Delhi District Court
M/S Hitachi Systems Micro Clinic Pvt. ... vs Union Of India on 30 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SOOD
DISTRICT JUDGE-01 ( CENTRAL):
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CS No. 16681/2010
CNR No. DLCT- 01 000690 2008
M/s Hitachi Systems Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd.
E-44/2, Okhla Industrial Estate,
Phase-II, New Delhi - 110020.
....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. The Union of India
Ministry of Home Affairs
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Lt. Governor
National Capital Territory of Delhi
Raj Niwas, Delhi.
3. Chief Secretary
Government of NCT of Delhi
State Secretariat, ITO
New Delhi - 110002.
4. Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Headquarters
ITO, New Delhi - 110002.
5. Joint Commissioner of Police
CAW Cell, Nanakpura, Delhi.
CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 1 / 32
6. Deputy Commissioner of Police
Prov. & Logistics, 5 Rajpura Road,
Delhi - 110054.
7. Deputy Commissioner of Police
North District Delhi, Ashok Vihar, Delhi.
8. Assistant Commissioner of Police
CAW Cell, Nanakpura, Delhi.
....DEFENDANTS
Date of Institution : 28.11.2008
Date of Reserving : 21.04.2026
Date of judgment : 30.04.2026
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 21,60,442/-.
JUDGEMENT
1. Before delving into the facts of the present suit, it is imperative to note that originally the present suit titled as "M/s Micro Clinic India Private Limited v. The Union of India & Ors." was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. However, the suit was transferred to District Courts: THC:
Delhi, keeping in view of notification No. 27187/DHC/Orgl. issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 4 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Act 23 of 2015). Consequent upon the application having been filed by the plaintiff as recorded vide order dated 11.05.2017, the name of the plaintiff was changed to "Hitachi Systems Micro Clinic Private CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 2 / 32 Limited".
BRIEF FACTS OF THE PLAINT:
2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs. 21,60,442/- pleading inter-alia as under:
i. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, the then having its registered office at 302, South Ex. Centre, 273, Masjid Moth, South Extension-II, New Delhi - 110049. The present suit has been filed through its authorized representative Sh. Tarun Seth, who is also director of the plaintiff company. The plaintiff company is providing quality product (hardware/software), committed and professional services in the market and the team of the plaintiff company comprises of Hardware/software Engineers, Marketing/ Sales professionals, who comes from highly qualified background and it has been awarded with ISO 9001: 2000 certification for its quality services. It is averred that the defendant No. 4, is the Commissioner of Delhi Police and is the Law Enforcing Agency, under the control and supervision of defendant No.1 for the National Capital Territory of Delhi through defendant No.2, the Administrator of National Capital Territory of Delhi, as envisaged under the Constitution of India. Further, it is stated that the defendant Nos. 5 to 8 are other senior police officers of CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 3 / 32 the Delhi Police.
ii. It is averred that an Agreement was executed for the period of
03.09.2004 to 02.09.2005 between the plaintiff company and defendant No.4 on behalf of President of India. Under the agreement, the plaintiff was awarded an Annual Contract for the purposes of service, repair, maintenance of computers/ printers/UPS and related peripheral and virus prevention/detention and removal of all types of old and new viruses in various departments of Delhi Police.
iii. It is further averred that, as per the Agreement that plaintiff has furnished FD receipt of Rs. 50,000/- bearing No. AB/COM/B 0432714 dated 27.08.2004 towards the security money for due performance of all terms and condition of agreement. Further, it is stated that pursuant to the said agreement, the office of defendant No. 6 sent an Award letter dated 06.09.2004 to the plaintiff company. Further, it is stated that the plaintiff company fulfilled its contractual obligations, in terms of the said Agreement and the award letter, to the satisfaction of the defendants. The defendants without hesitation extended the contract period for another term. The plaintiff company raised its bills / invoices, as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement and award letter and thereafter, called upon the defendant Nos. 4 to 8 to make the CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 4 / 32 payments. The payment for services rendered were to be made as stipulated in the agreement and invoices were raised for all the services rendered, duly supported by call reports/ performance reports and were as per the rates agreed between the plaintiff and defendants. The details of the bills raised and payment made were duly recorded in the ledger pertaining to the commercial transaction maintained by the plaintiff company. Further, as per the books of accounts, Rs. 21,60,442/- is outstanding and payable by the defendants. Further, it is stated that on several occasions defendants were requested to remit the outstanding amounts but despite several assurances given by the defendant Nos. 6 to 8 on their behalf as well as all other units/ districts, no amount was remitted to plaintiff company. Further, it is stated that the plaintiff company continued to provide AMC services even after expiry of extended contract period on the request of defendant No. 4 (on behalf of other defendants as well as units/ district).
