIN defendant is liable to reimburse the testing and core test charges. GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
2025.10.18 16:24:22 +0530 Reliance is also placed on the plaintiff's letter dated 23.03.2010 requesting the defendant to undertake the said tests.
22 During pendency of the case, the defendant issued a show cause notice bearing no. F-201(1512)/SE(P)/07-08/E.Cell/NSIT/ 1431 dated 05.03.2013, to which the plaintiff submitted a reply dated 28.03.2013. Nevertheless, the defendant imposed a penalty of ₹88,000/- under Clause 2 of the agreement vide letter no. F-201(1512)/SE(P)/07-08/E.Cell/NSIT/1574 dated 29.03.2013. The plaintiff challenged the same through his letter dated 22.04.2013, but the defendant, vide letter no. F-201(2292)/2012- 13/SSA/CC/E.Cell/NSIT/854 dated 31.05.2013, reaffirmed the said penalty.
23 Hence, the present suit has been instituted seeking the following reliefs:
a) Declaration that letter/order no. F-201(1230)/MDC/04-05/ CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 6/36 E.Cell/NSIT/1574 dated 29.03.2013 is null and void;
b) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking any coercive action or encashing the bank guarantee furnished by the plaintiff;
c) Mandatory injunction directing the defendant to release the fixed deposit made on 07.03.2008; and
d) Recovery of ₹80,75,450/- along with interest @18% per annum from 04.01.2012 till realisation.
WRITTEN STATEMENT 24 The defendant, in its written statement and additional written statement, has admitted the opening of tenders and the acceptance of the plaintiff's bids. It is stated that the plaintiff had been awarded two contracts--one for the construction of a Digitally signed by RICHA "Guest House" and the other for the construction of a "Sports RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
2025.10.18 16:24:26 Complex - Step Seating Arrangement." +0530
25 On 04.10.2007, the plaintiff's tender for the construction of the "Guest House" was accepted. The scheduled date for commencement of work was 26.10.2007, and the stipulated date for completion was 25.10.2008. On 04.12.2007, in accordance with the prescribed procedure, sealed samples of materials for concrete mix design were collected from the site of the "Guest House." The sealed samples were handed over to the Head, Civil Engineering Department, IIT Delhi, in the presence of an authorised representative of the defendant. Prof. S.N. Sinha of IIT Delhi was appointed as the expert for this purpose. 26 Subsequently, on 01.01.2008, another tender was invited for the construction of the "Sports Complex - Step Seating Arrangement," and on 20.02.2008, the plaintiff's bid for the said work was accepted.
CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 7/36 27 Until the acceptance of the second tender, the work of the "Guest House" progressed satisfactorily. However, thereafter, it began to fall behind schedule.
28 On 17.07.2008, the plaintiff requested the defendant to deduct 3% Work Contract Tax from its running bills pertaining to the "Sports Complex - Step Seating Arrangement." 29 On 29.08.2008, a complaint was received alleging excessive excavation by the plaintiff and consequent overpayment. An inquiry was accordingly ordered into the matter.
30 On 04.02.2009, the Junior Engineer (JE) of the defendant reported that the signature and stamp of Prof. S.N. Sinha on certain drawings related to the "Guest House" appeared to be Digitally signed by forged. Similarly, his signature and stamp on the consultancy RICHA RICHA GUSAIN report of the concrete mix design for the "Sports Complex - Step GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
2025.10.18 16:24:30 +0530 Seating Arrangement" also appeared to be forged. On 05.02.2009, the matter, along with the drawings and consultancy report, was referred to Prof. S.N. Sinha, who confirmed that the documents were not issued by him. Consequently, the matter was referred to the Vigilance Cell of the defendant.
31 No record or document evidencing that the prescribed procedure for obtaining the concrete mix design for the "Sports Complex - Step Seating Arrangement" had been followed was found in the defendant's files.
32 On 24.02.2009, the Executive Engineer of the defendant reported that the drawings questioned by the JE pertained to the roof slab of the "Guest House." He also intimated that the work at site had come to a standstill.
33 The plaintiff was lagging behind schedule in respect of CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 8/36 both the works and soon thereafter stopped the work altogether. 34 On 28.02.2009, the officers of the defendant were repatriated to their parent departments and replaced by new officers.
35 On 06.03.2009, a meeting was held between the parties to ascertain the cause of stoppage of work. The plaintiff attributed the stoppage to "non-finalisation/approval of the deviated quantities in RCC items" for the "Sports Complex - Step Seating Arrangement." The explanation was accepted, and the defendant acknowledged that the delay of approximately one and a half months in the said work was due to lapses of its previous project team.
In the said meeting, it was, inter alia, decided that the plaintiff would immediately restart the work; that the design mix report of concrete approved in the "Guest House" project would Digitally signed by RICHA be adopted for the "Sports Complex - Step Seating RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
2025.10.18 16:24:34 +0530 Arrangement"; that the earlier design mix submitted by the plaintiff appeared to be forged and was therefore rejected; that the design mix charges would be deducted from the plaintiff's next bill; and that the plaintiff would submit a photocopy of the receipt evidencing deposit of the design mix fee with IIT Delhi for the "Guest House" project.
36 On 19.03.2009, the plaintiff was asked to submit the original bills and test reports concerning the "Guest House"
project for reimbursement of testing charges.
37 On 04.06.2009, the plaintiff expressed inability to continue the work citing financial constraints, pending decisions, and reversal of earlier verbal instructions given by the engineering staff. It was stated that the work had been completely held up CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 9/36 since January 2009 and partially since November 2008. 38 Owing to the alleged forgery of documents, the designated expert refused to vet or approve the drawings, compelling the defendant to have the structural design of the roof slab of the "Guest House" vetted by another expert on 12.06.2009. 39 On 07.09.2009, a meeting was convened between the parties, wherein it was decided that the pending payment of the plaintiff would remain withheld temporarily. The plaintiff agreed to rectify the defective work at his own cost and undertook to complete the "Sports Complex - Step Seating Arrangement"
within two months and the "Guest House" within six months of release of payment.
