Delhi District Court
Shivangi Aggarwal vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 3 January, 2026
Shivangi Aggarwal Vs. MCD And Anr.
DLCT010077392025
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK GARG,
DISTRICT JUDGE-COMMERCIAL COURT-09
(CENTRAL DISTRICT), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CIVIL SUIT (COMMERCIAL) NO.:- 613/2025
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Shivangi Aggarwal
Sole Proprietor of
M/s Devansh Enterprises
Through SPA Sh. Yogesh Aggarwal
RZ-696, Gali No. 4, Main Sagarpur,
Delhi-110046 ... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1.Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through Its Commissioner 9th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002
2. The Executive Engineer (M-III) Central Zone Municipal Corporation of Delhi Jal Vihar, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi-110024 ... Defendants SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.36,58,979/-
Date of institution : 27/05/2025
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 22/12/2025
Date of Judgment : 03/01/2026
CS (Comm.) No. 613/2025 Page 1 of 17
Shivangi Aggarwal Vs. MCD And Anr.
::- J U D G M E N T -::
1. By way of present judgment, this court shall adjudi-
cate upon suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.36,58,979/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 12% per annum.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
2. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present suit, as stated in the plaint, are as under:-
i. The plaintiff is the sole proprietor of M/s De- vansh Enterprises which is duly enrolled as Munici- pal Contractor with the M.C.D and is also registered under Delhi GST Act, 2017. The plaintiff has been executing work orders of civil nature for the defen- dants since long. Sh. Yogesh Aggarwal, Special Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff has filed the present suit who is competent and well conver- sant with the facts and circumstances of the case.
ii. The defendant no. 1 i.e. MCD is a body corpo- rate of state of Delhi, established and governed un- der MCD Act. The suit is being filed against the de- fendants through its Commissioner who is in charge CS (Comm.) No. 613/2025 Page 2 of 17 Shivangi Aggarwal Vs. MCD And Anr.
of all the acts and day to day business of the defen- dants.
iii. The work orders, in respect of which the present suit is being filed were awarded to the plain- tiff by the defendant no. 2 but since the defendant no. 1 is the overall in charge of all the activities of the MCD and the work orders in question were also awarded by the defendant no. 2 to the plaintiff and on behalf of the defendant no. 1, therefore, the de- fendant no. 1 is the necessary and proper party for just adjudication of the present suit.
iv. The plaintiff being the Government Contractor approached for the work orders through tender which was invited by the defendant no. 2. The de- fendant no. 2, after the satisfaction of the comple- tion of the required conditions at the stage of pre- work orders, awarded different work orders No. 65, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 49, 51, 70, 25, 32, 33, 49 & 50 on different dates for the nature of work as men-
tioned in the said work orders, to the plaintiff for and on behalf of defendant no. 1.
v. After award of the said work orders, the plain- tiff has entered into an agreement with the defen-
CS (Comm.) No. 613/2025 Page 3 of 17Shivangi Aggarwal Vs. MCD And Anr.
dants pertaining to the said work orders as a precon- dition of the award of the work orders. The plaintiff completed the aforesaid work orders on different dates as mentioned in para 6 of the plaint to the sat- isfaction of the Engineer-in-Charge i.e. defendant no. 2. The period prescribed for defect liability also passed over without any negative remark and to the satisfaction of the defendant no. 2 who issued is- sued completion certificate.
vi. The defendant no. 2 has also completed the fi- nal measurement of the work as mentioned in the work orders and the plaintiff firm has submitted the bill for the aforesaid work orders and the bills per- taining to the same were passed and recorded in the measurement books which were accepted by the plaintiff. But the defendant no. 2 deducted the secu- rity amount in the passed bills with respect to the work orders in question.
vii. As precondition of the award of work order, the plaintiff had also deposited the security/earnest money with regard to work orders in question. Thus the total amount payable by the defendants includ- ing amount of withheld amount of bills in question CS (Comm.) No. 613/2025 Page 4 of 17 Shivangi Aggarwal Vs. MCD And Anr.
and security/earnest money comes to Rs.24,70,577/-.
viii. Despite of passing of the aforesaid bills, nei- ther the aforesaid outstanding payments were re- leased to the plaintiff nor he was informed about the reasons of withholding the aforesaid payment. The plaintiff made several requests for release of the amount of the aforesaid passed bills and the secu- rity amount but all in vain.
ix. Since the defendants neglected to make the payments, the plaintiff got served a Legal Notice dated 22.10.2024 to the defendants calling upon to remit the amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The said notice was duly delivered upon the said defendants but the defendants neither complied nor replied the same.
x. As per clause 9 of the General Terms and Conditions of the tender documents, the defendants are liable to release the payment of the passed bills within the period of 6/9 months and also to release the earnest/security amount as per the clause 45 of the General Terms and Conditions.
