Delhi District Court
M/S Ram Niwas Goel vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 27 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Dr. RAVINDER BEDI
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMM.)-12, (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
In the matter of:
CS (COMM) No. 673/2024
M/s Ram Niwas Goel
through its partner Mr Kamal Goel
office at D-33, Prithvi Raj Road,
Adarsh Nagar, Delhi ........Plaintiff
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Dr. SPM Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002 ......Defendant
Date of Institution of Suit : 31.05.2024
Date of Final Arguments : 26.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 27.10.2025
Plaintiff represented by Col. Mr. Anurag Kaushik
Defendant represented by Col. Mr. Ashutosh Gupta
Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER
BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.10.27
17:34:52 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 1/ 44
M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD
JUDGMENT
1. Present suit is filed by Plaintiff- a registered partnership firm seeking relief of Declaration i.e. against Defendant, declaring its Office Orders dated 07.10.2022 and 28.10.2022 as null and void alongwith consequential relief of injunction against passing any further orders based upon the said office Orders.
Plaintiff has also prayed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 97,86,413/- alongwith an interest against the Defendant.
2. It is necessary to take note, albeit briefly, of the facts as mentioned in the plaint.
2.1 Plaintiff is a partnership firm, working as a Contractor with the Defendant and other government departments. Mr Kamal Goel is one of the Partners of the firm and is authorized to institute the suit. The Defendant is a government body providing civic amenities and infrastructure work to the public at large. The case of Plaintiff is that the Defendant invited a Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter referred to as NIT) for works, by publication on their website on 31.08.2021. Plaintiff submitted its quotation for Award of the work in NIT. Plaintiff was declared as the successful tenderer and was awarded to execute work for " Bio-mining and Bio remediation of legacy waste at SLF Okhla SH:
Disposal of inert/C&D/RDF at NTPC Eco park, Tajpur Pahari and at Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 17:34:59 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 2/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD Waste to Energy Plant " vide a Work Order dated 01.10.2021 at a total contractual amount of Rs. 4,18,49,500/-.
2.2 Plaintiff was directed to start work at once as per Clause-4 of the Work Order. The period of contract was 08 months i.e. from 01.10.2024 till 31.05.2022. Plaintiff mobilized its resources with an intention to commence the work and deployed the hired trucks after the Defendant verified the documents of submitted copies of RC of trucks from Transport Department. Defendant gave its approval for deploying the said trucks in the execution of the work to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff after such approval started the work of loading the inert from the site and unloaded the same as directed by Defendant.
2.3 Plaintiff submitted the photocopies of the RC of hired vehicles/trucks, which were provided by the truck owners/drivers by the letters dated 08.10.2021, 12.10.2021 and 28.12.2021 with the office of Defendant, thereby making a request to approve and register vehicles on priority basis. During the course of work, Plaintiff submitted an FDR bearing no. 621890 dated 13.10.2021 amounting Rs. 12,55,500/- in lieu of Performance Guarantee with the office of EE concerned.
2.4 Plaintiff submitted its weigh bridge slips with Defendant with a request to verify the same and to make payments through his Letters dated 10.01.2022 and 11.01.2022. Plaintiff also submitted Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 17:35:06 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 3/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD photocopies of RC of the vehicle/trucks through its letter dated 11.01.2022. The Defendant's officers verified the weigh bridge slips from their own records, passed the bills and paid the bill amounts to the Plaintiff.
2.5 After satisfactory completion of the Contractual Work by Plaintiff, the Defendant increased the contractual amount from Rs.
4,18,49,500/- to Rs. 6,81,38,000/- and also extended the work period in proportion to the amount increased vide the Revised Work Order dated 15.03.2022 (hereinafter referred to as RWO). The period of RWO was 11 months, which was completed on 31.08.2022.
2.6 Plaintiff submitted the weigh bridge slips mentioning the quantity of inert/C& D/RDF to verify the same and requested to release payments by its letter dated 16.04.2022. Plaintiff by another letter dated 04.05.2022 intimated the Defendant about the hinderance faced at the site, which created delay in execution of work and consequently forcing Plaintiff to bear more expenses, while reserving its rights to submit the 10C and 10CA bill to claim extra expenses borne due to delay. Plaintiff by another letter intimated the Defendant about the completion of 60% of value of work and requested to release the payments for work done.
2.7 The Defendant by its letter dated 07.06.2022 requested
Plaintiff for immediate disposal of RDF from SLF Okhla. Plaintiff
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.10.27
17:35:12 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 4/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD submitted its reply dated 09.06.2022 and 10.06.2022 with EE concerned and raised an objection regarding wastage of time, more consumption of diesel etc. Moreover, the unloading of C& D (ashes) from Jindal Plant and unloading on the top of Okhla site or Tajpur Pahari were not within the scope of the work, still the same were executed by Plaintiff on the oral instructions of Defendant on being assured of being compensated the same for extra expenses incurred in the transportation. Defendant sent a common letter dated 10.06.2022 (posted on 17.06.2022) to the contractors including Plaintiff reminding the directions in the earlier letter dated 07.06.2022.
2.8 The Plaintiff completed the work on 24.07.2022, submitted his Report qua the work done by Letter dated 29.07.2022 and requested for release of payments. Plaintiff received Letters dated 22.08.2022 and 31.08.2022 from Defendant whereby, it was directed to submit the original documents of the vehicles. Plaintiff replied the letters by its Reply letter dated 07.09.2022, stating that the demanded documents were tried after obtaining from the hired transporters .
2.9 Defendant sent a Letter dated 29.09.2022 addressed to the Union Bank of India and encashed the FDR bearing no. 621890 of Rs.12,55,500/- submitted by Plaintiff in lieu of Performance Guarantee. The copy of the letter was also sent to the Plaintiff on 11.10.2022. The same was with the motive to harass the Plaintiff since Defendant instead Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 17:35:20 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 5/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD of making payment of final bill issued one Common Office Order dated 07.10.2022, whereby it suspended business with Plaintiff for a period of one year from the date of issuance of the same.
