Delhi District Court
Shri Siddhant Shangle Legal Heir vs Delhi State Industrial And ... on 27 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01,
NORTH WEST, ROHINI, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) No. 552/2021
CNR NO.DLNW010083022021
Shri Siddhant Shangle Legal Heir
For Late Shri Arvind Kumar Shangle Prop.
M/s Anshum Builders,
6 Central Avenue
Maharani Bagh,
New Delhi - 110065
...Plaintiff
Versus
Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure
Development Corporation Ltd.
Through The Executive Engineer (CD-XX)
DSIIDC, Technical Center Building
Wazirpur Industrial Area
Delhi - 110052
...Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 23,54,450/- (EARNEST
MONEY DEPOSIT Rs.16,81,750/- + interest @12% p.a. from
11.05.2018 till filing of the suit Rs.6,72,700/-) ALONGWITH
PENDENTELITE & FUTURE INTEREST @ 12 % P.A. TILL
ITS REALISATION.
Date of institution of Suit : 22.10.2021
Date of Assignment to this court : 23.10.2021
Date of hearing of final argument : 19.06.2025
Date of Judgment : 27.06.2025
Digitally signed
CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. PREETI
by PREETI
AGRAWAL
1/43
AGRAWAL GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.06.27
16:27:08 +0530
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, I shall conscientiously adjudicate upon the Suit of plaintiff for Recovery of Rs.23,54,450/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum pendentlite and future, from the date of filing of the suit till its realisation alongwith costs of the Suit.
2. As derived from the pleadings, the concise facts of the plaint are being summarised hereunder.
2.1 The Plaintiff is one of the legal heirs of late Shri Arvind Kumar Shangle, Proprietor of firm M/s Anshum Builders registered in Class I with CPWD, and was engaged in the business of construction and civil contracts, having its office at 6 Central Avenue Maharani Bagh New Delhi - 110065.
2.2 Late Shri Arvind Kumar Shangle, as Proprietor of M/s Anshum Builder, participated in the tender called by Respondent/DSIIDC, as per his Registration. The offer was later on withdrawn by him, before its acceptance by the defendant. However, the defendant did not refund the Earnest Money Deposit as deposited along with tender, despite withdrawal of offer, before its acceptance by the defendant.
2.3 Late Shri Arvind Kumar Shangle requested the defendant for refund of his deposit and even filed a petition (for pre- institution mediation) as per Section 2 (1) (c) (sic Section 12-A) of the Commercial Courts Act 2015, on 13.02.2020, as mandatory requirement before filing of Suit, which remained 'unsettled' as per Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI AGRAWAL CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. AGRAWAL GUPTA Date:
2/43GUPTA 2025.06.27 16:27:14 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 Certificate of Non Starter Report dated 17.11.2020, issued by DLSA. 2.4. Shri Arvind Kumar Shangle, the proprietor of firm, expired on 03.03.2020, leaving five Legal Heirs namely (1) Smt.Sushma Shangle (wife), (2) Ms.Anisha Shangle W/o Shri Raghav Bagai (Daughter), (3) Ms.Ashima Goyal W/o Shri Ashish Goyal (Daughter) (4) Ms.Minakshi Shangle (Daughter) and (5) Mr.Siddhant Shangle (Son), who have authorized the Plaintiff, vide Authority/No Objection letter dated 23.07.2020 from other legal heirs, to institute all proceedings for recovery of any sum due against the Government Departments and to receive the outstanding amounts from the departments for the work done or otherwise due, from the departments.
2.5. The Plaintiff, therefore, has filed the present Suit for recovery of Rs.23,54,450/- against the Defendant, comprising the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.16,81,750/- and interest of Rs.6,72,700/- @ 12% p.a. w.e.f.11.05.2018 till filing of the suit, with further interest @12% pendentelite and future. 2.6 Defendant (DSIIDC Ltd.) called an open tender from the contractors for submitting their competitive offer for execution of work C/o cluster bus depot at sector - 5 Bawana Indl. Area Delhi.
SH: C/o admn block building, boundary wall, workshop, E.S.S, Guard Room, Rest room, UG tank and rain water harvesting etc (Civil+ Electrical) with Estimated Cost: Rs 84085635/- vide Notice Inviting Tender.
2.7 Plaintiff had participated in the tender and had offered their competitive rates for execution of work in question. The NIT was called for the aforesaid work by the defendants and the Plaintiff Digitally signed by PREETI CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. PREETI AGRAWAL 3/43 AGRAWAL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.06.27 16:27:20 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 had offered their rates alongwith EMD of Rs.16,81,750/- through RTGS from PNB Ashok Vihar on 12.04.2018 as against the required EMD of RS 16,81,713/-.