CS (Comm.) No. 613/2025 Page 5 of 17Shivangi Aggarwal Vs. MCD And Anr.
xi. The defendants are liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on entire outstanding amount of Rs.24,70,577/-. The amount of interest accrued on the aforesaid amount is Rs.11,88,402/- from 14.12.23 to 14.05.25 for all the work orders in ques- tion. Thus the total suit amount including principal and interest is Rs.36,58,979/-. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendants.
DEFENDANT'S CASE
3. In the written statement, the defendants contended inter alia that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dis- missed as it is premature and for want of cause of action. The defendants further contended that the defendant had issued Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for certain works, which set outs the relevant terms and conditions and makes it clear that the General Conditions of Contract and Special Conditions of Contract shall be applicable. Though, the defendant admitted having awarded the Work Orders in question to the plaintiff, however, it is submitted that the plaintiff has claimed Rs.36,58,979/- from the defendants which is wrongly calculated by him and the actual outstanding amount is Rs.24,22,399/-.
4. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has erro-
neously mentioned Rs.68,371/- as the amount received by CS (Comm.) No. 613/2025 Page 6 of 17 Shivangi Aggarwal Vs. MCD And Anr.
the plaintiff as security amount for work order no. 65 dated 03.01.2020, however the correct amount which was given to the plaintiff was Rs.48,525/- against the security/earnest money for the said work order.
5. It is further stated that the plaintiff has nowhere mentioned that Rs.48,178/- was paid to the plaintiff by the defendant on 07.06.2024 as the security/earnest money for work order no. 51 dated 27.05.21.
6. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has not sub-
mitted any final bills that he was contractually required to in terms of Clause 7 & 9 of the General Conditions and Special Conditions of Contract (GCC) & Clause 4 of the work order and the suit is without any cause of action.
7. It is further submitted that as the plaintiff has failed to comply with Clauses 17 & 45 of the GCC, he is not entitled to refund of security deposit.
REPLICATION
8. Plaintiff has filed the replication controverting the al-
legations of the defendants in the written statement and the contents of the plaint has been reiterated and reaf- firmed.
CS (Comm.) No. 613/2025 Page 7 of 17Shivangi Aggarwal Vs. MCD And Anr.
ISSUES
9. On the basis of the pleadings following issues were set-
tled on 17.09.2025 :
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for the recovery of the amount as claimed in the plaint? (OPP) ii. If the issue no. (i) is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the pendente-lite and fu ture interest, if so at what rate and for what period?
(OPP)
iii. Relief.
EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF
10. In order to prove its case, plaintiff has examined himself as Sh. Yogesh Aggarwal, attorney holder as PW1 who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and has relied upon the documents as under:
i Copy of registration certificate of the plaintiff firm is Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
ii. Copy of GST registration certificate of the plaintiff firm is Ex.PW1/2.
iii. Copy of Special Power of Attorney dated 17.10.24 executed by the plaintiff in my favour is Ex.PW1/3 (OSR).CS (Comm.) No. 613/2025 Page 8 of 17
Shivangi Aggarwal Vs. MCD And Anr.
iv. Copy of all the work orders in question are Ex.PW1/4 (colly.) (Page no. 31 to 45) v. Copy of bill passed by the defendant for work order no. 65 is Ex.PW1/5.
vi. Copy of bill passed by the defendants for work order no. 76 is Ex.PW1/6.
vii. Copy of bill passed by the defendants for work order no. 77 is Ex.PW1/7.
viii. Copy of bill passed by the defendants for work order no. 78 is Ex.PW1/8.
ix. Copy of bill passed by the defendants for work order no. 79 is Ex.PW1/9.
x. Copy of bill passed by the defendants for work order no. 82 is Ex.PW1/10.
xi. Copy of bill passed by the defendants for work order no. 83 is Ex.PW1/11.
xii. Copy of bill passed by the defendants for work order no. 49 is Ex.PW1/12.
xiii. Copy of bill passed by the defendants for work order no. 51 is Ex.PW1/13.
xiv. Copy of bill passed by the defendants for work order no. 70 is Ex.PW1/14.
xv. Copy of bill passed by the defendants for work order no. 25 is Ex.PW1/15.
xvi. Copy of bill passed by the defendants for work order no. 32 is Ex.PW1/16.
