Delhi District Court
Sukura Dads Security And Allied ... vs Container Corporation Of India Ltd on 20 September, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHUPESH KUMAR: DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURTS)-05, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET
COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ. 773/2021
In the matter :
1. M/S. "SUKURA" DADS SECURITY & ALLIED SERVICES LTD.
Previously Reg. office:
RZ-444E, Raj Nagar - II, Palam Colony,
New Delhi-110045
Presently Residing at:
4 L/201, AWHO,
Gurjinder Vihar, Pocket 5, CHI 1,
Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida, 201315, U.P.
... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Through CMD
Reg. Office:
M/S CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA
International Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi
E-Mail: [email protected]
Corporate Office:-
NSIC New MDBP Building, 3rd Floor,
Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110020.
E-mail: [email protected]
2. Container Corporation of India Ltd.
Though Chief Manager
Domestic Container Terminal Okhla Phase-II
New Delhi-110 020
E-Mail:[email protected]
....Defendant
Date of Institution : 22.10.2021
Date of Arguments : 11.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 20.09.2025
Digitally
signed by
Bhupesh
Bhupesh kumar
kumar Date:
2025.09.20
16:43:17
+0530
CS (Comm) 773/2021 Bhupesh Kumar
District Judge(Commercial)-05, SE, Saket, New Delhi/20.09.2025
2
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff M/s Sukura Dads Security and Allies Services Ltd., against defendant M/s Container Corporation of India Ltd., vide which prayer has been made to pass a decree of recovery of sum of Rs.7,88,756/- against the defendant along with pendente-lit and future interest.
The suit was filed as per provisions of Order XXXVII CPC. Defendant has filed the appearance and thereafter an application seeking leave to defendant has filed and the said application was allowed vide order dated 14.01.2025.
2. Before proceeding ahead here it is necessary to reproduce the brief facts of the matter as emerged from the plaint. The plaintiff is the proprietorship firm and Major Kr Suresh Rana is its proprietor. It has been further submitted that plaintiff firm is engaged in the business of providing security services in Delhi. It is submitted that defendant is a Navratna Public Sector undertaking under the Ministry of Railways and on 18.08.2008 an agreement was executed between plaintiff and defendant vide which the plaintiff has agreed to provide security services to the defendant at its domestic container terminal at Okhla Phase 2, New Delhi. It has been further submitted that the defendant without any show cause notice, terminated the said contract vide order letter dated 16.03.2010. It has been further submitted that minimum wage were increased since April 2009 and defendant did not pay the increased minimum wages to plaintiff though plaintiff regularly raise the invoices against the services on the notified minimum wages rates of the Digitally signed by Bhupesh Bhupesh kumar kumar Date:
2025.09.20 16:43:21 +0530 CS (Comm) 773/2021 Bhupesh Kumar District Judge(Commercial)-05, SE, Saket, New Delhi/20.09.2025 3 Government. It has been further submitted that defendant is liable to make following outstanding amount, which are as under:-
Sr. No. MONTH AMOUNT WITHHELD BY
CONCOR(DEFENDANT)
1 Arrear from April 2009 to Rs.6,39,118/-
August 2009
2 Held up Money Rs.1,10,000/-
3 EMD Rs.39,638/-
4 Grand Total Rs.7,88,756/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Eighty Eight
Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Six Only)
It has been further submitted that on 05.05.2010, defendant has asked the plaintiff to submit the documents regarding disbursement of arrears. It has been further submitted that plaintiff has submitted undertaking duly signed by the security guard in April 2011, acknowledged in their own letter dated 13.03.2012. It has been further submitted that defendant has claimed that arrears has not been disbursed by the plaintiff to security guards and say that undertaking signed by the security guard is fake and forged. It has been further submitted that on 21.03.2020, the defendant said that on telephonic conversation with security guard confirmed that they did not get any payment from plaintiff. It has been further submitted that plaintiff has issued email dated 03.09.2019 to defendant for payment of due amount but of no avail. It has been further submitted that plaintiff has sent email on 14.03.2020 and demanded money from the defendant. It has been further submitted that though vide letter dated 21.03.2020 the plaintiff has demanded refund of security but defendant has cleverly not mentioned regarding sum of Rs.39,638/- as well as Rs.1,10,000/- being due amount to the plaintiff. It has been further submitted that cause of action accrued to plaintiff on 20.03.2020 when the legal notice was issued to defendant. Digitally signed by Bhupesh Bhupesh kumar kumar Date:
2025.09.20 16:43:24 +0530 CS (Comm) 773/2021 Bhupesh Kumar District Judge(Commercial)-05, SE, Saket, New Delhi/20.09.2025 4 On the basis of these submissions, prayer has been made to decree the suit.