40 On 09.10.2009 and again on 23.11.2009, the plaintiff was informed of deficiencies in the "Guest House" work, which were RICHA duly recorded in the site order book. Similar communications GUSAIN SOLANKI Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN were again made on 16.12.2009 and 24.12.2009.
SOLANKI41 On 24.11.2009, the defendant decided to withhold an Date: 2025.10.18 16:24:38 +0530 amount of ₹1.25 lakh to safeguard its interest in relation to the issue of excessive excavation in the "Guest House" work. 42 On 06.01.2010, the plaintiff was informed that there was no hindrance in the laying of conduit pipe work in the "Guest House."
43 On 15.07.2010, a preliminary report on the complaint regarding the forged signatures of Prof. S.N. Sinha was received. The plaintiff and one engineer of the defendant were found responsible for the act. The report concluded that the plaintiff had forged the report to avoid payment of design mix fees, prevent delay, and bypass the modifications suggested by Prof. S.N. Sinha. It further recommended recovery of the advance fee paid CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 10/36 to Prof. S.N. Sinha from the plaintiff and the said engineer in equal proportions.
44 On 09.12.2010, the Board of Governors of the defendant resolved to initiate a formal inquiry into the alleged forgery. Pursuant to the inquiry, on 02.06.2011, it was recommended that action be taken against the officer of the defendant as well as the plaintiff.
45 Thereafter, on 03.11.2011, the plaintiff was informed that his payments would not be released pending conclusion of the vigilance inquiry. Subsequently, on 24.11.2011, a show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff asking why action for blacklisting should not be taken against him. The plaintiff submitted his reply on 05.12.2011.
46 A Technical Expert Committee was constituted by the Vigilance Cell of the defendant. However, in order to evade the RICHA consequences of his misconduct, the plaintiff issued a legal GUSAIN SOLANKI Digitally signed by notice through his counsel on 04.01.2012, which was duly RICHA GUSAIN replied to by the defendant on 13.02.2012. Subsequently, on SOLANKI Date: 2025.10.18 16:24:41 +0530 04.07.2012, the defendant decided to blacklist and debar the plaintiff for a period of one year.
47 It is further stated that the plaintiff applied for extension of time only after completion of the works, and therefore, the same could be finalised only at the stage of settlement of the final bill. It is contended that the final bill could not be processed due to the plaintiff's involvement in two matters--first, irregularities and execution of substandard work in the "Stepped Seating Arrangement"; and second, forging the signatures of Prof. S.N. Sinha on the drawings of the "Guest House" and on the design mix report of the "Sports Complex - Step Seating Arrangement."
CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 11/36 48 It is further submitted that the procedure for testing the design mix report was not followed in the "Sports Complex - Step Seating Arrangement" work, though it was duly followed in the "Guest House" project. However, in order to expedite completion of work, the concrete mix design used in the "Guest House" project was permitted to be used in the "Sports Complex
- Step Seating Arrangement."
49 It is also stated that disclosure of the name of the complainant or furnishing a copy of the complaint would have endangered the safety of the complainant and impeded the inquiry proceedings.
50 The defendant has responded to the plaintiff's claims as under:
a) Claim No. 1: To be decided after conclusion of pending inquiries (₹8,21,327/- paid during pendency of the suit).
b) Claim No. 2: Denied; delay attributable to the plaintiff.
c) Claim No. 3: To be decided after pending inquiries (amount released during pendency).
d) Claim No. 4: Denied; delay attributable to the plaintiff.
RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI e) Claim No. 5: Denied; delay attributable to the plaintiff.
Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI Date: 2025.10.18 16:24:46 +0530f) Claim No. 6: Withheld due to retrofitting and failure to maintain RCC line and levels.
g) Claim No. 7: Denied; original bills and test reports not submitted despite requisition dated 19.03.2009. Bill dated 12.08.2009 and report dated 28.07.2009 not payable as they relate to Hammer Test and Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test, which were to be borne by the plaintiff as per Clause 42.5 of the Special Specifications and Conditions of Agreement.
h) Claim No. 8: Denied; the defendant had already paid CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 12/36 ₹2,16,188/- (₹1,10,300/- to IIT Delhi and ₹1,05,888/- to M/s Cortex Construction Solution Pvt. Ltd.) for core testing. As per Clause 12 of the Special Specifications and Conditions of Agreement read with CPWD Specifications Vol. I-VI and Para 5.8.12.2.4 of the Revised CPWD Specifications 2002, the plaintiff is liable to reimburse the said amount to the defendant. REPLICATION 51 The plaintiff filed a replication wherein he denied the averments made in the written statement and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint in their entirety. ADMISSION-DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS 52 Admission-denial of the documents was carried out. The plaintiff filed an affidavit admitting the following documents of the defendant:
a) Copy of the letter dated 17.07.2008 RICHA GUSAIN
b) Copy of the letter dated 19.03.2009 SOLANKI Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI Date: 2025.10.18
c) Copy of the letter dated 04.06.2009 16:24:49 +0530
d) Copy of the letter dated 08.09.2009
e) Copy of the letter dated 14.10.2009
f) Copy of the letter dated 21.10.2010
g) Letter dated 05.03.2010 with ref no. RCE/NSIT/1204/03/ 2009-10
h) Letter dated 03.11.2011 with ref no. F. No.201(1230)/MDC/ 04-05/Engg Cell/NSIT/825
i) Letter dated 24.11.2011 with ref no. F. No. 201(1724)/MDC/ 08-09/Engg Cell/NSIT/908
j) Copy of the letter dated 17.01.2012