CS (Comm.) No. 613/2025 Page 9 of 17Shivangi Aggarwal Vs. MCD And Anr.
xvii. Copy of bill passed by the defendants for work order no. 33 is Ex.PW1/17.
xviii. Copy of bill passed by the defendants for work order no. 49 is Ex.PW1/18.
xix. Copy of bill passed by the defendants for work order no. 50 is Ex.PW1/19.
xx. Copy of relevant pages of General terms and conditions of MCD is Ex.PW1/20.
xxi. Copy os legal notice dated 22.10.24 along with the postal receipt is Ex.PW1/21 (colly.) xxii. Non-starter Report dated 05.05.25 is Ex.PW1/22.
11. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant and the same shall be discussed in the later part of this judgment.
EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT
12. In order to prove its case, defendants have not examined any witness in its defence despite of opportunity given to them.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS Issue No. 1
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the amount as claimed in the plaint? (OPP) CS (Comm.) No. 613/2025 Page 10 of 17 Shivangi Aggarwal Vs. MCD And Anr.
13. The onus of proving this issue was on the plaintiff.
14. It is the case of the defendants that suit of the plain-
tiff is pre-mature and he is not entitled to the suit amount for want of submitting the final bills for pay- ment. Reliance is placed upon the judgment in the case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. San- jeev Kumar RFA No. 430/2017 decided on 22.03.2018.
15. It is the case of the plaintiff that the present suit has been filed in respect of work orders No. 65, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 49, 51, 70, 25, 32, 33, 49 & 50 and first running bill was passed by the defendant corporation but the defendant has not cleared the entire amount and still an amount of Rs.24,70,577 is outstanding against the defendants towards the work orders in question. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the security de- posit amount in respect of the said work orders also re- mains to be paid by the defendant. This is not disputed by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant as well.
16. At the stage of plaintiff's evidence, it is submitted by Ld. counsel for the defendant/MCD that the defendant has already made substantial payment to the plaintiff CS (Comm.) No. 613/2025 Page 11 of 17 Shivangi Aggarwal Vs. MCD And Anr.
and the plaintiff has received the entire amount in question except Rs.1,39,392/- being the security de- posit and Rs.25,000/- being the withheld amount.
17. PW1 has admitted the same in his cross-examination where he has admitted that the plaintiff has received the entire amount in question except Rs.1,39,392/- be- ing the security deposit and Rs.25,000/- being the withheld amount.
18. The plaintiff in his testimony as PW1 has categori-
cally deposed that he immediately after the award of work orders made all the necessary arrangements for the execution and completion of the awarded work or- ders and completed the said work orders before the stipulated time. He further deposed that the work was completed by the plaintiff to the satisfaction of officials of the defendant and the period prescribed for defect li- ability also passed over without any negative remark and to the satisfaction of the officials of the defendant. He further deposed that the defendant completed the final measurement of the aforesaid work recorded in measurement books, thereafter the officials of defen- dant prepared and passed the running bill pertaining to the aforesaid work order and same was accepted by the plaintiff.
CS (Comm.) No. 613/2025 Page 12 of 17Shivangi Aggarwal Vs. MCD And Anr.
19. The issue of award of work orders No. 65, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 49, 51, 70, 25, 32, 33, 49 & 50 to the plaintiff, the plaintiff having completed the said work orders within time without any negative remark, final measurements of the work also carried out by the de- fendants and the preparation of the running bills in re- spect of the said work have not been denied by the de- fendants.
20. Nothing has been brought on record by the defen-
dants to prove that the plaintiff is not entitled to the re- lief sought in respect of the said work order No. 65, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 49, 51, 70, 25, 32, 33, 49 & 50. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1 and in view of unrebutted and unchallanged documents proved by the plaintiff in respect of the said said work orders No. 65, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 49, 51, 70, 25, 32, 33, 49 & 50.