3. Defendant has contested the suit by filing written statement, wherein, preliminary submissions were made that the suit has been filed on the basis of contract dated 18.08.2008, commenced from 01.07.2008 for an initial period of one year upto 30.06.2009 and was further extended for one year i.e., 01.07.2009 to 30.06.2010. It has been further submitted that due to repeated default on the part of plaintiff to comply with the statutory obligations in terms of agreement dated 16.03.2010, the defendant has terminated the said contract w.e.f. 25.03.2010. It has been further submitted that present suit has been filed the plaintiff after the gap of 11 years, hence, the suit is time barred. It has been further submitted that defendant has asked the plaintiff to furnish proof of disbursement to the Guards employed and on verification from the said security guards, it was revealed that they have not received any amount on account of arrears of wages and the signature on behalf of security personnel were false and fabricated. It has been further submitted that these facts were communicated to the plaintiff vide letter dated 13.03.2012 and 30.05.2014. It has been further submitted that as per Clause 5(iii) of the agreement dated 18.08.2008, plaintiff was required to furnish necessary proof regarding full payment of wages, PF etc., and as per Clause 5(iv) of the said agreement, the plaintiff was required to furnish necessary proof of salary claimed, PF etc., and per Clause 9 of the said agreement, plaintiff was required to follow all statutory compliance. Further, in view of the said agreement, the plaintiff was required to comply with certain other conditions also. It has been further submitted that some security personnel deployed by the plaintiff have approached Labour Court, and Ld. Presiding Officer of Labour Court Digitally signed Bhupesh by Bhupesh kumar kumar Date: 2025.09.20 CS (Comm) 773/2021 Bhupesh Kumar 16:43:27 +0530 District Judge(Commercial)-05, SE, Saket, New Delhi/20.09.2025 5 Karkardooma vide award dated 25.09.2017 has rejected the claim of the said employees on the ground that they failed to prove that they were employee of defendant.
On merits, the fact that contract between both the parties was terminated was not disputed. It has been further submitted that on verification, it is found that the security staff has not received any wages from plaintiff and plaintiff failed to provide any proof of payments. It has been further submitted that the signatures of workers are found to be fake in letter dated 03.12.2012, 13.04.2011 and 04.12.2012. It has been further submitted that vide letter dated 21.03.2020, the plaintiff was asked to provide proof off disbursement i.e., mode of payment, bank account details etc., of security personnel etc., deployed under agreement. It has been further submitted that email dated 14.03.2020 of plaintiff, refuting the claim of plaintiff, has already been replied letter dated 21.03.2020. It has been further submitted that plaintiff was also informed vide letter dated 30.11.2010, the payment of contractor bill of Rs.1,10,000/- and allowed the disbursemnt till final settlement of the case with his office, salary of April 2009 to August 2009 are disbursed by defendant security staff has already filed case against the security agency for non compliance of PF/ESI and wages which itself proof that wages were not paid.
Inter alia, on the basis of these submissions, prayer has been made to dismiss the suit.
4. Replication to the written statement of the defendant was filed by the plaintiffs, wherein, plaintiff has generally denied the averments made in the written statement and reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint.