iv. It is further averred that the defendant No. 6 issued a baseless and misconceived Show Cause Notice containing frivolous allegations. The Show Cause Notice was duly replied by the Plaintiff and each and every allegations were refuted. Further, it is stated that defendants were time and again intimated of the expiry of the contract period as well as non- CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 5 / 32 release of outstanding payment. The plaintiff vide letter dated 07.12.2005 addressed to defendant No. 6 requested to kindly intervene and release the outstanding payment. The copy of the said letter was also sent to defendant No.1 for his indulgence towards an early release of payment. In absence of any response from the defendants, plaintiff was constrained to issue legal notice dated 10.03.2006. It was intimated to the defendants that the said legal notice be treated as the requisite notice contemplated under Section 80 CPC. The DCP (Special Branch) in response to the said legal notice took frivolous plea by seeking original copies of call/feedback reports as claimed in the bills for processing with PHQ.
v. It is further averred that due to the abovesaid reasons, a suit bearing No. 1946/2006 titled as "Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Police & Ors." for recovery of Rs. 21,60,442/- was earlier filed against the defendant Nos. 4 to 8. However, vide application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, the said suit was withdrawn with liberty to file the same afresh. Further, pursuant to the withdrawal of the said suit, a legal notice dated 01.07.2008 was issued to the defendants for payment of outstanding amount of Rs. 21,60,443/- alongwith interest 18 %. Defendant No.2 replied the same vide reply dated 14.07.2008 raising CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 6 / 32 frivolous objections and denied the plaintiff's legitimate claim. Further, it is averred that on the request of defendant No. 4, plaintiff company continued to provide its professional services after expiry of the contract period. Further defendants have failed and neglected to pay the outstanding amount despite having received the said legal notice. vi. It is further averred that the similar recovery suit has been filed by the earlier contractor / vendors against the defendant/ police department and the said case is sub-judice, bearing No. 1638/2005 titled as 'Northern Communication Pvt. Ltd. v. Lieutenant Governor & Ors.' vii. It is further averred that the defendants have deliberately with malafide intentions are withholding the amount on false pretext and in contradiction to the terms duly accepted by defendant department. The plaintiff is entitled to recovery money of Rs. 21,60,442/- alongwith 18 % per annum from the date of invoices and also entitled to pendentelite and future interest @ 18 % per annum.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the present suit was filed seeking following prayers :-
a. Recovery of Rs. 21,60,442/- alongwith interest @18 % from the due date;
b. Pendentelite and future interest @ 18 % p.a. till the date of realization;
CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 7 / 32 c. Rs. 50,000/- towards refund of security amount deposited with defendant No. 2.
d. Cost of proceedings.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANTS
4. The defendants in their written statement denied each and every allegation as leveled by the plaintiff in the plaint pleadings inter alia as under :-
i. That the plaintiff company did not provide any satisfactory service to the defendants and failed to follow the terms and conditions as per clause 5 & 39 of the agreement.
ii. The present suit against the Commissioner of Police is not maintainable as Commissioner of Police can neither sue nor be sued. It is stated that vide letter dated 07.10.2005, the defendants received complaints for not providing satisfactory service to all the districts / Units and not to withdraw their engineers from the sites of Delhi Police.
iii. A complaint from DCP, Special Task Force was received on 21.09.2005, stating that the plaintiff is not providing service in accordance with the contract. Similarly, complaints were also received from other units and communicated to the plaintiff vide letter dated 01.08.2005. It is stated that replaced parts were not deposited, calls CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 8 / 32 were not being attended, neither the standby equipments were provided in time nor the stocks were kept for such needs besides the fact that one engineer per hundred equipment was not provided at all.