2.8 The Plaintiff, thereafter before the acceptance of the tender by defendant, withdrew his offer and requested the defendant to release his Earnest Money Deposit vide his letter dated 11.05.2018 submitted in the office of defendant vide diary no. 3029 at about 11:00 AM in the morning.
2.9 The defendant backdated the alleged LOA (Letter of Acceptance) as 10.05.2018 and dispatched the said letter alleged to be acceptance letter dated 10.05.2018 vide Speed post no. ED 372504902IN on 11.05.2018 at about 15:16 hours i.e after receiving the letter of withdrawal of offer, from the plaintiff, with malafide intentions to forfeit the 'Earnest Money Deposit' of the Plaintiff. 2.10 It is further submitted that there was no concluded contract between the parties till acceptance of offer as per Law and therefore, the defendant had wrongly forfeited the amount of Earnest Money Deposit of the Plaintiff vide letter dated 11.05.2018. The said alleged 'acceptance letter' is no acceptance, as the offer already stands withdrawn by the Plaintiff, even before its acceptance and therefore, the alleged acceptance letter dated 10.05.2018, as dispatched after the withdrawal of offer by plaintiff, has no value in the eyes of law and therefore, to be taken as null and void in terms of Provisions of Indian Contract Act 1872 as amended upto date. 2.11 Plaintiff, vide his letter dated 29.06.2018, requested the defendant to release an amount of Rs.16,81,750/- immediately, as per Law or otherwise with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of Digitally signed by CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. PREETI PREETI AGRAWAL 4/43 AGRAWAL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.06.27 16:27:25 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 withdrawal of offer i.e 11.05.2018 till date of release of payments.
However, the Defendant, instead releasing the EMD, wrongly forfeited the EMD vide their letter dated 06.07.2018. 2.12 It is further submitted that the plaintiff again vide his letter dated 07.08.2018, once again requested the defendant to release the EMD for an amount of Rs.16,81,750/- immediately, as per Law and also served Notice under Section 80 CPC. However, the defendant neither released the amount of EMD nor even replied the said letter/Notice u/s 80 CPC.
2.13 The withdrawal of offer, before the acceptance of the said tender i.e on 11.05.2018 at about 11:00 hrs., cannot bound the plaintiff with the liabilities of tender and the plaintiff has all legal rights to withdraw his offer before acceptance of offer by other party to the contract. The plaintiff again requested to release the EMD as the withdrawal of offer by the bidder is much earlier to its acceptance and therefore, the amount of EMD as submitted with the bid, which was withdrawn, is required to be refunded back to the bidder/Plaintiff.
2.14 The plaintiff wrote numbers of letters to the defendant and called upon the defendant to release the Earnest money deposit to the plaintiff alongwith interest, but the defendant refused to entertain the said claim and failed to release the same, hence the plaintiff left with no alternative, filed the present suit. 2.15 The Cause of action for filing the present suit is claimed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, when the plaintiff withdrew his offer, before acceptance of the offer is put to the offeror i.e on 11.05.2018 and thereafter, still continuous as the defendant Digitally signed by PREETI CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA 5/43 AGRAWAL Date:
GUPTA 2025.06.27 16:27:30 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 refused to release the amount of EMD as taken by the defendant from the Plaintiff.
2.16 Present Court has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present suit as the work was carried out at Delhi, amount was payable at Delhi and the defendant is having their office at Delhi, within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. 2.17 It is claimed that defendant is liable to pay the amount of Rs. 16,81,750/- along with Rs.6,72,700/- as interest @ 12% p.a. from 11.05.2018 till filing of the suit, making a total of Rs.23,54,450/-.
Plaintiff also claims entitlement to pendente-lite and future interest @ 12% per annum, from the date of institution of the suit till its realization.