2.10 Plaintiff received a Show Cause Notice dated 21.10.2022 via mail and post from Defendant, wherein certain discrepancies in the documents submitted by Plaintiff were alleged in respect of registration of vehicles. Defendant also asked the Plaintiff to be present in the Office of SE(SLF) Okhla on 28.10.2022 for personal hearing through show cause notice. The Plaintiff submitted Reply to the Show Cause Notice with the office of SE concerned. The Plaint avers that the Order of Defendant dated 28.10.2022 forfeiting the earnest money/security deposit/performance guarantee was totally illegal and against the terms of the Contract.
2.11 Plaintiff had submitted the final bill with covering letter dated 23.12.2022 on 26.12.2022 with a request to release payments. Plaintiff also sent a Legal Notice dated 26.10.2022 under section 478 of DMC Act, 1957 upon the Defendant. The said Notice went unresponded to by Defendant. The Defendant passed the 8th and the final bill on 23.06.2023 after making an arbitrary and illegally recovery of the transported material inert admitted to be loaded and unloaded by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has detailed about the particulars of the passed bill amount and deduction/recovery done by Defendant from the passed 8th Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 17:35:27 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 6/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD final bill dated 23.06.2023 as also mentioned in para no. 19 of the Plaint.
2.12 The Defendant issued an Office Order dated 22.05.2023 whereby it extended the period of suspension from 06.10.2023 to 05.10.2024. The Plaintiff was not given an opportunity prior to passing of such Order, nor the reasons were disclosed for such an action taken by Defendant.
2.13 Plaintiff approached Pre-Institution Mediation Process as per Section 12 A of The Commercial Courts Act (hereinafter as " The CC Act") before DLSA, Central, Tis Hazari. The Defendant did not appear despite service of Notice upon them. The same resulted into the issuance of Non-Starter Report dated 21.03.2024.
2.14 Plaint avers that subject matter of the suit is a "Commercial Dispute", as provided under Section2(1)(c)(i) of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Plaintiff has prayed for following reliefs :-
Claim Particular Amount
No.
1. Claim for transportation of C& D
(a) passed 8th and final bill amount of qty(a) Rs. 2,32,040/-
4640.79
(b) Qty. recovered 932.50 from final 8th bill
(b) Rs. 46,625/-
2. Claim for transportation of Inert
a) passed 8th and final bill amount of qty(a) Rs. 63,89,804/-
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.10.27
17:35:34 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 7/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD 29177.19 @ Rs. 219/- per MT upto 10 KM
(b) Qty. recovered 932.50 from final 8th bill @(b) Rs. 1,45,886/- Rs.5/- per MT upto 15 KM
(c) Qty. recovered 20649.02 from 8th and final(c) Rs. 45,22,131/- bill @219/- per MT upto 10 KM
(d) Qty recovered 20649.02 from 8th and final (d) Rs. 1,03,245/- bill @ Rs. 5/- MT upto 15 KM
3. Claim for transportation of RDF Passed 8th and final bill amount of qty 7561.57 @ Rs. 219/- per MT upto 10 KM Rs. 16,55,984/-
Total of balance payment passed 8 th and final bill amount as mentioned in claim 1(a), 2(a) & Rs. 14,23,714/-
(b) & 3 =84,23,714/-
Advance amount adjusted 70,00,000/-
Total amount of recovered qty in 8th and final Rs. 47,28,621/-
bill i.e. claim 1(b), 2(c) and (d)
Total Rs. 61,52,335/-
4. Performance guarantee Rs. 12,55,500/-
5. Amount of 10 C Rs. 8,75,350/-
6. Interest @12% p.a. on total amount of Rs.
82,83,185/- w.e.f 26.10.2022 till 30.04.2024 Rs.15,03,228/-
Grand Total Rs. 97,86,413/-
7. Cost (Advocate fee, Misc. Expenses, Court Actual
Fee and pre-Lit Expenses)
3. Summons of suit were issued upon the Defendant. The Defendant appeared and contested the suit by filing its written Statement Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 17:35:41 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 8/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD wherein it took certain preliminary objections inter-alia :
a) The suit of Plaintiff was without any cause of action. The averments/claims/submissions/allegations made by Plaintiff were denied by Defendant. Plaintiff did not submit originals of Registration Certificate (RC) of vehicles for completion of the purported work.
b) Plaintiff was in material breach of Agreement between parties. Defendant had issued the NIT and work was awarded to Plaintiff. The NIT set out the relevant terms and conditions making general conditions of Contract (GCC) and special conditions of the Contract (SCC) applicable. The Defendant came to know at the time of audit through online record of the vehicles at Vahan Citizen Services that Plaintiff had submitted the forged documents of RC of vehicles used for transportation of bio mixed materials in the month of March, 2022.
c) Plaintiff was directed to submit the originals i.e. RC, vehicle permit, insurance and pollution certificate etc of vehicles and was issued a letter dated 22.08.2022 from Defendant. However, Plaintiff failed to submit the said documents.
d) Defendant sent another letter dated 31.08.2022 requesting the Plaintiff to submit the documents within 02 days. Instead Plaintiff sent his Reply dated 07.09.2022 to the Letter of Defendant.Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 ____________________________________________________________________________ 17:35:48 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 9/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD Consequently, Defendant by its letter dated 29.09.2022 to the Union Bank of India got encashed the FDR bearing the performance guarantee submitted by the Plaintiff. Defendant further issued an Office Order dated 07.10.2022 and suspended the business of Plaintiff/Contractor for a period of one year.
e) Defendant then issued a Show Cause Notice dated 21.10.2022 mentioning the non-compliance of the requirements by Plaintiff and asking as to why the Plaintiff be not blacklisted. Defendant finally passed the order dated 28.10.2022 wherein, it made the conclusions based upon the reasons provided thereunder.
f) By another Office Order dated 22.05.2023, the period of suspension for doing business with Plaintiff was extended for another year from 06.10.2023 to 05.10.2024. The documents were forged by Plaintiff in order to manipulate the functioning and make inordinate gains from Defendant. Plaintiff was not entitled for any amount prayed for in the suit or any interest as claimed in the prayer clause.
g) that the suit was not properly verified as per mandate of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015(hereinafter as The CC Act,2015) and no affidavit of Statement of Truth was annexed with the Plaint verifying the contents of Plaint and paragraphs. The suit was not signed, verified and filed by a duly authorized person. Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 17:36:03 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 10/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD
h) In joint reply to para no. 4 to 20 of the Plaint, Defendant contends that the Plaintiff failed to start the work within stipulated time period; Performance guarantee was got encashed by Defendant because of non-adherance of Plaintiff to comply with various Letters, Notices and Show Cause Notice to submit the original RC's of the vehicles. Plaintiff had employed the trucks for the execution of work and burden was on him to prove, what action he had taken against the forged documents of RC holders.