Digitally signed by BhupeshBhupesh kumar kumar Date:
2025.09.20 16:43:30 +0530 CS (Comm) 773/2021 Bhupesh Kumar District Judge(Commercial)-05, SE, Saket, New Delhi/20.09.2025 6
5. On the basis of pleadings of parties, following issues were framed on 10.07.2025:-
1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the period of limitation? Onus upon parties.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of recovery of sum of Rs. 7,88,756/- from the defendant? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
4. Relief Issue no.1 was treated as preliminary issue and parties were directed to lead evidence on this issue only as Court was of the considered view that this issue should be decided first.
6. The plaintiff has examined Major Kunwar Suresh Rana as PW-1. This witness has led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/X, wherein, this witness has made similar deposition to that of contents of the plaint. This witness has relied upon letter no. CON/NR/P&A/DCT/10/2292, dated 16.03.2010 is Ex.PW1/A, Letter dated 26.10.2019 sent by the plaintiff to defendant is Ex.PW1/B. (the document stands de-exhibited being photo copy and is marked as Mark 'A'), Letter dated 13.03.2012 is Ex.PW1/C, Letter no.
SUKURA/DCT/Refund/2009/2, dated 13.09.2018 sent by the plaintiff to defendant is Ex.PW1/D, Letter dated 21.03.2020 sent by defendant to plaintiff is Ex.PW1/E, Legal notice sent by the plaintiff dated 20.04.2020 is Ex.PW1/F, Reply dated 27.05.2020 sent by defendant is Ex.PW1/G. Digitally signed by Bhupesh Bhupesh kumar kumar Date:
2025.09.20 16:43:33 +0530 CS (Comm) 773/2021 Bhupesh Kumar District Judge(Commercial)-05, SE, Saket, New Delhi/20.09.2025 7 The witness was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsels for defendant. However, his cross-examination shall be considered at the time of appreciation of evidence. PE closed.
Defendant has not examined any witness despite opportunity. DE was also closed.
7. I have heard the arguments of Sh. Rajeev Kumar Chauhan, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Sh. Arun Kumar, Ld. Counsel for defendant. Written submissions have also been filed on behalf of both the parties.
8. My issue-wise findings are as under :
9. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the period of limitation?
Onus upon parties.
The onus to prove this issue was on the parties.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that plaintiff has repeatedly made request to defendant to make the payment of due amount but the defendant has not complied with the same and vide letter dated 21.03.2020 Ex.PW1/E, defendant has denied the claim of plaintiff and accordingly cause of action arose to file the present suit on 21.03.2020. The present suit was filed on 22.10.2021 i.e., within the period of limitation.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for defendant submitted that period of limitation to file the recovery suit is three years. It has been further submitted that cause of action, if any, arose on 25.03.2010 when the contract was terminated and accordingly period of limitation expire on 24.03.2013 but the present suit has been filed after the gap of 11 years which is time barred. It has been further submitted that as per law of limitation, limitation start running, no Bhupesh Digitally signed by Bhupesh kumar kumar Date: 2025.09.20 16:43:36 +0530 CS (Comm) 773/2021 Bhupesh Kumar District Judge(Commercial)-05, SE, Saket, New Delhi/20.09.2025 8 subsequent inability or disability can stop it. Inter alia, on the basis of these submissions, prayer has been made to dismiss the suit.
Heard. Material perused.
It is not disputed that agreement took place between both the parties vide which plaintiff was engaged to provide services of security guards to defendant at domestic container terminal Okhla, Phase II, New Delhi qua which agreement was executed between both the parties on 18.08.2008 and services were provided from 01.07.2008 to 30.06.2009. The said contract was extended for one year from 01.07.2009 to 30.06.2010. It is admitted fact that the services of defendant was terminated on 25.03.2010.