iv. It has been contended by the defendants that the plaintiff was not providing the proper services as he was using inferior quality parts for repairs specially in the case of key boards and mouse in violation of Clause 8 (e) of the terms and conditions. It is further been contended that the plaintiff has forged the user signatures of Information Technology Staff and had not deposited the replaced parts nor attended its calls. It is further been submitted that the standby equipments were not provided in time nor the stock was kept for such needs and one engineer per hundred equipments were not provided. It is further been submitted that the plaintiff did not load AHDC software and in some cases loaded the same after 3-4 months. It has been contended that the plaintiff, who was to submit bills to all users districts/units have not furnished any bills to the districts/units separately and in the absence of the same, the concerned districts/ units could not verify the work done. As per the defendant, no payment was to be made without verification from the user unit.
v. The defendant has admitted that the Agreement dated 03.09.2004, for CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 9 / 32 Annual Maintenance Contract was awarded to the plaintiff w.e.f 03.09.2004 to 02.09.2005 and under the said Agreement, the plaintiff has furnished fixed deposit receipt of Rs. 50,000/- towards security deposit.
vi. As per the defendants, the plaintiff failed to provide satisfactory service and due to the same, the defendants districts/units were compelled to take services from other agencies on extra payment. The defendants have also issued a show cause notice dated 14.11.2005, asking the plaintiff as to why it be not black-listed and its security deposited be not forfeited.
vii. The defendants have submitted that the payment has been made to the plaintiff on quarterly basis by the districts/units and no payment is due to the plaintiff. It has further been submitted that the plaintiff is not entitled to the payment for the work not done and not performed satisfactorily.
viii. As per the defendants, the plaintiff have not submitted the bills to the unit, who are supposed to raise quarterly bills. It has further been stated that, with respect to the some of the bills which have been submitted, it was found after scrutiny in terms of Clause 44 of the Contract that the plaintiff has failed to submit the documentary support CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 10 / 32 of having installed the Anti Hard Disc Crashing Programme. ix. With respect to notice dated 10.03.2006, as issued by the plaintiff, it has been submitted by the defendants that the same does not satisfy the requirements of Section 80 CPC and plaintiff has failed to provide the documentary proof vide separate calls/feed back reports for carrying out the preventive maintenance of the equipments once in three months and in the absence of the performance reports, the bills as submitted are not payable for want of verification. It has been submitted by the defendants that the plaintiff failed to submit the bills in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract i.e. was supposed to generate the bills alongwith the performance report, call report, annexure of billed amount and in the absence of the same the bills as submitted could not be verified and no amount is due and payable to the plaintiff. The defendants with respect to the second legal notice dated 01.07.2008, as issued by the plaintiff has submitted that reply to the same has been given to the plaintiff vide reply dated 14.07.2008. It is thus prayed that since the plaintiff has not raised the correct bills as per the terms and conditions, hence, the plaintiff has failed to comply with the conditions of the Contract and the suit of the plaintiff being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.
CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 11 / 32 REPLICATION
5. In replication the plaintiff has stated that despite the expiry of the tenure of the Contract i.e. 02.09.2005, defendants vide letter dated 20.09.2005, requested continuation of the services till finalization of the new contract and accepting the request of the defendant, it provided its services till 21.11.2005 with the hope that its outstanding payments of Rs. 21,60,442/- would be realized and since the same was not liquidated the plaintiff issued the legal notice dated 10.03.2006. As per the plaintiff, despite the legal notice the defendants have not paid any amount to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has submitted that it had complied with the terms of the contract and no complaint whatsoever was received from districts/units against the plaintiff and the said complaints were not even forwarded upon the plaintiff during the tenure of the Contract and the complaints are fabricated. As per the plaintiff, even the alleged show cause notice dated 14.11.2005, is an afterthought and has been issued so as to take shelter behind and not to liquidate the due liability of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has denied all the allegations as leveled against it by the defendants including using of inferior quality parts or having forged the signatures of Information Technology Centre Staff or non-deposit of the replaced part or not attending the calls of the defendants. The plaintiff has categorically stated that all Anti Hard Disc Crash Software was loaded on all CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 12 / 32 computers and not even one hard disc crashed during the tenure of the Contract and also that all the bills were duly submitted to the districts/units separately. The plaintiff has denied having received payments which are due and payable to it and has denied any deficiency of service on its part. The plaintiff has also denied that the defendants got its computer repaired from other agencies during the tenure of the Contract.