4. In the Replication, Plaintiff reiterated its version in the plaint while refuting the contentions of Defendant. By Order dated 02.05.2025, the following issues were settled for adjudication :-
(1) The office Order dated 07.10.2022 and 28.10.2022 (page no.87 to 91 of plaint) were issued only due to the non- compliance and defaults committed by the Plaintiff as per para no.V to XIV and para no.4-20 of written statement ? OPD (2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for Declaration as prayed for in para no. (a) of the prayer clause? OPP.Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 17:36:11 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 11/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD (3) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed for in para no. (b) of prayer clause ? OPP (4) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the amount as prayed for in para no. (c) of Prayer clause ? OPP.
(5) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the amount. If so, at what rate and from what period? OPP.
(6) Relief
5. Plaintiff in order to prove its case examined Mr. Kamal Goel, one of partners of firm as PW-1. PW-1 proved the following documents :
Ex.PW-1/1 Form A containing the names of partners of Plaintiff firm. Ex. PW1/2 Form B issued by the Registrar of Partnership Firms disclosing the number and registration date of the partnership firm as ROF/North/55 of 2017 dated 18.01.2017 Ex.PW1/3 Authority letter dated 24.10.2022 executed by Sh. Ram Niwas Goel in favour of PW-1.
Ex.PW1/4 Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) uploaded by the Defendant on
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.10.27
17:36:18 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 12/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD 31.08.2021.
Ex.PW1/5 Work order bearing no. EE/SLF/O/SDMC/2021-22/5(b) dated 01.10.2021 for execution of "Bio-mining and Bio-remediation of legacy waste at SLF Okhla".
Ex.PW1/6 & Letters of Plaintiff dated 08.10.2021 (2 nos.) submitting RC copies Ex. PW1/7 for approval.
Ex. PW1/8 Letter dated 12.10.2021 submitting RC copies. Ex. PW1/9 Letter dated 28.12.2021 submitting RC copies. Ex.PW1/10 Letter dated 13.10.2021 enclosing FDR in lieu of performance guarantee.
Ex. PW1/11 FDR bearing No. 621890 dated 13.10.2021 of Rs. 12,55,500/-. Ex. PW1/12 Letter dated 10.01.2022 submitting weighbridge slips. Ex. PW1/13 Letter dated 11.01.2022 submitting RC copies for approval. Ex. PW1/14 Letter dated 09.02.2022 submitting weighbridge slips for verification and payment.
Ex. PW1/15 Revised work order no. EE/SLF/O/SDMC/2021-22/13(b) dated 15.03.2022.
Ex. PW1/16 Letter dated 16.04.2022 submitting weighbridge slips. Ex. PW1/17 Letter dated 04.05.2022 intimating hindrances at site. Ex. PW1/18 Letter dated 09.05.2022 intimating completion of 60% of work and requesting release of payment.
Ex. PW1/19 Defendant's letter dated 07.06.2022 requesting immediate disposal of RDF.
Ex. PW1/20 Plaintiff's reply dated 09.06.2022. Ex. PW1/21 Defendant's letter dated 10.06.2022. Ex. PW1/22 Plaintiff's letter dated 29.07.2022 requesting release of payment. Ex. PW1/23 Defendant's letter dated 22.08.2022 directing submission of original RCs.
Ex. PW1/24 Defendant's letter dated 31.08.2022.
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.10.27
____________________________________________________________________________ 17:36:29 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 13/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD Ex. PW1/25 Plaintiff's reply dated 07.09.2022. Ex. PW1/26 Defendant's letter dated 29.09.2022 to Union Bank of India for encashment of FDR.
Ex. PW1/27 Envelope of letter dated 29.09.2022. Ex. PW1/28 Defendant's office order dated 07.10.2022 suspending business with Plaintiff Ex. PW1/29 Show cause notice dated 21.10.2022. Ex. PW1/30 Legal Notice dated 26.10.2022 under Section 478 of DMC Act, 1957.
Ex. PW1/31 10C bill submitted with legal Notice. Ex. PW1/32 Proof of email sending legal Notice. Ex.PW1/33 & Postal receipts of legal notice.
Ex.PW1/34Ex.PW1/35 & Track reports of legal notice.
Ex.PW1/36Ex. PW1/37 Plaintiff's reply to show cause notice dated 28.10.2022. Ex. PW1/38 Defendant's order dated 28.10.2022 forfeiting security deposit. Ex. PW1/39 Letter dated 23.12.2022 submitting final bill. Ex. PW1/40 Letter dated 18.04.2023 requesting release of withheld amount. Ex. PW1/41 8th and final bill dated 23.06.2023. Ex. PW1/42 Defendant's office order dated 22.05.2023 extending suspension. Ex. PW1/43 Envelope of office order dated 22.05.2023. Ex. PW1/44 Certificate of Non- Starter Report dated 21.03.2024.
6. Defendant in order to prove its case examined its Assistant Engineer (Civil), Mr Shivendra Kumar as DW-1. DW-1 proved the Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 17:36:35 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 14/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD following documents :
Ex.DW1/1 (already exhibited as Ex. NIT no. 04 dated 31.08.2021. PW1/4 Ex.DW1/2 (already exhibited as Ex. Work order No.5 dated 01.10.2021 PW1/5 Ex.DW1/3 (already exhibited as Ex. Work order No.13 dated 15.03.2022 PW1/15 Ex. DW1/X1 Copy of General conditions of contract Ex.DW1/5 (already exhibited as Ex. Measurement book PW1/D1 Ex.DW1/6 (already exhibited as Ex. Office order No. 1002 dated PW1/28 07.10.2022 Ex.DW1/7 (already exhibited as Ex. Office order No. 581 dated 22.05.2023 PW1/42 Ex.DW1/8 (already exhibited as Ex. Letter dated 1367 dated 23.07.2024 PW1/X2 Ex.DW1/9 (already exhibited as Ex. Letter No. 393 dated 28.10.2022 PW1/38 Ex.DW1/10 (already exhibited as Ex. Letter (reply of show cause) dated PW1/10 28.10.2022 Ex.DW1/11 (already exhibited as Ex. SCN No. 380 dated PW1/29 21.10.2022 Ex.DW1/12 (already exhibited as Ex. Copy of letter dated 07.09.2022 PW1/25 Ex.DW1/13 (already exhibited as Ex. Letter No. 235 dated 31.08.2022 PW1/24 Ex.DW1/14 (already exhibited as Ex. Letter No.215 dated 22.08.2022 PW1/23 Ex.DW1/15 (already exhibited as Ex. Letter dated 23.12.2022 Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 ____________________________________________________________________________ 17:36:44 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 15/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD PW1/39 Ex.DW1/16 (already exhibited as EX. Table showing actual RLW and forged RLW DW1/X3 (colly) of some trucks registered after March 2022
7. I have heard final submissions as addressed by Ld. Counsel for parties and perused the entire record meticulously. The written synopsis of parties alongwith judicial precedents relied upon have also been considered.