21. Thus, after the admission of defendant regarding payment of amount of first & final bills except Rs.25,000/- being withheld amount to the plaintiff in respect of the said work orders No. 65, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 49, 51, 70, 25, 32, 33, 49 & 50, the plea of de- fendant about non-submission of final bill has no CS (Comm.) No. 613/2025 Page 13 of 17 Shivangi Aggarwal Vs. MCD And Anr.
merit. The plaintiff is held entitled to the payment of Rs.25,000/- (withheld amount for work orders in ques- tion).
22. Coming to the issue of refund of security deposit and earnest money in respect of said work orders, the de- fendants have taken a plea that plaintiff is not entitled to refund for security for want of compliance of Clause 17 and 45 of GCC.
23. In this regard, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Rajnish Yadav, Proprietor of M/s Bharat Con- struction Co. (supra) has observed as under :-
25. ........... There is no dispute that the security deposit is refundable to the appellant/plaintiff and the same could be withheld only to secure MCD against any claims due to non-perfor-
mance of the statutory obligations on the part of the appellant/plaintiff. There is no material to indicate that the appellant/plaintiff has not cleared its due towards labour or any other statutory levy. A considerable amount of time has lapsed since the contract was complete. Admittedly, no claim has been made against MCD on account of any acts of commission or omission on the part of the appellant/plaintiff. Denying the appellant's/plaintiff's claim in this context would amount to permitting MCD to appropriate the security amount. Admit- tedly, there are no grounds for MCD to appro- priate the security deposit. Thus, the same is required to be refunded to the appellant/plain- tiff.
CS (Comm.) No. 613/2025 Page 14 of 17Shivangi Aggarwal Vs. MCD And Anr.
24. As stated above, no evidence has been led by the de-
fendant.
25. Hence, there is no evidence of the defendant on record with regard to non submission of any labour clearance certificate and it is also relevant here to state that nothing has been placed on record by defendants to bring out that plaintiff has failed to clear the dues to- wards labour or any other statutory levy in respect of the said work orders. Admittedly, no claim has been made against defendants/MCD on account of any acts of commission or omission on the part of plaintiff and thus in these facts and circumstances as well as in view of the observations made in the judgment of Rajnish Yadav, Proprietor of M/s Bharat Construction Co. (supra), plaintiff is also entitled to refund of the secu- rity deposit and earnest money of Rs.1,39,392/- qua the said work orders subject to statutory deductions by the MCD, if any.
26. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue No. 3(iii) If the issue no. (ii) is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the pendente-
CS (Comm.) No. 613/2025 Page 15 of 17Shivangi Aggarwal Vs. MCD And Anr.
lite and future interest, if so at what rate and for what period? (OPP)
27. Ld. counsel appearing for the defendants states that as per Clause 7 of the agreement, defendants are not li- able to pay interest. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel appearing for the plaintiff urges that since the defen- dants failed to make payment within a period of 9 months, the defendants are liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the entire outstanding amount.
28. It is relevant to state that the plaintiff has not fur-
nished any evidence of payment of GST on the bills in question. It is clear that GST is not paid on the said bills by the plaintiff in respect of work orders in ques- tion. However, since the defendants have themselves made substantial payment to the plaintiff with respect to work orders in question, this Court did not not deem it fit to delve into the point of non payment of GST on the bills in question, while deciding the claim of the plaintiff for the principal amount in respect to the said work orders but as far as the claim of interest is con- cerned, in my view, in the absence of GST paid bills, this Court does not deem it fit to grant past interest on the said amount.
Issue No. 4 CS (Comm.) No. 613/2025 Page 16 of 17Shivangi Aggarwal Vs. MCD And Anr.
(iv)Relief.
29. In terms of the foregoing observations, with respect to the work orders No. 65, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 49, 51, 70, 25, 32, 33, 49 & 50, defendants are directed to pay as under :
(i) an amount of Rs.25,000/- (withheld amount) in respect of the first & final bills in question within four weeks from today failing which interest @ 8% p.a. shall be payable till realization.
(ii) further the defendants would refund the security deposit and earnest money of Rs.1,39,392/- in respect of the said work orders within four weeks from today failing which interest @ 8% p.a. shall be payable till realization.
30. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
31. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK GARG Date:
GARG 2026.01.03
15:52:56
+0530
Announced in the open Court on (Deepak Garg)
Day of 03rd January, 2026 Distt. Judge, (Comm. Court)-09,
Central District, THC : Delhi
CS (Comm.) No. 613/2025 Page 17 of 17