ADMISSION & DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
6. The plaintiff has originally filed 11 documents, who pursuant to the application filed under Order VII Rule 14 (3) CPC having been allowed had filed additional document commencing w.e.f Ex. P-12 to Ex. P-491. The defendants had filed affidavit by way of admission denial of documents and had admitted Ex. P-1 (Award of the Contract) and had also admitted the letter dated 12.09.2005. The defendant has filed detailed affidavit by way of admission denial of documents, perusal of which goes to show that certain documents have been admitted and some documents have been denied on the ground that the bills have not been submitted by the firm. Denial has also been made to the various invoices on the ground that the bills submitted does not relate to AMC contract. Denial has also not been made on the ground that as per the report no outstanding bill is pending. Denial has also been made on the ground that bills have been returned to the firm for removal of the CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 13 / 32 observations and have not been submitted back. However, majority of the invoices have simplicitor been denied without assigning any reason. As recorded vide order dated 26.05.2012, the defendant has admitted 480 documents of the plaintiff which have been marked as Ex. P-12 to Ex. P-491. ISSUES
7. Vide order dated 20.07.2010, the following issues had been framed for adjudication :-
1. Whether the suit is barred by the limitation? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of an amount of Rs. 21,60,442/- from the defendant? OPP
3. If issue no. (ii) is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitle to pendente lite and future interest @ 18%, if so, for what period? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to refund of security deposit of Rs. 50,000/- ? OPP
5. Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
8. The plaintiff, in order to prove its case had examined only one witness i.e. Sh. Tarun Seth as PW-1, who entered into the witness box as Ex. PW1/A, who relied upon the documents i.e. Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/9 and Ex. P-11 as well as invoices Ex. P-12 to Ex. P-491 and also relied upon the following documents :-
CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 14 / 32 S No Exhibits/Marks Documents
1. PW-1/1 (Ex. PW-1/1) Resolution dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Board of Directors of plaintiff company.
2. PW-1/2 (stands deleted)
3. PW1/3(Ex. PW-1/A) Award letter dated 06.09.2004.
4. PW1/4 (Ex. PW-1/2) A letter dated 07.12.2005.
5. PW-5 (stands deleted)
6. P-7 (Ex. PW-1/3) Reply to Show Cause Notice
7. PW-1/6 (Ex. PW-1/4 Postal receipts with AD cards.
(colly)
8. PW-1/7 (stands deleted)
9. PW1/8 (Ex. PW-1/5 Postal receipts with AD Cards (colly)
10. PW-1/9 (Ex. PW-1/6) Copy of reply dated 14.07.2008.
11. PW1/11 (Ex.PW-1/7) Letter dated 16.03.2006.
9. Thereafter, PW-1 was duly cross-examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the defendants on subsequent dates and vide separate statement of the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, PE was closed on 07.09.2017.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
10. The defendant, in order to prove its case had examined only one witness. Sh. Venu Gopal, ACP (HQ), Provisioning & Logistics, was examined as DW-1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. Ex. DW-1/1 (already Ex. P-1) (Agreement CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 15 / 32 dated 03.09.2004) and DW-1/2 is the Show Cause Notice dated 14.11.2005. The said witness was duly cross-examined by the counsel for the plaintiff and vide separate statement of the Ld. Counsel for defendant, DE was closed on 06.02.2018 and the matter was listed for final arguments. ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS
11. I have heard Sh. A.B Pandey Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. Shailesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the defendant at length and have gone through the record.