8. The principle of preponderance of probabilities essentially requires the Plaintiff to introduce more or even slightly better evidence than the defence. In other words, it could also refer to a more probable and rational view in adjudicating a specific fact/issue. The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines it as the "standard of proof in most civil cases" in which the party bearing the burden of proof must present evidence which is more credible or convincing than that presented by the other party or which shows that the fact to be proven is more probable than not.
9. The concept was succinctly explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narayan Dastane [AIR (1975) (SC) 1534] by observing as follows:-
" ...... The normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact can be said to be established Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 17:36:54 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 16/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD if it is proved by a preponderance of probabilities. This is for the reason that under the Evidence Act, section 3, a fact is said to be proved when the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. A prudent man faced with conflicting probabilities concerning a fact- situation will act on the supposition that the fact exists, if on weighing the various probabilities he finds that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact. As a prudent man, so the court applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved. The first step in this process is to fix the probabilities, the second to weigh them, though the two may often intermingle. The impossible is weeded out at the first stage, the improbable at the second. Within the wide range of probabilities the court has often a difficult choice to make but it is this choice which ultimately determines where the preponderance of probabilities lies. "
10. Considering the principle as above and having looked into Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 17:37:02 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 17/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD the entire record, my issue-wise findings are herein below :
Issue no. 2 : Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for Declaration as prayed for in para no. (a) of the prayer clause? OPP.
11. The onus to prove this issue was upon the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff prayed for the relief of Declaration i.e. declaring the Office Orders dated 07.10.2022 and 28.10.2022 as null and void alongwith consequential relief of injunction against Defendant restraining them from passing any further orders based upon the said office Orders.
Submissions of Ld.counsel for Plaintiff.
12. Primary contentions of Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff are:-
(i) The Plaintiff completed the work well within time and it was only after the completion of the work and at the time of clearing of the balance amount, that the Defendant had raised this issue.
(ii) The Defendant wrongfully raised issue of alleged forged documents, as the main contract stood concluded with the satisfactory completion of the Work under the Work Order. Any technical objection could not have been raised after the Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 17:37:09 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 18/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD completion of the work so as to deny the benefit that became due to the Plaintiff after completion of the work.
(iii) The Defendant failed to consider the fact that all the inert which the Plaintiff was to transport stood transported well within time and if at all, there was any valid reason available with the Defendant to claim breach of the Agreement or terminate the same, the same ought to have been done at the initial stage itself and not after the corporation got the complete work done from the Plaintiff.
(iv) The neglect and refusal of the Defendant to make the payment of the balance amount, is malafide inasmuch as, the Defendant denied the payment without there being any just cause.
(v) The cancellation/termination of the Agreement after the completion of the work was meaningless and malafide besides being unlawful inasmuch as, the Defendant had all the opportunity during the currency of the Agreement while Work Order was being performed by the Plaintiff to have the documents verified if at all there was a real necessity.
(vi) The fact that the documents were sought to be verified only after the completion of the Work clearly shows that the same is being done only with a motive to deny the payments.
(vii) The Defendant wrongfully accused the Plaintiff of forgery inasmuch as it was not the Plaintiff's documents, but pertaining to third parties and the Plaintiff could not be punished for any irregularity or violation on Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 ____________________________________________________________________________ 17:37:16 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 19/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD the part of the third party.
(viii) Defendant wrongfully proceeded to deduct the amount in 8th and final bill on the basis of a self styled criterion for assessment of the amount. The Defendant did not even file any counter claim or even mention any amount in the written statement or even the affidavit.
(ix) Assuming that the Defendant had any right to recover the amount under some provision, the assessment had to be on the basis of well settled principles of law.
(x) The Defendant, as is clear from the written statement and the affidavit, did not even whisper about any such assessment or existence of any claim as against the Plaintiff.
(xi) The final bill (Ex.PW1/41) was non-
est in the eyes of law. The Defendant was under an obligation to prove that it had suffered any such loss on account of the alleged forgery.
13. Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff argues that Defendant passed the Orders, whereby the business of Plaintiff with Defendant was suspended for a period of one year from the period of issuance of the Order. He argues that though the said period of one year had been completed, but the issue of legality of the Order dated 07.10.2022 and 28.10.2022 needs to be examined to clear the stigma faced by Plaintiff.
14. Ld. Counsel submits that Defendant issued the Show Cause Notice on 21.10.2022 after suspension of business by Order dated Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 ____________________________________________________________________________ 17:37:22 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 20/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD 07.10.2022, which was legally impermissible, without being given an opportunity to Plaintiff to explain. Ld. Counsel further refers to the fact that the Defendant after coming to know of the Order dated 05.06.2024 passed the Office Order from back date i.e. 09.11.2023.
Submissions of Ld. Counsel for Defendant.
15. Ld. Counsel for Defendant argues that the Order dated 07.10.2022 was passed only after the Plaintiff failed to provide the original documents despite the Notices dated 22.08.2022 (Ex. PW1/23) and 31.08.2022 (Ex.PW1/24). Ld. Counsel submits that the reply of Plaintiff was found to be unsatisfactory and which impelled the Defendant to issue the orders. Ld. Counsel argues that the Plaintiff had no cause of action to institute the suit as it had failed to start the work within stipulated time period.