k) Legal notice dated 24.01.2012 sent by the plaintiff
l) Order dated 04.07.2012 CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 13/36
m) Letter dated 04.12.2007 with ref no. F. No. 201(1230)/MDC/ 04-05/Engg Cell/NSIT/35 n) Copy of MB Book No. 631
o) Agreement no. 01/P/EE(P)/NSIT/08-09
53 The defendant filed an affidavit admitting the following documents of the plaintiff, which were endorsed as under:
a) The acceptance letter dated 20/21.02.2008 as Ex. P-1,
b) The letter dated 26.03.2008 as Ex. P-2,
c) The true copy of agreement dated 06.06.2008 as Ex. P-3,
d) The copy of MB No. 630 as Ex. P-4,
e) The letter dated 16.03.2011 as Ex. P-5,
f) The letter dated 19.04.2011 (without annexures) as Ex. P-6,
g) The letter dated 19.09.2011 as Ex. P-7,
h) The letter dated 21.11.2011 as Ex. P-8,
i) The letter dated 05.12.2011 as Ex. P-9,
j) The legal notice dated 04.01.2012 with postal receipts as Ex. P-10 and Ex. P-11,
k) The reply of plaintiff dated 24.01.2012 as Ex. P-12, RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI l) The reply of defendant dated 13.02.2012 as Ex. P-13, Digitally signed by
m) The letter of defendant dated 05.03.2012 as Ex. P-14, RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI Date: 2025.10.18 16:24:53 +0530
n) Copy of letter of defendant dated 24.04.2012 as Ex. P-15,
o) The letter dated 09.05.2012 as Ex. P-16,
p) Copy of order/letter dated 04.07.2012 as Ex. P-17,
q) Copy of letter dated 08.07.2009 with rates as Ex. P-18,
r) Sanction order of 7th RA Bill dated 31.03.2010 as Ex. P-19,
s) Copy of letter dated 23.03.2010 as Ex. P-20,
t) Receipts dated 07.07.2008, 14.07.2008, 01.08.2008, 08.08.2008, 09.08.2008, 12.08.2008, 25.08.2008, 02.09.2008, 05.09.2008, 15.09.2008, 17.09.2008 and 22.09.2008 of payment CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 14/36 made to Indian Testing Centre for testing charges by the plaintiff as Ex. P-21 to Ex. P-32, u) The receipt dated 27.01.2009 of payment made to Micro Engineering & Testing Laboratory for testing charges by the plaintiff as Ex. P-33,
v) Copy of letter dated 26.03.2009 as Ex. P-34, and w) Copy of receipt dated 26.03.2009 of payment made to DDA for testing charges as Ex. P-35.
ISSUES 54 Vide order dated 09.11.2016, 20.05.2017 and 13.10.2025, following issues/amended issues were framed:
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration declaring the order bearing No. F201(1724) /MDC/0809/E.Cell/NSIT/342/1452 dated 04.07.2012 as illegal as null and void ? OPP.
Digitally signed by RICHA
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
2025.10.18 permanent injunction, as prayed for?OPP 16:24:56
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory +0530 injunction, as prayed ? OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery of Rs. 80,75,450/- as prayed for ? OPP.
5. If the answer of the above said issue is in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest, if so, at what rate and for which period ? OPP.
6. Relief.
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration declaring bill no. F.201(1230)/MDC/0405/ E.Cell/NSIT/1574 dated 29.03.2013, as null and void?
OPP."
EVIDENCE 55 The plaintiff entered the witness box as PW1 and tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex PW-1/A, which reiterates the facts mentioned in the plaint. He relied on the following documents:
CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 15/36 S. No. Document Marked as
1. Acceptance letter dated 20/21.02.2008 Ex. PW1/1 (also Ex P-1)
2. Letter dated 26.03.2008 Ex. PW1/2 (also Ex P-2)
3. Copy of the agreement dated 06.06.2008 Ex. PW1/3 (also Ex P-3) 4 Relevant page of MB No. 630 Ex. PW1/4 (also Ex P-4) 5 Copy of the letter dated 29.10.2007 Ex. PW1/4A 6 Copy of the letter dated 16.03.2011 requesting Ex. PW1/5 for removal of electricity connection (also Ex P-5) 7 Letter dated 19.04.2011 seeking extension of Ex. PW1/6 time (also Ex P-6) 8 Letter dated 19.09.2011 seeking release of Ex. PW1/7 payment (also Ex P-7) 9 Reminder letter dated 21.11.2011 for release of Ex. PW1/8 payment (also Ex P-8) 10 Reply dated 05.12.2011 to the show-cause Ex. PW1/9 notice (also Ex P-9) 11 Legal notice dated 04.01.2012 and its postal Ex. PW1/10 to Ex Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
2025.10.18 receipts PW1/12 (also Ex 16:25:00 +0530 P-10 and P-11) 12 Reply of the plaintiff dated 24.01.2012 Ex. PW1/13 (also Ex P-12) 13 Reply of the defendant dated 13.02.2012 Ex. PW1/14 (also Ex P-13) 14 Letter of the defendant dated 05.03.2012 Ex. PW1/15 (also Ex P-14) 15 Letter dated 24.04.2012 Ex. PW1/16 (also Ex P-15) 16 Letter dated 09.05.2012 Ex. PW1/17 (also Ex P-16) 17 Order dated 04.07.2012 Ex. PW1/18 (also Ex P-17) 18 Copy of the letter dated 08.07.2009 Ex. PW1/19 (also Ex P-18) 19 Sanction order dated 31.03.2010 Ex. PW1/20 (also Ex P-19) 20 Copy of the letter dated 23.03.2010 Ex. PW1/21 (also Ex P-20) 21 Receipts of payment made to the agencies for Ex. PW1/22 to Ex.
CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 16/36 testing of material PW1/34 and Ex PW1/36 (also Ex P-21 to P-33, P-35) 22 Copy of letter dated 26.03.2009 Ex PW1/35 (also Ex P-34) 23 Copy of bill bearing No. 123800 issued by Shri Mark B Ram Institute Research on 12.08.2009 24 Bill issued on 28.07.2009 Ex. PW1/36A 25 Copy of show-cause notice dated 05.03.2013 Ex. PW1/37 26 Reply of the plaintiff dated 28.03.2013 along Ex. PW1/38 to Ex with postal receipt and tracking report PW1/40 27 Letter of the defendant dated 29.03.2013 Ex. PW1/41 28 Reply of the plaintiff dated 22.04.2013 with its Ex. PW1/42 to postal receipt and tracking report Ex PW1/44 29 Copy of letter of the defendant dated Ex. PW1/45 31.05.2013 30 Notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC dated Ex. PW1/46 & 21.11.2016 and its postal receipt PW1/47 56 The Executive Engineer of the defendant appeared as DW1 tendered his affidavit Ex DW1/A, which is on the lines of Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI the written statements. He relied on the following documents:
SOLANKI Date:
2025.10.18 16:25:04 S. Document Marked as +0530 No.