MY ISSUE-WISE FINDING IS AS UNDER:
Issue No.1 : Whether the suit is barred by the limitation? OPD
12. It is an admitted position between the parties that vide agreement dated 03.09.2004, the contract of service / repair / maintenance of computers/printers/UPSs and related peripherals and virus prevention and detection and removal from the computers of Delhi Police was awarded to the plaintiff for the period commencing w.e.f 03.09.2004 and ending on 02.09.2005 i.e. for a period of one year. It is also an admitted position that vide letter dated 20.09.2005 (Ex.P-3) the plaintiff was given the extension of contract till the finalization of the new contract. It is also an admitted position of fact that vide letter dated 04.10.2005, the plaintiff expressed its unwillingness to further extend the contract for a further period. The contract CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 16 / 32 thus remained in force uptill 10.10.2005 and thereafter, the plaintiff consequent upon the letter dated 07.10.2005 as issued by the defendant agreed to continue its services uptill 31.10.2005. Thereafter, the plaintiff vide letter dated 11.11.2005, agreed to further extend the contract uptill 21.11.2005. Since, the invoices as raised by the plaintiff were not paid initially the plaintiff filed a suit bearing No. 1946/2006 titled as "Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Police & Ors." for the recovery of Rs. 21,60,442/- alongwith interest @ 18% from the date of the invoices, however, since the defendants in that suit had taken an objection to the effect that notice under 80 CPC had not been provided, hence, in order to avoid any technical objection the said suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff with liberty to institute the same as per law. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued the legal notice dated 01.07.2008 and had instituted the present suit before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 01.09.2008. Thereafter, in view of the objections raised by the Registry of Hon'ble High Court Delhi, the said objections were cured from time to time and vide order dated 01.12.2008 the delay in re-filing the suit was condoned by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. With the condonation of the delay in re- filing the suit, the suit which has been filed in respect of the contract which remained in force between the parties till 21.11.2005, the suit which was filed on 01.09.2008 remained within the period of limitation of 03 years i.e. w.e.f CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 17 / 32 21.11.2005 till 01.09.2008. Thus, the contention of the defendants that the suit is barred by limitation is clearly misconceived with the delay in re-filing the suit having been condoned by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 01.12.2008. The present issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue No. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of an amount of Rs. 21,60,442/- from the defendant? OPP
13. The plaintiff claims to have entered into an agreement dated 06.09.2004 vide which it was awarded the contract of annual maintenance for the purposes of service, repair, maintenance of computers/printers/UPS and related peripheral and virus prevention/detention and removal of all types of old and new viruses in various departments of Delhi Police. The said agreement was for a period w.e.f 03.09.2004 to 02.09.2005 and under the said agreement the plaintiff furnished FDR towards the security money for an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. As per the plaintiff, it fulfilled its part of the contractual obligations to the satisfaction of the defendants and looking into the same the defendant extended the contract period for further term. As stated in the findings on the previous issue, the contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants remained in force till 21.11.2005. As per the plaintiff, the plaintiff company raised various bills at the rates agreed upon with the defendants and as per its books of accounts an amount of Rs. CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 18 / 32 21,60,442/- remained due and outstanding which has not been paid to the plaintiff despite running from pillar to post and despite assurances made by the defendants. Aggrieved by the non-liquidation of amounts of its bills, the plaintiff had also issued legal notice dated 10.03.2006 and despite the same no payment has been made by the defendants to the plaintiff and as such plaintiff has claimed an amount of Rs. 21,60,442/- together @ 18 % towards pre suit, pendentelite and future interest. The defendants in its written statement has taken the stand that the plaintiff failed to provide the satisfactory services and has thus failed to follow the terms and conditions of the agreement as entered into. It is further the stand of the defendants that a show cause notice dated 14.11.2005 was also issued to the plaintiff for its failure to provide satisfactory services. It has been the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff has not submitted their quarterly bills and all the payments due, stands paid to the plaintiff. It is further the stand of the defendant that in the absence of verification by the Units, no bill was due and payable to the plaintiff.
14. The plaintiff in support of his case has relied upon the ledger account maintained by it including the invoices and the call report/service call/ feed back reports. The defendant has admitted some of the invoices commencing w.e.f Ex. P-12 to Ex. P-50. The defendant has also admitted the service CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 19 / 32 call/feed back reports commencing w.e.f Ex P-51 to Ex. P-491. The plaintiff in support of its case has examined PW-1, who has deposed on the lines of the plaint and has placed reliance of Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex. P-491. He has categorically deposed that receiving of the invoices is on the record of the invoices itself. He has also deposed in his cross-examination that all the call reports have been submitted and all the invoices alongwith receipts are duly signed on behalf of the defendant, which include the invoices for preventive maintenance. He has categorically deposed that the plaintiff has raised bills every quarter and has placed on record the invoices which has been raised. PW-1 has categorically deposed that the contract expired on 02.09.2005 and yet the defendants have requested for an extension of the same, who however, have not paid their previous dues, hence the plaintiff stopped giving services from October 2005. He has also deposed that their demands based upon the invoices was duly accepted by the department alongwith preventive maintenance report. PW-1 has categorically deposed that the bills used to be raised by Financial Department of the plaintiff company and were submitted by the Service Team after each quarter. He has categorically denied that the bills as raised by the plaintiff were not supported with the call report and not verified by the various units of the Delhi Police.