16. The contentions of Ld. Counsel for Defendant can be summed up as :
(i) The suit of Plaintiff is misconceived inasmuch as no cause of action has accrued to the Plaintiff for filing the present suit.
(ii) The Plaintiff is himself guilty of breach of contract/conditions of GCC and Special conditions of the contract by submitting forged registration certificates and thereby Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 ____________________________________________________________________________ 17:37:30 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 21/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD committed a fraud upon the Defendant.
(iii) The Plaintiff was to ensure the genuineness and correctness of the documents and information submitted by him as per Clause 12 of the Work Order/conditions of the GCC.
(iv) Since the registration certificates so submitted by the Plaintiff were found to be forged, coupled with the failure of Plaintiff to bring the original registration certificates despite several opportunities, the Plaintiff cannot be heard to say that any amount is due to him. In view of the above fraud so committed, the Agreement has been terminated and the Plaintiff has also been blacklisted.
(v) The Plaintiff is not entitled to any money in terms of order dated 28.10.2022 passed by Defendant on account of breach of contract/agreement. Defendant is well within its right to issue order dated 28.10.2022 providing for blacklisting as well as recovery of compensation.
(vi) The very submission of forged registration certificates is a clear act of fraud upon the Defendant, thus deriving a personal gain, thereby dis-entitling the Plaintiff to claim any relief whatsoever from the Court.
17 Ld. Counsel for Defendant points to the point 7 of the Work Order Ex. PW1/5, as per which Plaintiff shall be responsible for the correctness/ genuineness of all the documents submitted by the Plaintiff.
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.10.27
17:37:36 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 22/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD Ld. Counsel has relied upon the decisions of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by L.Rs & Ors. [AIR 1994 SC 853] and Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs. M/s Aafloat Textiles (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [2009 (11) SCC 18] to buttress his submissions.
Analysis and Determination 18 Having traversed the entire record and case law, the same would demonstrate that in terms of award of Contract Ex.PW-1/5, Plaintiff had completed the work in July, 2022 and Defendant passed various bills and released major payments. So far the final 8 th bill Ex.PW-1/42 (at page no.98 of Plaintiff's document) concerns, instead of releasing the amount, Defendant issued letters Ex. PW1/23 and Ex. PW1/24 upon the Plaintiff.
19. A look into the examination of PW-1 would prove that Plaintiff had supplied the copies of RCs of vehicles to the Defendant and only after due verification of those RCs, the vehicles were registered and deployed for the execution of work. It is inexplicable that the Defendant failed to point out any discrepancies in the RLW of vehicles during the period when the work was being carried out by Plaintiff. It is not the case of Defendant that the work awarded to the Plaintiff as per work Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 17:37:42 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 23/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD order and the revised work order was not completed within stipulated time. Though the written statement avers so, but the same is clearly contradicted from Defendant's own documents and the testimony of DW-1. DW-1 further admits about the enhancement of disposal quantity on same terms and conditions with work having completed by Plaintiff on 31.08.2022.
20 Be that as it may, it was only after the work was completed by Plaintiff that these notices were issued to Plaintiff meaning thereby, the action of issuing notices was taken after work having concluded by Plaintiff and when Plaintiff asked for his payments.
21 There is no evidence, oral or documentary on record having brought by Defendant to show that the discrepancies alleged in RLW of the vehicles used for transportation of material were informed to Plaintiff. Defendant failed to place on record the basis of determination of conclusion that documents submitted by Plaintiff were false or incorrect and which became the basis of the letters dated 07.10.2022 and 28.10.2022 (Ex. PW1/28 and Ex. PW1/38. Hence, in my considered opinion, the Orders suspending the business of Plaintiff and issuing Show Cause notice without there being an material evidence; the same are liable to be declared as null and void.
The issue stands accordingly answered in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.10.27
17:37:49 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 24/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD Issue no. 3: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed for in para no. (b) of prayer clause ? OPP Issue no. 4: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the amount as prayed for in para no.
(c) of Prayer clause ? OPP.
Issue no. 5: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the amount. If so, at what rate and from what period? OPP.
22 The issues are taken up together being interlinked and intertwined to each other. Before proceeding any further, the evidence led by the parties needs to be dilated upon.
23 Plaintiff examined Mr Kamal Goel as PW-1 who deposed on the lines of averments taken in the plaint and brought the relevant documents on record. He negated the suggestion that Plaintiff was already aware of the false RCs submitted with Defendant, when was asked. PW-1 proved the excel sheet Ex.PW1/39 submitted with MCD showing the amounts payable and deposed that only on being received letters Ex.PW1/23 and PW1/24 from Defendant that Plaintiff inquired into such documents. He further negated the suggestion of the Plaintiff Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 17:37:55 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 25/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD having forged the said documents.
24. Defendant examined Mr Shivendra Kumar as DW-1, who relied upon the documents, all of which are admitted ones except for the 8th bill raised. The witness failed to show his authorization on behalf of Defendant to depose for Department. DW-1 also did not file any document supporting the fact that he was deposing in his official capacity as AE, Civil, Sanitary Land Fill (SLF, Okhla) Division.
25. In cross-examination, DW-1 admits that no excess material was ever unloaded from any of the vehicles at SLF, Okhla at any point of time against the work order in question nor was there any mechanism or any presence of MCD officials at the site, where material would be loaded in vehicles to verify, if there was any such overloading or unloading of material having taken place.
26. In cross-examination, DW-1 admits that Defendant did not issue any show cause notice to Plaintiff or gave any opportunity of hearing uptill 31.08.2022 or even thereafter uptill the deduction of amounts on the ground of overloading. DW-1 though refers to show cause notice dated 21.10.2022 sent to Plaintiff. However, the contents of said Notice do not relate to the issue of overloading.
27. DW-1 further admits the completion of work order within time and deposes that Defendant had nothing to show, on what basis, the Tender amount of Rs. 4,18,49,500/- as mentioned in Ex. PW1/5 was Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 17:38:02 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 26/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD increased to Rs. 6,81,38,000/- as mentioned in Ex. PW1/15, though he admits the work order was revised by the Defendant and work completed by Plaintiff.