1. Copy of the agreement Ex. DW1/1
2. Copy of the letter dated 17.07.2008 Mark-A (admitted by the plaintiff in the affidavit of admission-denial)
3. Copy of the letter dated 05.02.2009 Mark-B
4. Copy of the letter dated 06.03.2009 Mark-C
5. Copy of the letter dated 19.03.2009 Mark-D (admitted)
6. Copy of the letter dated 04.06.2009 Mark-E (admitted)
7. Copy of the site visit report dated 07.07.2009 Mark-F
8. Copy of the letter dated 10.07.2009 Mark-G
9. Copy of the letter dated 22/23.07.2009 Mark-H
10. Copy of the letter dated 21.08.2009 Mark-I
11. Copy of the letter dated 08.09.2009 Mark-J (admitted) CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 17/36
12. Copy of the letter dated 14.10.2009 Mark-K (admitted)
13. Copy of the letter dated 21.10.2010 Mark-L (admitted) 14 Copy of the letter dated 17.01.2012 Mark-M (admitted) 15 Copy of the letter dated 13.02.2012 Mark-N (admitted) 16 Copy of the letter dated 02.03.2012 Mark-O 17 Copy of the letter dated 05.03.2012 Mark-P (admitted) 18 Copy of the letter dated 18.04.2012 Mark-Q (admitted) 19 Sanction order dated 09.01.2018 Ex DW1/X 20 Final bill prepared by the defendant Ex DW1/Y FINDINGS
57 I have heard Sh. A.K. Trivedi, Ld Counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. Shyam Sunder Dalal, Ld Counsel for the defendant. I have also gone through the written submissions filed by the Digitally signed by RICHA plaintiff and citations filed by both sides. RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
2025.10.18 16:25:08 +0530
58 The issue-wise findings are as under: 59 "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration declaring the order bearing No. F201(1724) /MDC/0809/E.Cell/NSIT/342/1452 dated 04.07.2012 as illegal as null and void ? OPP."
59.1 The impugned order dated 04.07.2012, Ex. PW1/18 (also Ex. P-17), records that the plaintiff's firm had been awarded the works of construction of the "Guest House" and the "Sports Complex - Step Seating Arrangement" (though the agreement number and date of agreement of the "Guest House" are incorrectly mentioned). It further states that the plaintiff's firm was involved in forging the signatures of Dr. S.N. Sinha, IIT Delhi, on the drawings intended for use in the construction of the "Guest House" as well as on the design mix report meant for the "Sports Complex - Step Seating Arrangement." The order also notes that the plaintiff had been issued a show cause notice dated 24.11.2011 (Annexure D-17 of the defendant's documents, CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 18/36 admitted by the plaintiff), but his reply dated 05.12.2011 (Ex. PW1/9 or Ex. P-9) was found unsatisfactory. Consequently, the plaintiff was blacklisted from tendering for a period of one year. 59.2 The show cause notice dated 24.11.2011 records that a preliminary enquiry had found the signatures of Dr. S.N. Sinha on the drawings used for the "Guest House" and on the design mix report used for the "Sports Complex - Step Seating Arrangement" to be forged. The preliminary report recommended blacklisting the plaintiff for a period of five years and advised that the Registrar, NSIT, conduct an inquiry while affording the plaintiff 21 days' time to show cause why such action should not be taken against him.
59.3 The plaintiff's reply (Ex. P-9) is noteworthy. His defence is threefold. First, he contends that, under the terms of the agreement, the contractor was bound to execute the work strictly in accordance with the design, drawings, and instructions Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI of the Engineer-in-Charge; therefore, he could not be held SOLANKI Date:
2025.10.18 16:25:12 +0530 responsible for any irregularity in the report. Second, he asserts that even if any blame were attributable to him, such action ought to have been taken at the inception of the work, and not after its completion. Third, he claims that he had never submitted a separate design mix report but had, by letter dated 23.07.2008, merely requested approval for using the same design mix employed in the "Guest House" for the "Sports Complex - Step Seating Arrangement." He further avers that this request was approved vide letter No. 952 dated 06.03.2009. 59.4 These defences are, in substance, identical to the grounds taken in the plaint challenging the defendant's blacklisting order.
CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 19/36 59.5 Ld counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the documents and report of the vigilance enquiry were never supplied to the plaintiff, rendering the allegations unsubstantiated.
59.6 I am unable to concur with this submission. Firstly, the plaintiff has nowhere asserted that the report or the questioned signatures of Dr. S.N. Sinha were genuine. Secondly, the scope and purpose of a vigilance enquiry are distinct from those of a civil proceeding, and hence, its findings or report could not have affected the adjudication of the present suit. 59.7 Adverting to the plaintiff's grounds of challenge, it is pertinent to note that while the Engineer-in-Charge is empowered to approve or reject a design mix report and is responsible for quality control, he does not stand to derive any benefit from the approval of such a report. The purpose of obtaining an expert's Digitally signed by opinion on a design mix is to confirm that the contractor's work RICHA RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
2025.10.18 meets the prescribed specifications. There exists no conceivable 16:25:16 +0530 reason for the Engineer-in-Charge to forge a report certifying the contractor's compliance. The only person who stood to gain from an approved report was the plaintiff. 59.8 During his cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that it was his responsibility to provide the sample and deposed that he had, in fact, done so but that the defendant failed to deliver it to the concerned laboratory. This assertion is incorrect for two reasons. First, under the Special Specifications, the responsibility to obtain the design mix report rested entirely upon the contractor. The sampling, forwarding, and testing were to be undertaken by the contractor, who was also liable to pay the testing charges. Second, as observed earlier, the plaintiff himself CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 20/36 stated in his reply (Ex. P-9) that he had never submitted any separate design mix report to the department. 59.9 Furthermore, the samples for the design mix are required to be collected from the site in the presence of both the contractor and the Engineer-in-Charge. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that no design mix report could have been prepared without the plaintiff's knowledge or participation. 59.10 As regards the plaintiff's second defence, it is well settled that there can be no waiver against fraud or forgery, as these vitiate the very root of any transaction. The mere fact that Digitally the forgery was discovered belatedly, which is often the case, signed by RICHA cannot validate the forged document. In any case, the issue RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
2025.10.18 16:25:19 +0530 regarding the forged design mix report had already been raised on 06.03.2009, as shall be discussed hereinafter. 59.11 Turning to the third defence, the plaintiff asserts that he never submitted a separate design mix report but had sought approval on 23.07.2008 for using the "Guest House" design mix for the "Sports Complex - Step Seating Arrangement." However, no such letter has been placed on record. Considering that the plaintiff has filed numerous other communications exchanged with the defendant, his failure to file this particular letter of critical importance warrants an adverse inference against him. 59.12 Moreover, while he claims that this request was approved vide letter No. 952 dated 06.03.2009, that letter has not been produced by the plaintiff. It was filed by the defendant as Mark C, but was denied by the plaintiff during admission-denial.