15. No suggestion whatsoever has been put to the said witness to the effect CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 20 / 32 that the plaintiff firm had not provided any services to the defendant. No suggestion has been given to PW-1 that the bills as raised and filed on record are forged and fabricated and have not been submitted to the defendant. With the documents placed on record i.e. the invoices and the service call/feed back reports duly accompanied with a detailed ledger maintained by the plaintiff, thus, the plaintiff was able to establish the fact that in fact goods/services have been provided to various departments/units of the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff was able to successfully shift the onus of prove upon the defendant, who as per their stand taken in the written statement were required to prove on record that the invoices as raised by the plaintiff upon the defendant were either not raised or that the plaintiff failed to supply the goods and services to the defendant which has duly been acknowledged by the defendant in the service call/ feed back reports or that the defendant on account of the failure on the part of the plaintiff to provide services was compelled to take services from other agencies on extra payment. Although the defendant has stated in the written statement that payment to the plaintiff is made quarterly by the districts/units, however, no proof whatsoever has been placed on record by the defendant substantiating that it had made any payment to the plaintiff and the defendant has merely stated that the quarterly bills have not been submitted to the units, however, PW-1 has clearly testified CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 21 / 32 that the plaintiff has raised bills every quarter i.e. the invoices which has been placed on record.
16. The defendant has not placed any record what so ever of the concerned districts/units showing that what invoices had been submitted to them since the service call/feed back reports clearly shows that goods and services have been provided to the various departments/units of the defendant. The entire thrust of the defence of the defendant is that satisfactory services have not been provided to it by the plaintiff firm which is clearly belied by the service call/feed back reports where it is clearly mentioned that the defendant was satisfied with the goods and services as provided by the defendant. The defendant has no where disputed that the service call/feed back reports have been manipulated by the plaintiff. DW-1 in his examination in chief has no where stated that either no bills had been submitted by the plaintiff on a quarterly basis or that the service call/ feed back reports were forged and fabricated or that goods under the invoices had not been supplied. Without any basis, DW-1 in his examination in chief has merely stated that there was discrepancies in the bills as submitted by the plaintiff, who has not denied that the bills in fact had not been submitted by the plaintiff. DW-1 has not at all disclosed as to what was the discrepancies in the bills as submitted by the plaintiff. DW-1 has nowhere deposed that service call/feed back reports were CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 22 / 32 forged and fabricated or that the invoices which have been placed on record by the plaintiff duly supported by the ledger accounts are forged and fabricated. DW-1 in his cross-examination has clearly stated that he has not been personally involved in the transaction and is deposing on the basis of records available with the department.
17. DW-1 on his cross-examination has admitted the fact that the contract was extended upto 21.11.2005 and that the plaintiff dis-continued the services on 21.11.2005. He has failed to prove on record any complaints made by the user units to the effect that there were any discrepancy/deficiency in the services as provided by the plaintiff. DW-1 has even failed to prove that any complaints allegedly received by the department was forwarded or made to the plaintiff directly. DW-1 even failed to prove that any penalties have ever been levied or communicated to the plaintiff. DW-1 also could not prove that any payment has ever been made to the plaintiff as per the contract. Thus, in the absence of any documentary evidence or any other material to support that the plaintiff has either not supplied the good/services or that it had not raised its invoices in terms of the terms and conditions of the contract merely on the basis of alleged non communicated complaints made and that too at the fag end of the contract, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has either not supplied the goods and services, against which invoices have been raised by CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 23 / 32 the plaintiff which besides the same are duly supported by the services/feed back reports which shows that various goods and services stands supplied and provided to various department and units of the defendant. DW-1 had no answer as to why the Deputy Commissioner of Police Prov. & Logistic vide his letter dated 07.10.2005 (Ex.P-4) and 13.10.2005 (Ex. P-5) has directed to the various districts / units of Delhi police to make the payments of the plaintiff on account of providing service / repair / maintenance of computers and related peripherals which were pending in such districts/ units. DW-1 has merely stated it being a matter of record that no payments has ever been made to the plaintiff as per the contract.