28. In his cross-examination, DW-1 further deposes that Plaintiff was not issued any notice in writing to verify the details of measurements recorded in the measurement book, before preparing the final bill Ex. PW1/41, though the extracts of the details filed by Plaintiff Ex. PW1/41 are admitted by him. DW-1 deposes that the bill Ex. PW1/41 does not bear any date or different dates when it was signed at point A and D thereof. DW-1 admits that the rounding off and corrections/deductions at page no. 103 of Ex. PW1/41 are not counter signed nor bear any dates. DW-1 feigns his ignorance about processing of the Bill 10C. He further deposes that the alleged overloading of material in vehicles did not cause any financial loss to Defendant. He admits that there is no express clause in the work order /contract based upon which the Defendant was empowered to deduct such amounts from final bill on the basis of overloading.
29 There is no denial to the fact that various bills were raised by Plaintiff including submission of quantity of inert with weigh bridge slips and bill for verification including disposal/ transportation of the inert to the designated places. The record establishes that the work had been completed within time as also admitted by DW-1 in cross-examination. DW-1 further admitted the revision of the Work Order on same terms and Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 17:38:09 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 27/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD conditions awarded by Defendant in respect of the work, which was completed by Plaintiff within stipulated time.
30. The Plaintiff was called upon by the Defendant by Letters Ex. PW1/23 and Ex. PW1/24 to submit the original documents like Registration Certificates, Vehicle Permits, Insurance Proof, Pollution Certificates etc. The Plaintiff submitted its reply thereto in terms of communication dated 07.09.2022 stating that the vehicles arranged in the execution of the work had no concern with the Plaintiff, these being hired by Plaintiff and the authenticity of documents asked did not lie with Plaintiff firm.
31. Plaintiff served a Legal Notice dated 26.10.2022 Ex. PW1/30 under Section 478 of DMC Act, 1957, calling upon the Defendant to withdraw the Office Orders. The Defendant, as transpires from the Show Cause Notice Ex.PW1/29, called for an explanation as to why the order for suspension of business, black listing and closure of contract should not be passed. The letter also indicated the proposed action for recovery of damages/ compensation on account of material transported beyond the vehicles specified capacity. The Plaintiff replied to the show cause notice, in terms of his letter dated 28.10.2022.
32. However, on the said date itself, the Defendant passed an order Ex. PW1/38 dated 28.10.2022 to the following effect:-
"After due consideration of the reply/ submission of M/s. Ram Niwas Goel and all the facts of the Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 ____________________________________________________________________________ 17:38:17 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 28/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD case on record placed before competent authority, the competent authority came to the conclusion that the firm i.e. M/s. Ram Niwas Goel has defaulted in registration of vehicles at the weighbridge on the basis of documents submitted by you, as such, the genuineness and authenticity of these documents solely lie upon you inasmuch you were causing a wrongful gain to yourself and a wrongful loss to the corporation by using forged documents and hence therefore, be blacklisted for a period of one year for participation in any tender/ work for MCD from the date of issue of this order, forfeiture of earnest money, provisional compensation to be levied on the agency for the weight claimed over and above RLW of 25 MT @ awarded to our firm and to be recovered from the contractor's bill and the Closure of contract."
33. The work had stood completed and Defendant admitted that no such discrepancy was communicated to the Plaintiff at the relevant time. It was only subsequent to the completion of the work that in terms of Letters Ex. PW1/23 and Ex. PW1/24, Defendant called upon the Plaintiff to submit the original documents pertaining to the vehicles engaged by the Plaintiff, which was completely unwarranted act, contrary to the Agreement and the GCC.
34. What would be the legal effect of belated pointing out of the discrepancies by Defendant and the rescinding of the contract with Plaintiff subsequent to the completion of the work concluded Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 17:38:24 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 29/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD within time. The same has a bearing upon the claims of amounts due in view of the assessment of damages done by the Defendant and deductions made. Firstly pursuant to the letters Ex. PW1/23 and Ex. PW1/24 relating to supply of the original registration certificates etc, the Plaintiff had stated that the vehicles arranged in the execution of the work had no concern with the Plaintiff and these were hired by Plaintiff and the authenticity of documents could not lie upon Plaintiff firm. There was no contra reply to the same on behalf of Defendant.
35. Secondly, there is nothing on record to show that the alleged discrepancies were ever brought to the notice of Plaintiff by Defendant during the period when the vehicles were hired. The admiited position is that the issuance of Ex.PW-1/23 and Ex.PW-1/24 qua the discrepancy was issued only subsequent to the completion of the Work. The Plaintiff has proved that the work was completed on 24.07.2022 and he submitted the 8 th bill i.e. quantity of work done by its letter dated 29.07.2022 submitted on 01.08.2022. The agreed rate of inert was delivered at Khadda Colony, which was at a distance of 15 KM from Okhla SLF to Khadda Colony and Plaintiff asked for Rs. 1,37,98,684/- after he had received, approx Rs. 69 Lakhs against arrears of dues of previous bills and 8th bill.
Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER
BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.10.27
17:38:30 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 30/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD
36. Thirdly, the substantial amount had stood released to the Plaintiff by the said date and it was only after the completion of the work that the issue relating to discrepancies cropped up. The Plaintiff's contention in this respect is that the Defendant could have raised issues at the time when the certificates were submitted, but the Defendant continued to get the work done from Plaintiff including the revised work. Once Defendent was in an advantageous position, it raised the technical issue of alleged false documents.
37. Defendant could have, and ought to have raised any such objection initially at the time of submission of the documents or even while the work was being performed by the Plaintiff through his hired transporters. After having made the Plaintiff to complete the work and suffer in terms of the transportation costs, the Defendant could not have resiled from its contractual obligations to make payments for the work done by the Plaintiff.
38. The Defendant's faint plea is that the RCs were forged, and the Plaintiff did not file the original certificates, which confirms the fabrication of the Certificates, for the purpose of obtaining advantage/benefit under the Contract Act and leading to a breach of contract by Plaintiff. The plea is that the Defendant was well within its right to rescind the contract as well as assess damages, forfeit the earnest money, and no monetary damages were required to be Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 17:38:36 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 31/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD proved by the Defendant.
39 I hold that the Defendant had raised the issue of alleged discrepanices only after the work stood completed in a mechanical manner.
The plea of documents, found to be not genuine and fabricated as taken by Defendant is of no consequence. Even if it is considered, the same is not a material violation of terms of the performance of actual work of the Contract or completion of the work under the Work Order, so as to consider it a breach of condition.