The reason for such denial is apparent. The said letter not only records that the "Guest House" design mix was approved for use in the "Sports Complex - Step Seating Arrangement," but also CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 21/36 specifically notes that the earlier design mix report submitted by the contractor (plaintiff) appeared to be forged and was not acceptable to the department.
59.13 Although the plaintiff has denied receipt of the said letter (Mark C), his own admitted communication (Mark E) reveals that he had issued Mark E in response to Mark C. 59.14 Mark C records the decisions taken in the meeting under paragraphs 5(a) to 5(k). Paragraphs 5(a) to 5(d) specifically relate to the issue of the design mix report and its forgery. A comparison between Mark C and Mark E shows that the plaintiff responded paragraph-wise but deliberately omitted any reply to paragraphs 5(a) to 5(d). This omission clearly indicates his tacit admission of the forgery and his acceptance of the arrangement whereby the design mix approved for the "Guest Digitally signed by House" was also adopted for the "Sports Complex - Step Seating RICHA RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
2025.10.18 Arrangement."
16:25:23 +0530 59.15 In view of the foregoing discussion, the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was not responsible for the misconduct referred to in order No. F-201(1724)/MDC/08-09/E.Cell/NSIT/ 342/1452 dated 04.07.2012. Consequently, the said order cannot be declared illegal, null or void. This issue is, therefore, decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
60 "2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for?OPP"
"3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed ? OPP."
60.1 These two issues are interrelated and are, therefore, taken up together for adjudication. The plaintiff seeks a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to release the bank CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 22/36 guarantee/fixed deposit of ₹4,41,563/- furnished by him on 07.03.2008. He also seeks a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from encashing the said performance guarantee.
60.2 During the pendency of the trial, the said bank guarantee was released on 10.01.2018, as reflected in Ex DW1/Y. Consequently, these issues have been rendered infructuous and stand disposed of accordingly.
RICHA 61 "7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of GUSAIN SOLANKI declaration declaring bill no. F.201(1230)/MDC/04- Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI Date: 2025.10.18 05/E.Cell/NSIT/1574 dated 29.03.2013, as null and void? OPP."
16:25:27 +053061.1 The said order/bill dated 29.03.2013, Ex. PW1/41, records that the work of "Sports Complex - Step Seating Arrangement" was to be completed by 27.09.2008, but was actually completed on 23.02.2011. It further notes that the Engineer-in-Charge had granted extensions of time from time to time under Clause 5 of the agreement, though without prejudice to the right of recovery of compensation under Clause 2. The bill further mentions that the last extension was granted vide letter dated 03.02.2011, and that a show cause notice dated 05.03.2013 (Ex. PW1/37) had been issued to the plaintiff, to which no reply was received. Holding the plaintiff responsible for a delay of 605 days, a compensation of ₹88,000/- was imposed upon him. 61.2 The plaintiff, in reply to the impugned bill Ex. PW1/41, submitted Ex. PW1/42, wherein he stated that he had in fact sent a reply dated 28.03.2013 (Ex. PW1/38) to the said show cause notice. It is contended therein that the compensation had been imposed without consideration of his reply, and after the termination of the contract. The plaintiff further alleged that the CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 23/36 penalty was imposed during the pendency of the present proceedings merely to exert pressure upon him. 61.3 There is no material on record showing that extensions were granted by the defendant, either in writing or otherwise. The defendant, in its written statement, has also not pleaded that extensions were granted to the plaintiff from time to time, except for one instance on 06.03.2009, when a delay of one and a half months was conceded to be attributable to the defendant. The extension letter dated 03.02.2011, mentioned in the bill Ex. PW1/41, has not been produced. DW1 also admitted in his cross- examination that he did not recall whether any extension letter was issued between 27.09.2008 and 23.02.2011. Digitally 61.4 When questioned in cross-examination whether signed by RICHA RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
2025.10.18 16:25:31 +0530 extensions had been granted under Clause 5, DW1 deposed that the plaintiff had never applied for extension of time and that the matter of extension was decided by the competent authority at a later stage. This statement belies the defendant's claim that extensions were granted from time to time. 61.5 The bill Ex. PW1/41 also states that no reply was received to the show cause notice Ex. PW1/37. However, the plaintiff has filed his reply Ex. PW1/38, accompanied by postal receipt Ex. PW1/39, showing dispatch through post on 04.04.2013, and tracking report Ex. PW1/40 indicating delivery to the defendant on 08.04.2013. The plaintiff was not cross-
examined on these documents, nor was any suggestion put to him disputing dispatch or delivery. It is, therefore, evident that the assertion that no reply was received is incorrect, and the plaintiff's contention that his reply was not considered before issuance of the impugned bill stands substantiated.
CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 24/36 61.6 Learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that Clause 2 of the agreement could not have been invoked to issue a show cause notice or impose penalty after the contract had already come to an end. Reliance has been placed on Clause 5 read with Schedule F of the agreement and on Section 28 of the CPWD Works Manual, 2007.