18. The defendant, thus, has grossly failed to prove that there was any deficiency on the part of the plaintiff to provide satisfactory goods/services to the defendant since in none of the service call/feedback reports any dis- satisfaction with the services as provided by the Plaintiff has been mentioned. The defendant has grossly failed to prove on record that it had made any payments to the plaintiff. Nowhere in the written statement or in the deposition of DW-1, it is the case of the defendant that the various invoices were in fact not raised upon the defendant who has further failed to prove that due to the failure on the part of the plaintiff in providing the services etc., it had to obtain the services of any other agency. The service/feedback reports CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 24 / 32 clearly belie the stand of the defendants which clearly record that the various unit/departments were satisfied with the services of the plaintiff.
19. The plaintiff besides the aforesaid has duly proved the fact that the contract dated 03.09.2004 was further extended by the defendants i.e. the letter dated 20.09.2005 whereby the plaintiff has been requested by the defendant to continue to provide the services as per the terms and conditions of the contract. The defendant since has admitted its letter dt 07.10.2005 which was written in response to the letter dt 04.10.2005 by the plaintiff which is self explanatory of the conduct of the defendant. Vide letter dt 04.10.2005 the plaintiff has brought to the notice of the defendants that they have not received any amount for the bills submitted by the plaintiff and that despite several requests to all concerned for the release of the payment, its payments have not been released. The plaintiff vide the aforesaid letter informed the defendants that they would not be in a position to continue providing the services in lieu of non liquidation of the bills as submitted by the plaintiff.
20. The defendant vide its admitted letter dt 07.10.2005 has informed the plaintiff that all the district/units have been requested to make the necessary payments at the earliest and a request was made to the plaintiff not to withdraw its engineers. Vide letter dt 13.10.2005 which has been admitted by CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 25 / 32 the defendants, directions have been issued to all Deputy Commissioner of Police, HQ, all districts/units including FRRO and P/PTC to make the necessary payments to the plaintiff at the earliest so that the plaintiff is able to provide services and the Government work be not suffered which has been reiterated vide its letter dt 24.10.2005 and 09.11.2005. The defendants instead of making the due payments to the plaintiff on the other hand issued the show cause notice dt 14.11.2005 to the plaintiff calling upon the plaintiff to show cause as to why the plaintiff be not black-listed and its security money be not forfeited to which a reply has been given by the plaintiff once again requesting to release its payments.
21. The conduct of the defendants is self explanatory who on one hand had availed the services as provided by the plaintiff yet on the other hand had issued show cause notice so as to take a flimsy plea alleging non providing of satisfactory services so as to delay and defeat the legitimate payments against the invoices as raised by the plaintiff for the services provided as evidenced from the service/feedback report. As stated above the defendant has not filed any proof of payment having been made to the plaintiff under Ex P-1 who neither could prove that any penalty has been imposed upon the plaintiff during the tenure of original contract i.e. till 02.09.2005. The defendant has also not produced any evidence of the record maintained by it /its units of CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 26 / 32 any of the bills as submitted by the plaintiff, who in its affidavit by way of admission and denial of documents has merely stated that the bills submitted by the firm does not relate to AMC contract or has denied the invoices as raised by the plaintiff simplicitor without disclosing any reason. The defendant has not been able to prove that the bills as submitted by the plaintiff did not pertain to the AMC contract. As stated in the foregoing the defendant since has not submitted any record of the bills submitted by the plaintiff and as maintained by the defendant and its units, hence, there is no basis whatsoever for the defendant to have contended that the bills have not been submitted by the plaintiff dehors the testimony of PW-1. Thus on the scale of preponderance of probabilities, the plaintiff has been able to establish its case and who is thus entitled to the payments as per the invoices raised by it duly supported by the service/feedback reports and evidenced by the ledger account filed by it. Thus, the plaintiff is held entitled to an amount of Rs 21,60,442/- as claimed in the present suit. The present issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. 3 :If issue no. (ii) is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitle to pendente lite and future interest @ 18%, if so, for what period? OPP
22. The plaintiff, in his suit, has claimed interest @ 18% from the date of the invoices till the date of filing of the suit i.e. on 01.09.2008 and pendent- CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 27 / 32 lite and future interest till the date of its realization. However, perusal of the contract as executed between the parties show that there has been no agreed rate of interest on the delayed payments. Thus, in the absence of any contractual having been agreed between the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the interest claimed by the plaintiff is on the excessive side. The plaintiff however is held entitled to reasonable rate of interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of the respective invoices till the date of filing of the suit.