40 What appears to be more compelling is the fact that the work stood performed and completed by the date when the Defendant had raised the issue of fabrication of the documents. The same has gone inexplicable. Since, Defendant had the opportunity to verify documents immediately after the submission of such documents at the commencement of work and during the performance of the work, the Defendant's oral pleas are devoid of any substance and merit outright rejection.
41 Defendant did not lead any positive evidence in support of forgery of fabrication of documents submitted by Plaintiff. The defence Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 17:38:43 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 32/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD in this regard remained unsubstantiated and the plea remained unestablished.
It would be apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of The Contract Act, which are :-
" Section 62. Effect of novation, rescission, and alteration of contract.--If the parties to a contract agree to substitute a new contract for it, or to rescind or alter it, the original contract, need not be performed."
"Section 64. Consequences of rescission of a voidable contract.--When a person at whose option a contract is voidable rescinds it, the other party thereto need not perform any promise therein contained in which he is promiser. The party rescinding a voidable contract shall, if he have received any benefit thereunder from another party to such contract, restore such benefit, so far as may be, to the person from whom it was received."
"Section 65. Obligation of person who has received advantage under void agreement, or contract that becomes void.--When an agreement is discovered to be void, or when a contract becomes void, any person who has received any advantage under such agreement or contract is bound to restore it, or to make compensation for it to the person from whom he received it."
"Section 70. Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act.--Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered."
"Section 73. Compensation for loss or damage Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 17:38:49 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 33/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD caused by breach of contract.--When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.
Such compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach.
Compensation for failure to discharge obligation resembling those created by contract.--When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract.
Explanation.--In estimating the loss or damage arising from a breach of contract, the means which existed of remedying the inconvenience caused by the non-performance of the contract must be taken into account."
"Section 75. Party rightfully rescinding contract, entitled to compensation.--A person who rightfully rescinds a contract is entitled o compensation for any damage which he has sustained through the non- fulfillment of the contract."
42 Having traversed the statutory framework as above and case law, even if the Defendant is assumed to have a legal right to rescind the contract, or otherwise penalize the Plaintiff, under the terms of the contract, the manner and extent of such exercise has to Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 ____________________________________________________________________________ 17:38:56 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 34/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD be in line with the law.
43 The Defendant ignored the fact that the Plaintiff had completed the work while passing the impugned orders. The Defendant, as transpires from the record, had not only proceeded to inflict penalties like blacklisting, suspension of the work, it subsequently assessed damages on the hypothetical assumption that the excess load carried by such vehicles need not be paid for. Here is what is unwarranted on part of Defendant to have acted so.
44. Also considering the relief of restituition based on the Quantum meriut principle, the provisions of the Contract Act would indicate that a party who has derived a benefit under a contract which is rescinded or avoided, has to restitute the same to the party at the disadvantage. Even in respect of Quasi Contracts resembling a Contract, a party enjoying the benefit of non-gratuitous act has to pay for the same.
45. In the realm of a well defined Contract, the principles may be identified as damages and in respect of quasi contracts or other situations resembling contract, as Quantum meriut. Reliance can be placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd v Vihaan Networks Ltd (DOD as 03.10.2023) .
Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 17:39:02 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 35/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD
46. Section 64 of IC Act obligates a party rescinding the avoidable contract to restore the benefit derived by him under a contract. Assuming that Defendant had rightfully rescinded the contract, it ought to have cared for mitigation of the damages and the delay on its part cannot be said to be inconsequential. The very fact that the rescinding of the contract was proposed and effected subsequent to the completion of the work under the contract, does count in favour of the Plaintiff, in so far as the unpaid balance is concerned.
47. The Defendant passed the 8th and final bill Ex. PW1/41, but made arbitrary deductions, without issuing any notice to the other side or informing them. As to the plea of the Defendant that Plaintiff could not claim the amount after he had accepted the bill Ex. PW1/41, the same is together inconsequential as the Defendant could not prove the basis of such deductions. Plaintiff in such circumstances was within his right to claim legally admissible amounts even after acceptance of Ex. PW1/41. The Defendant failed to show the basis of recovery of Rs. 47,28,621/- from past bills and Rs. 12,55,500/- in lieu of PG after completion of work. Similarly, the Plaintiff's claim against 10 C bill Ex. PW1/31 remained unanswered.
48. As observed, the Defendant assessed damages by deductions in 8th bill, on the basis of hypothetical basis. A reference to the case law Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 17:39:13 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 36/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD appears to be desirable. In Maula Bux Vs. Union of India [1970 SCR (1) 928], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under:-
"It is true that in every case of breach of contract the person aggrieved by the breach is not required to prove actual loss or damage suffered by him before he can claim a decree, and the Court is competent to award reasonable compensation in case of breach even if no actual damage is proved to have been suffered in consequence of the breach of contract. But the expression "whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby" is intended to cover different classes of contracts which come before the Courts.
In case of breach of some contracts it may be impossible for the Court to assess compensation arising from breach, while in other cases compensation can be calculated in accordance with established rules. Where the Court is unable to assess the compensation, the sum named by the parties if it be regarded as a genuine preestimate may be taken into consideration as the measure of reasonable compensation, but not if the sum named is in the nature of a penalty. Where loss in terms of money can be determined, the party claiming compensation must prove the loss suffered by him.
In the present case, it was possible for the Government of India to lead evidence to prove the rates at which potatoes, poultry, eggs and fish were purchased by them when the Plaintiff failed to deliver "regularly and fully" the quantities stipulated under the terms of the contracts and after the contracts were terminated. They could have proved the rates at which they had to be purchased and also the other incidental charges Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 ____________________________________________________________________________ 17:39:19 +0530 CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 37/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD incurred by them in procuring the goods contracted for. But no such attempt was made."
49 In Murlidhar Chiranjilal Vs. Harishchandra Dwarkadas & Ors [AIR 1962 SC 366], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, observed as under:-
"9 . The two principles on which damages in such cases are calculated are well-settled. The first is that, as far as possible, he who has proved a breach of a bargain to supply what he contracted to get is to be placed, as far as money can do it, in as good a situation as if the contract had been performed; but this principle is qualified by a second, which imposes on a Plaintiff the duty of taking all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss consequent on the breach, and debars him from claiming any part of the damage which is due to his neglect to take such steps......."