61.7 It is further submitted that the plaintiff, vide letter dated 19.04.2011 (Ex. PW1/6 or Ex. P-6), had detailed the hindrances and sought extension of time for 898 days. However, no response was furnished by the defendant, nor was any extension granted under Clause 5.
61.8 Learned counsel has also contended that the defendant has failed to demonstrate how the alleged delay was computed, or why the show cause notice under Clause 2 was issued belatedly on 05.03.2013. It is further argued that the defendant RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN was required to establish the actual loss suffered, if any, due to GUSAIN SOLANKI delay on the part of the plaintiff, but no such evidence has been SOLANKI Date:
2025.10.18 16:25:37 +0530 adduced. Reliance has been placed on Fiberfill Engineers v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., MANU/DE/1437/2019. 61.9 It is next contended that the agreement did not contemplate provisional extensions of time, and that the contract stood concluded on 28.09.2008. It is also urged that time was not the essence of the contract. Reliance is placed on Hind Construction v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 720;
Welspun Speciality Solutions Ltd. & Ors. v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Ors., MANU/SC/1059/2021; and North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. IJM Corporation Berhad, MANU/DE/1441/2022.
61.10 It is further argued that under Clauses 2 and 5, the CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 25/36 defendant was bound to withhold amounts from running bills in the event of delay; however, no such deduction was ever made. DW1 has, in fact, admitted that the hindrances register was never opened and that no show cause notice was issued until 23.02.2011.
61.11 I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the plaintiff. It is undisputed that the plaintiff did not apply for extension of time during the execution of the work. It is equally established that the defendant did not grant any extension as mandated under Clauses 2 and 5 of the agreement. Although Clause 5 stipulates that time was of the essence, the conduct of both parties clearly indicates otherwise. 61.12 Even otherwise, the question whether time is of the essence cannot be determined merely from the language of the clause; it must be assessed from the contract as a whole. The Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI presence of provisions for extension of time and imposition of SOLANKI Date:
2025.10.18 16:25:41 +0530 penalty for delay clearly suggests that time was not of the essence. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the plaintiff on Hind Construction (supra), Fiberfill Engineers (supra), and Welspun Speciality Solutions (supra) is well founded, as in those cases, under similar contractual conditions, it was held that time was not of the essence of the contract. 61.13 The next issue for consideration is whether the defendant could have issued a show cause notice and imposed penalty for delay after completion of the work. In this regard, learned counsel for the plaintiff has rightly relied upon IJM Corporation Berhad (supra), wherein under similar contractual terms, it was held:
"19. Clause 5.4 stipulates that the engineer in charge has to give a fair and reasonable extension of time and reschedule the CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 26/36 milestone for completion of the work. Such extension has to be communicated to the contractor in writing within three months of the date of receipt of such request. Even in a case where there is no application filed by the contractor the engineer in charge is empowered to grant fair and reasonable extension, which extension would be binding on the contractor.
20. In the present case, requests for the extension were made and granted, though petitioner reserved their right to levy to recover liquidated damages in accordance with provisions of Clause 2 of the agreement.
21. The contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the extensions were only provisional and Petitioner could reassess the delay is not sustainable.
22. Once a request is received and extension of time is granted, the engineer in charge/the competent authority cannot after the extended period is over turn around and reassess the extension to the detriment of the contractor. If extension is granted, say for a period of three months, the engineer in charge after expiry of three months cannot turn around and say that the extension should have, in fact, been for a period of two months.
23. Though it may be open to the competent authority/engineer in-charge to, in the first instance, grant an extension for a shorter period than requested and thereafter extend it further but he cannot having once granted it, curtail it retrospectively.
24. Clause 5.4 stipulates that the decision on the extension of time has to be communicated within a period of three months, which pre-supposes that an estimation or calculation would have to be Digitally signed by RICHA made by the competent authority within the period of three RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
months and a conscious decision taken and communicated. The 2025.10.18 16:25:45 +0530 competent authority cannot mechanically grant an extension in the first instance and then after the period is over, reduce the same retrospectively.
25. I am in complete agreement with the view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal in deciding Issue no.3 and in holding that only two options were available to the competent authority, i.e. (i) either to grant a fair and reasonable extension in terms of Clause 5.4 even in case where there is no application by the contractor; or (ii) to declare that the contractor is not eligible for consideration for extension of time.
26. The competent authority would not be empowered to treat the extension of time granted as provisional and thereafter reduce the period after the period is itself over."
(emphasis supplied) 61.14 An analogy may appropriately be drawn in the present case as well. The work was not completed within the time stipulated under the agreement. Although the plaintiff did not apply for any extension during this period, he continued to CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 27/36 execute the work without objection or demur from the defendant. The defendant, on its part, did not withhold any amount from the running bills under Clauses 2 or 5 on account of delay. Even the minutes of the meeting dated 07.09.2009 (Mark J), wherein the defendant accepted the assurance of the plaintiff to complete the work of "Sports Complex - Step Seating Arrangement" within two months and that of "Guest House" within six months of release of payment, do not indicate that any action under Clause 2 was contemplated or taken on the ground of delay. 61.15 In these circumstances, it is not now open to the defendant to turn around and invoke Clauses 2 and 5 of the agreement to impose penalty upon the plaintiff. 61.16 Another reason why the levy of compensation or penalty cannot be sustained is that the defendant has not demonstrated the basis on which the delay was computed. DW1 has admitted that the hindrances register - which was mandatorily RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI required to be maintained by the defendant - was never opened during the execution of the work. In the absence of such a record, Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI Date: 2025.10.18 16:25:49 +0530 neither the period of delay nor the party responsible therefor can be determined with certainty.
61.17 Moreover, it was incumbent upon the defendant to prove the actual loss, if any, suffered on account of delay or non- compliance by the plaintiff. Where time is not of the essence of the contract, the measure of damages stipulated in the agreement cannot automatically be invoked; the promisee is only entitled to reasonable compensation for proven loss. The defendant, however, has neither adduced evidence nor furnished any rational basis for arriving at the figure of ₹88,000/-. 61.18 Accordingly, bill no. F.201(1230)/MDC/04-05/E.Cell/ CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 28/36 NSIT/1574 dated 29.03.2013 cannot be sustained in law and is hereby declared null and void. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
62 "4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery of Rs. 80,75,450/- as prayed for ? OPP."