23. Section 34 of CPC provides for grant of interest pendente-lite at any rate not exceeding 6% and future interest at any rate not exceeding contractual rate and if there is no contractual rate than not exceeding the rate at which nationalized banks advance loan.
24. Thus keeping in mind the said provisions, interest of justice would be served if plaintiff is granted simple interest @ 9% per annum for the pendente-lite period i.e. from the date of institution of the suit till the passing of the decree. The plaintiffs shall also be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum towards future interest from the date of the passing of the decree till its actual realization. The interest @ 9% is being granted keeping in view the fact that the transaction between the parties was a commercial transaction and the plaintiff has been denied the fruits of his investment due CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 28 / 32 to the wrongful non liquidation of the bills submitted and not paid. The present issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue No. 4 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to refund of security deposit of Rs. 50,000/- ? OPP
25. The present case reflects the exercise of might by the defendants who instead of liquidating the lawful dues of the plaintiff, instead has chosen to issue a show cause notice dt 14.11.2005 i.e. much after the expiry of original contract i.e. 02.09.2005 which was extended by the defendant itself vide its letter dt 20.09.2005 whereby the plaintiff has been requested by the defendant to continue to provide the services as per the terms and condition of the contract. The defendant since has admitted its letter dt 07.10.2005 which was written in response to the letter dt 04.10.2005 by the plaintiff is self explanatory of the conduct of the defendant. Vide letter dt 04.10.2005 the plaintiff has brought to the notice of the defendant that they have not received any amount for the bills submitted by the plaintiff and that despite several requests to all concerned for the release of the payment, its payment have not been released. The plaintiff vide the aforesaid letter informed the defendant that they would not be in a position to continue providing the services in view of non liquidation of the bills as submitted by the plaintiff. The defendants vide its admitted letter dt 07.10.2005 has informed the plaintiff that all the district/units have been requested to make the necessary payments at the CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 29 / 32 earliest and a request was made to the plaintiff not to withdraw its engineers. Vide letter dt 13.10.2005, which has been admitted by the defendants directions have been issued to all Deputy Commissioner of Police, HQ, all districts/units including FRRO and P/PTC to make the necessary payments to the plaintiff at the earliest so that the plaintiff is able to provide services and the Government work be not suffered which has been reiterated vide its letter dt 24.10.2005 and 09.11.2005. The defendant instead of making the due payments to the plaintiff on the other hand issued the show cause notice dt 14.11.2005 to the plaintiff calling upon the plaintiff to show cause as to why the plaintiff be not black-listed and its security money be not forfeited to which a reply has been given by the plaintiff once again requesting to release its payments.
26. The plaintiff vide its letter dt 21.11.2005 duly replied to the said show notice. Thereafter there has been on communication whatsoever from the side of the defendant as to whether any decision has been taken by the defendant with respect to the forfeiture of the security deposit which as per the admitted case of the parties was deposited by the plaintiff vide FDR receipt No AB/COM/B 0432714 dt 27.08.2004. Since the aforesaid security deposit has not been forfeited by the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of security deposit deposited with the defendants who have failed to prove that CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 30 / 32 there has been any deficiency on the part of the plaintiff to provided satisfactory services as per the service/feedback report which clearly specifies that all throughout satisfactory services has been provided to the various units/departments of the defendant. Thus, the present issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
RELIEF:-
27. In view of the discussion herein above, the plaintiff is entitled to following relief(s) :-
1. A Decree of Rs. 21,60,442/-( towards bills/invoices) + 50,000/-
( towards security deposit) is passed in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants which shall be payable by the defendants.
2. The plaintiff is granted simple interest interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of the respective invoices till the date of filing of the suit. The Plaintiff is also granted simple interest @ 9% per annum for the pendente-lite period i.e. from the date of institution of the suit till the passing of the decree. The plaintiffs shall also be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum towards future interest from the date of the passing of the decree till its actual realization.
3. The plaintiff is also entitled to the costs of the suit.
28. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 31 / 32
29. File be consigned to record room, after necessary legal formalities. Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN SOOD SOOD Date:
2026.04.30 15:56:57 +0530 Pronounced in the Open Court (SACHIN SOOD) on 30.04.2026. DJ-01(Central)/THC Delhi.
CS No.16681/2016 M/s. Hitachi System Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Page no. 32 / 32