The grievance of the plaintiff is that since April 2009, the minimum wages were increased by the Government and he has paid wages to security guards as per increased wages, but the defendant has not paid the said amount to plaintiff. Further as per plaintiff, the plaintiff has sent letter dated 13.09.2018 Ex. PW1/D to defendant to make due payment, but defendant has refused to make payment vide letter dated 21.03.2020 Ex.PW1/E. Further as per plaintiff legal notice was issued on 20.04.2020 Ex.PW1/F calling upon defendant to make due payment and the said amount was denied by defendant vide reply dated 27.05.2020 Ex. PW1/G. In respect to payment of said wages to security guards has been disputed by the defendant on two grounds. First, that on their enquiry the security guards have denied that they have been paid any such amount by the plaintiff and second that certain security guards approach Ld. Labour Court for the payment of such dues but Ld. Labour Court has denied any such relief to the said workman on the ground that employee-employer relations not exists between them.
Digitally signed
Bhupesh by Bhupesh
kumar
kumar Date: 2025.09.20
16:43:39 +0530
CS (Comm) 773/2021 Bhupesh Kumar
District Judge(Commercial)-05, SE, Saket, New Delhi/20.09.2025 9 As matter of fact the plaintiff has not explained as to how the cause of action arise to plaintiff on the refusal to make payment by plaintiff vide reply Ex.PW1/G dated 27.05.2020 because as per law of limitation, the period to file suit for recovery is three years from the date when cause of action accrue. In the present matter, as per record, the contract was terminated on 25.03.2010. As per law of limitation, the plaintiff was required to file suit within three years from the said date. However, in case the analogy of plaintiff is accepted that cause of action arose on the date of refusal even then the plaintiff was required to make the demand within the period of limitation. However, in this matter the plaintiff has brought on record letter dated 13.09.2018 Ex.PW1/D on record qua demand of due amount, but apparently the said letter was written after the period of three years from 25.03.2010 i.e. when contract was terminated.
The purpose of imposing period of limitation for claiming any right is based on two public policies, first that it is policy of the State that there should be end of litigation and another is that sword of litigation should not hang over head of litigant unending.
Further, in case Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs ESI Coroporation, AIR 1972 SC 1935, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held to the effect that law assist the vigilant and not one who sleeps over his rights (Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subventiunt).
Further, in case Central Bank of India vs Ali Mohammad and ors, 1993 MLHJ, Hon'ble High Court has held to the effect that even if the word has been used in Article 21 and 35 that the amount shall be payable on demand, the time will run from the date of demand because statutory period provides that time begins means cause of action begins from the execution of Digitally signed by Bhupesh Bhupesh kumar Date: kumar 2025.09.20 16:43:42 +0530 CS (Comm) 773/2021 Bhupesh Kumar District Judge(Commercial)-05, SE, Saket, New Delhi/20.09.2025 10 agreement, deed or note. It means creditor has to made demand within the prescribed period of three years.
Further in case Indian Eveangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association vs Sri Bala & Co., Civil Appeal no. 1525 of 2023 of Hon'ble Supreme Court, decided on 08.01.2025, wherein, it has been, inter alia, held that generally the right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises, that is, cause of action arises, that is, the right to prosecute to obtain relief by legal means. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted.
In the light of these judgments, even in case the contention of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff is accepted that cause of action arise from date of refusal, even then it does not help the plaintiff because the plaintiff was required to make demand within three years from date of termination of contract i.e. 16.03.2010. Hence, the suit is found to be barred by period of limitation. This issue stand decided accordingly.
Since the suit has been found to be time barred as decided in issue no.1, there is no necessity to decide remaining issues i.e., issue nos. (2), (3) and (4). Accordingly, the suit stands dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by plaintiff to defendant.
Digitally
signed by
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Bhupesh
Bhupesh kumar
File be consigned to record room. kumar Date:
2025.09.20
16:43:45
Dictated and announced +0530
on 20.09.2025.
(BHUPESH KUMAR)
District Judge (Commercial)-05
South East District, Saket, New Delhi
CS (Comm) 773/2021 Bhupesh Kumar
District Judge(Commercial)-05, SE, Saket, New Delhi/20.09.2025