62.1 The plaintiff has claimed the said amount under eight distinct heads, which are examined hereunder:
62.2 (a) Claim No. 1 - ₹15,00,000 towards the final bill:
62.2.1 Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the work executed by the plaintiff stands duly recorded in the MB, and that the submission of the final bill by the plaintiff was Digitally also entered in MB No. 630. It is submitted that the plaintiff had signed by RICHA RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
served a notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC (Ex. PW1/46) upon 2025.10.18 16:25:53 +0530 the defendant to produce the said MB, but instead, the defendant only produced the last page of MB No. 631. It is urged that the final bill (Ex. DW1/Y) and the sanction order (Ex. DW1/X) were prepared by the defendant without reference to or verification of the plaintiff's submitted bill of ₹15,00,000. These documents were never served upon the plaintiff prior to their production during the cross-examination of DW1. Further, it is alleged that MB No. 631 contains cuttings and overwritings, rendering it unreliable.
62.2.2 Conversely, Learned Counsel for the defendant submits that the final bill Ex. DW1/Y had been duly accepted and signed by the plaintiff's authorised representative, Shri Girish Goyal, through whom the agreement itself had been executed. It is argued that the plaintiff has never challenged the recorded measurements and has already received the amount due, i.e., ₹8,21,327, on 18.05.2018 towards the final bill.
CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 29/36 62.2.3 I have considered the rival contentions. 62.2.4 While the plaintiff asserts that he had submitted a final bill, the defendant maintains that no such bill was ever prepared by the plaintiff, necessitating the preparation of the same by the defendant.
62.2.5 The version of the defendant appears more probable, as there is neither any proof of submission of a final bill by the plaintiff nor any copy of the same on record. 62.2.6 As regards the final bill Ex. DW1/Y, even assuming that there were overwritings or cuttings in MB No. 631 and that MB No. 630 was not produced, the undisputed fact remains that the said final bill was approved and signed by the plaintiff's authorised representative, Shri Girish Goyal. This is the same RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI individual through whom the contract was executed between the Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI Date: 2025.10.18 parties. PW1 himself admitted in cross-examination that Shri 16:25:57 +0530 Girish Goyal had signed the final bill. 62.2.7 The noting of Shri Girish Goyal on the bill Ex.
DW1/Y reads, "Bill and measurement accepted Full and final settlement of all demands" and bears his signature dated 24.03.2015. This demonstrates that the plaintiff's assertion that the said bill was never shown to him until its production during DW1's cross-examination on 23.02.2024 is incorrect. It equally undermines the contention that the bill Ex. DW1/Y and the sanction order Ex. DW1/X were erroneous. 62.2.8 The bill Ex. DW1/Y records the amount payable as ₹9,49,096/-, and the corresponding sanction order Ex. DW1/X shows that after deductions on account of taxes and imposition of compensation of ₹88,000/-, a sum of ₹8,21,327/- was payable to the plaintiff's firm. The said amount already stands paid on CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 30/36 18.05.2018. Accordingly, the plaintiff is not entitled to any further amount under this head, save and except the compensation of ₹88,000/-, which has been found unsustainable earlier.
62.3 (b) Claim No. 2 - Interest @ 18% from 23.08.2011 to 22.08.2012 (₹2,70,000):
62.3.1 The plaintiff initially claimed interest at 18% per annum but, during arguments, Learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that interest at 12% per annum is claimed in view of North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Shish Pal, MANU/DE/1200/2018.
62.3.2 In the said decision, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court awarded simple interest at 8% per annum from the expiry of six months after the passing of the bill, with the direction that if payment was not made within twelve weeks, interest at 12% per annum would thereafter apply.
62.3.3 The final bill and measurements were accepted by Digitally the representative of the plaintiff on 24.03.2015. The final bill signed by RICHA RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
2025.10.18 16:26:03 +0530 ought to have been passed by the defendant within six months of this date, as per Clause 9 of the agreement. 62.3.4 Guided by the aforesaid precedent, the plaintiff is held entitled to simple interest at 8% per annum on the amount of ₹88,000/- from 24.09.2015 till the date of payment. The plaintiff is also entitled to interest at the same rate on the remaining portion of the final bill (₹8,21,327) from 24.09.2015 till the date of payment, that is, 18.05.2018.
62.4 (c) Claim No. 3 - Release of Bank Guarantee of ₹4,41,563:
62.4.1 As already discussed under Issues Nos. 2 and 3, the CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 31/36 said bank guarantee stands released. 62.5 (d) Claim No. 4 - Loss of ₹10,132 per day for 457 days (₹46,30,450):
62.5.1 Although the plaintiff has furnished a tabulated computation of this claim, he has not produced a single document substantiating the alleged losses. In the absence of any credible evidence, this claim cannot be sustained. 62.6 (e) Claim No. 5 - Damages of ₹14,00,000 on account of prolongation of contract (27.08.2008 to 23.02.2011): 62.6.1 Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the delay was attributable to the defendant, while the plaintiff was at all times ready with labour and materials. 62.6.2 Per contra, Learned Counsel for the defendant has relied upon Batliboi Environmental Engineers Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (2024) 2 SCC 375, to contend that compensation for delay is not payable in the absence of proof of actual damage.
62.6.3 I find merit in the submission of Learned Counsel RICHA GUSAIN for the defendant. In Batliboi (supra), it was held:
SOLANKI Digitally signed by "16. This is without doubt, a sound legal and correct proposition.
However, the computation of damages should not be whimsical RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI Date: 2025.10.18 16:26:07 +0530 and absurd resulting in a windfall and bounty for one party at the expense of the other. The computation of damages should not be disingenuous. The damages should commensurate with the loss sustained. In a claim for loss on account of delay in work attributable to the employer, the contractor is entitled to the loss sustained by the breach of contract to the extent and so far as money can compensate. The party should to be placed in the same situation, with the damages, as if the contract had been performed. The principle is that the sum of money awarded to the party who has suffered the injury, should be the same quantum as s/he would have earned or made, if s/he had not sustained the wrong for which s/he is getting compensated. [Robinson v. Harman, (1848) 1 Ex 850, at p. 855 and Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co., (1880) LR 5 AC 25 (HL)] ...
CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 32/36
23. Ordinarily, when the completion of a contract is delayed and the contractor claims that s/he has suffered a loss arising from depletion of her/his income from the job and hence turnover of her/his business, and also for the overheads in the form of workforce expenses which could have been deployed in other contracts, the claims to bear any persuasion before the arbitrator or a court of law, the builder/contractor has to prove that there was other work available that he would have secured if not for the delay, by producing invitations to tender which was declined due to insufficient capacity to undertake other work. The same may also be proven from the books of accounts to demonstrate a drop in turnover and establish that this result is from the particular delay rather than from extraneous causes..." (emphasis supplied) 62.6.4 Even the learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on Fiberfill Engineers (supra) to contend that the defendant was required to prove the actual loss suffered by it on account of delay or non-compliance by the plaintiff. However, the same principle of law equally applies to the plaintiff when he seeks compensation for delay.
62.6.5 Reliance may further be placed on the decision of RICHA the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. L.K. GUSAIN SOLANKI Digitally signed by Ahuja, (2004) 5 SCC 109, wherein it was held:
RICHA GUSAIN"24. Here when claim for escalation of wage bills and price for SOLANKI Date: 2025.10.18 16:26:11 +0530 materials compensation has been paid and compensation for delay in the payment of the amount payable under the contract or for other extra works is to be paid with interest thereon, it is rather difficult for us to accept the proposition that in addition 15% of the total profit should be computed under the heading "Loss or Profit". It is not unusual for the contractors to claim loss of profit arising out of diminution in turnover on account of delay in the matter of completion of the work. What he should establish in such a situation is that had he received the amount due under the contract, he could have utilised the same for some other business in which he could have earned profit. Unless such a plea is raised and established, claim for loss of profits could not have been granted. In this case, no such material is available on record. In the absence of any evidence, the arbitrator could not have awarded the same. This aspect was very well settled in Sunley (B) & Co. Ltd. v. Cunard White Star Ltd. [(1940) 1 KB 740 : (1940) 2 All ER 97 (CA)] by the Court of Appeal in England. Therefore, we have no hesitation in deleting a sum of Rs 6,00,000 awarded to the claimant."
CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 33/36 (emphasis supplied) 62.6.6 Similarly, in Indo Nabin Projects Ltd. v. Powergrid Corpn. of India Ltd. 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8405 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that the standard formulae like Hudson's formula, Emden's formula and Eichleay's formula are essential tools for computing lost profits and overhead expenses, however, the same do not absolve the claimant from producing any material which establishes the claim for lost profits. 62.6.7 Since the plaintiff has not furnished any justification or supporting material for the computation of the sum of ₹14,00,000/- claimed under this head, he is not entitled to recover the said amount.
62.7 (f) Claim No.6 - Withheld amount of ₹1,00,000/-:
DW1 has deposed that the said amount was released during the pendency of the trial. This assertion has not been disputed; rather, it stands admitted in the written submissions filed by the plaintiff that the said amount was paid on 11.05.2018. Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI 62.8 (g) Claim No.7 - Reimbursement of testing charges of SOLANKI Date:
₹50,000/-: The plaintiff has relied upon bills Ex. PW1/22 to Ex. 2025.10.18 16:26:15 +0530 PW1/34, Ex. PW1/36, Ex. PW1/36A and Mark B to assert that he had incurred expenditure towards testing of samples. 62.8.1 Except for Ex. PW1/36A and Mark B, all the said bills have been admitted by the defendant. With respect to Ex.
PW1/36A and Mark B, the defendant contends that these pertain to the Hammer Test and Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test, the cost of which was to be borne by the plaintiff in terms of Clause 42.5 of the Special Specifications and Conditions of Agreement. This assertion has not been denied by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled only to reimbursement of the remaining bills.
CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 34/36 62.8.2 The admissible bills may be summarised as under:
S. No. Document/Bill Amount payable in ₹
1. Bill Ex PW1/22 4,831
2. Bill Ex PW1/23 10,112
3. Bill Ex PW1/24 2,697 4 Bill Ex PW1/25 899 5 Bill Ex PW1/26 449 6 Bill Ex PW1/27 449 7 Bill Ex PW1/28 449 8 Bill Ex PW1/29 449 9 Bill Ex PW1/30 449 10 Bill Ex PW1/31 449 11 Bill Ex PW1/32 449 RICHA 12 Bill Ex PW1/33 449 GUSAIN SOLANKI 13 Bill Ex PW1/34 18,876 Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI Date: 2025.10.18 14 Bill Ex PW1/36 3,309 16:26:19 +0530 TOTAL 44,316 62.8.3 The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to recover ₹44,316/- on account of expenses incurred in connection with the testing of samples.
62.9 (h) Claim No.8 - Reimbursement of core test charges of ₹1,25,000/-: The plaintiff has not produced any receipt evidencing the payment of core test charges. Conversely, the defendant has stated that it had paid ₹2,16,188/- (₹1,10,300/- to IIT, Delhi and ₹1,05,888/- to M/s. Cortex Construction Solution Private Limited) towards the core test. In the absence of documentary proof of payment by the plaintiff, no amount is payable under this head.
62.10 This issue is accordingly decided partly in favour of the plaintiff, to the extent indicated above.
63 "5. If the answer of the above said issue is in affirmative, CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 35/36 whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest, if so, at what rate and for which period ? OPP.
63.1 For the reasons discussed herein above, the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the sum of ₹44,316/- from 24.09.2015 till payment thereof. Issue no. 5 is accordingly answered.
64 "6. Relief."
64.1 The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with the parties left to bear their own costs.
RICHA GUSAIN 65 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. SOLANKI Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI 66 File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Date: 2025.10.18 16:26:24 +0530Announced in open Court today (Richa Gusain Solanki) on 18th October, 2025 District Judge-02, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi CS DJ ADJ No. 515527/2016 Purna Nand vs Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Page no. 36/36