58. Not only there is admission to the effect that there is no monetary loss, but also the fact remains that the Defendant has not proved any damages in the proceedings. Although, the Court cannot be oblivious that the submission of fabricated documents cannot be said to be of no consequence, there has to be some proportionate or logical nexus between the injury and the damages........."
50 Reliance can also be placed upon the decisions of Hon'ble High Court in Techno Prints v Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation and ors (DOD as 12.02.2025) and Vishal Engineers & Builders v Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (DOD as 30.11.2011) .
RAVINDER Digitally signed by
RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.10.27
17:39:25 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 38/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD
51. In the present case, Plaintiff has been able to pass the test of preponderance of probabilities as the Plaintiff's evidence weighs over the feeble stand taken by the defendant. The case set by Plaintiff is more credible and convincing than that presented by Defendant. The Defendant not only blacklisted the Plaintiff, suspended the work and rescinded the Contract, but also assessed the damages on hypthetical basis i.e. not to pay for the overload. Such a criterion for assessment of damages even on account of element of remoteness is illegal. The work was already complete and the Defendant had no means to restore the benefit while rescinding the contract. The imposition of penalty and deductions could not have been exercised to the extent that the work done was not paid for. Applying these principles, the breach of condition as alleged by Defendant, without occasioning any monetary loss, could not have warranted imposition of the damages.
52 Having held thus, for the reasons adumbrated above, I find that the Defendant could have and ought have raised issue of fabrication of documents at the earliest point of time; the rescission of the contract after the completion of the work was not lawful warranted under law. The right of the Plaintiff under Section 64 stood severely affected; Even if the Defendant was assumed to be entitled to damages, it ought to have cared for mitigation of damages; and the belated action on the part of the Defendant, i.e. after the completion of the work had put the Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 17:39:34 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 39/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD Plaintiff at a much disadvantageous position; The assessment of damages by Defendant was purely on hypothetical basis and having regard to the law laid down in Maula Bux Vs. Union of India [1970 SCR (1) 928] and Murlidhar Chiranjilal Vs. Harishchandra Dwarkadas & Ors [AIR 1962 SC 366], the Defendant ought have proved the actual damages suffered. In the absence of such determination, the Defendant could not have usurped the right to withhold the payment of the Plaintiff.
53. The Plaintiff thus is entitled to the amount of unpaid balance towards the work done, as special damages, if not as contractual obligation of the Defendant, in as much as the Defendant had failed to mitigate the damages by not acting timely.
54 The issues stand answered in favour of Plaintiff and against Defendant.
Issue no. 1 : The office Order dated 07.10.2022 and 28.10.2022 (page no.87 to 91 of plaint) were issued only due to the non-compliance and defaults committed by the Plaintiff as per para no.V to XIV and para no.4-20 of written statement ? OPD Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 17:39:40 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 40/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD
55. The onus to prove the issue was upon Defendant. Considering my detailed observations and findings in Issues no. 2 to 4, Defendant has miserably failed to establish the legality of these Orders. The Defendant did not bring up anything as to what were the alleged non-compliances or defaults committed by Plaintiff, which became the basis for the issuance of the Office orders in question. The written statement of the Defendant contained evasive averments, few of which being contradictory to its own record and the same consisted of mere omnibus denials ; same being not as per Order VIII Rule 3A(3) CPC as amended by The CC Act 2015. Defendant failed to even infer that there was any material breach of agreement between parties, particularly after substantial amounts were released to Plaintiff.
The issue stands answered against the Defendant and favour of Plaintiff.
Issue no. 5: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the amount. If so, at what rate and from what period? OPP
56. On the aspect of interest on the amount, ld. Counsel for Plaintiff submits that Plaintiff is claiming an interest @12% p.a. on the dues w.e.f 01.05.2024 till realization.
57 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as ' M/s. Jindal
Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER
BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.10.27
17:39:48 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 41/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD Realcon Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs M/s. Laxmi Narain Ram Dass & Co, (para-4 ) has observed as follows :
"4. The Supreme Court in a line of judgments has held that in view of changed economic scenario where there has been consistent fall in rates of interest, Courts must in accordance with the changed circumstances grant lesser rates of interest. These judgments of the Supreme Court are Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, (2005) 6 SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G. Harischandra, (2007) 2 SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan v. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC)"
(emphasis supplied).
58 Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of R.F.A. No.823 of 2004 titled as Shri Sanjay Mittal Versus Sunil Jain (decided on 07.12.2018) has held that higher rates of interest, which are against public policy, can be struck down by the Courts.
59 Indisputably, Defendant has illegally withheld the legitimate dues of the Plaintiff. Given the overall circumstances as also keeping in view the mandate of settled law, the interest of justice would be served if Plaintiff is granted simple rate of interest @ 9 % p.a. pendente-lite and Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 17:39:54 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 42/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD future till its realization.
60 Plaintiff is thus granted simple rate of interest @ 9 % p.a. pendente-lite and future on the outstanding amount of Rs. 97,86,413/- till its realization.
61 Plaintiff has also claimed the cost of the suit. Keeping in view the provisions of Sections-35 and 35A CPC, it has been established that since Defendant failed to pay the outstanding dues not only despite service of legal notice, but also, despite service of summons of the suit upon it, it is responsible for the costs of the litigation as per relevant rules. Plaintiff is accordingly entitled for the cost of litigation against the Defendant.
Relief 62 From the discussion as adumbrated herein-above, the suit of Plaintiff stands allowed. A decree is passed :
a) for a sum of Rs. 97,86,413/-
97,86,413/ (Rupees Ninety Seven Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Four hundred thirteen only) in favour of Plaintiff and against Defendant alongwith simple rate of interest @ 9% p.a. pendente-lite and future till realization.
b) The costs of the suit alongwith pleader's fee is also Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.10.27 17:40:00 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 43/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD awarded in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
63. Defendant is directed to make the payment of the decretal amount within three months from today.
64 Decree-sheet be prepared and file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.10.27
17:40:07 +0530
Announced in the open (Dr. Ravinder Bedi)
Court on 27.10.2025 District Judge (Commercial Court)-12
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 673/2024 Page no. 44/ 44 M/s Ram Niwas Goel v MCD