3. The crystalised facts in defence and contest by defendant, as averred in the Written Statement, are as under.
3.1 As per the averments in the Written Statement, the suit of the plaintiff has been outrightly denied on merits. There are several legal objections raised by the defendant interalia cause of action and maintainability of the present suit as the suit has been filed without any valid cause of action; alleged claims in the plaint are false, frivolous, misconceived, afterthought and based on contradictory allegations; Other necessary legal heirs of deceased Arvind Kumar Shangle are not made parties and the alleged authority/NOC dated 23.07.2020, allegedly executed by other Legal heirs in favour of the plaintiff, is illegal and invalid; Plaintiff has approached this Court with unclean hands, suppressing the material Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. AGRAWAL AGRAWAL GUPTA 6/43 Date:
GUPTA 2025.06.27 16:27:34 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 facts; present suit is barred by limitation as the matter pertains to the year 2018 and the suit has been filed after lapse of three years. 3.2 It is vehemently contended that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. It is averred that as per the tender process, the LOA (Letter of acceptance) was issued to M/s. Anshum Builders on 10.05.2018, and the EMD (Earnest Money Deposit) was forfeited, following due procedure. However, the firm submitted the withdrawal letter 44 days after the NIT date. A complaint dated 29.06.2018 was made by plaintiff firm to EE, CD-20, which was duly responded to on 06.07.2018, citing CPWD procedures, justifying the forfeiture. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is baseless. 3.3 On merits, defendant has vehemently denied that Shri Arvind Kumar Shangle withdrew the offer before its acceptance. It is averred that the LOA was issued on 10.05.2018, but the firm submitted a withdrawal letter on the 45th day, i.e., 11.05.2018, after the NIT submission on 28.03.2018. This abrupt withdrawal by plaintiff firm caused a three-month delay in the project, without any justification by the plaintiff. Since the agency (plaintiff) withdrew after being declared L-1, without any technical reason, the defendant had to cancel and reissue the tender, which resulted in a significant loss to the defendant.
3.4 The allegation, that the defendant backdated the letter of acceptance to 10.05.2018 after receiving the withdrawal letter (dated 11.05.2018), to forfeit the plaintiff's EMD, is vehemently denied, submitting that all claims are false, frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, and defamatory. Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA AGRAWAL Date:
GUPTA 2025.06.27 CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. 16:27:40 +0530 7/43 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 3.5 It is further vehemently denied that there was no concluded contract until the acceptance of the offer or that the defendant wrongfully forfeited the plaintiff's EMD. The claim that the acceptance letter dated 10.05.2018 was issued after receiving the withdrawal letter, is also strongly denied. It is averred that the forfeiture of EMD was lawful, and the plaintiff is not entitled to release of EMD or interest for any period, as alleged, praying for dismissal of the Suit with exemplary costs.
4. On completion of pleadings, following issues were arrived at, to be adjudicated upon by the Court:
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.16,81,750/-
from defendant? O.P.P.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.6,72,700/-
towards interest calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from 11.05.2018 till date of filing of the Suit, from defendant? O.P.P.
3. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled to pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum? O.P.P.
4. Relief.
EVIDENCE IN THE MATTER
5. In exercise of power u/o. XV A Rule 6 (o) and (p) CPC, Court appointed Local Commissioner namely Mr. R. K. Yadav, Ld. Retd. District & Sessions Judge, who has been pleased to record the evidence in this matter.
Digitally signed by PREETIPREETI AGRAWAL AGRAWAL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. 2025.06.27 16:27:46 +0530 8/43 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE:
6. Plaintiff, in support of its case, got examined its authorised representative Sh. Gian Chand Singla, as PW1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at Point A and Point B. By way of affidavit of chief- examination, the plaintiff witness has deposed as per the averments in the plaint and has relied upon following documents:-
Sl No. Documents Exhibited as
1 Authority letter dated13.06.2024 executed/issued Ex. PW1/1
by Sh. Siddhant Shangle (plaintiff) in favour of Sh. Gian Chand Singla 2 Photocopy of Death Certificate of Sh. Arvind Mark A Kumar Shangle, dated 21.05.2020.
3 GST Registration Certificate dated 26.06.2017. Mark B 4 'No objections certificate' executed in favour of Mark C, D, E and Sh. Siddhant Shangle by : F Meenakshi Shangle (daughter), Sushma Shangle (wife), Ashima Goyal (daughter) and Anisha Shangle (daughter) 5 Aadhar Card of Sh. Siddhant Shangle Ex. PW1/2 6 Letter of Acceptance dated 10.05.2018 issued by Ex. PW1/3 defendant to Anshum Builders.
7 Postal letter envelope with its postal receipt Ex. PW1/4 and (containing LOA Dt. 10.05.2018) Ex. PW1/5 8 Letter dated 11.05.2018 by Anshum Builders to Ex. PW1/6 EE (CD-XX), DSIIDC requesting release of EMD 9 Letter dated 29.06.2018 by Anshum Builders to Ex. PW1/7 EE (CD-XX), DSIIDC again requesting release of EMD 10 Notice issued Under Section 80 CPC and under Ex. PW1/8 the Interest Act 1978, dated 07.08.2018 by Anshul Builders upon EE (CD-XX) DSIIDC 11 Letter dated 06.07.2018, written by Sh. Vijay Pal Ex. PW1/9 Singh, Executive Engineer (CD-XX) (Reply to the letter dt. 29.06.2018 of Anshum Builders) Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI AGRAWAL CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. AGRAWAL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
9/432025.06.27 16:27:50 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025
7. During cross-examination of PW-1 by ld. Counsel for defendant, following documents were put to the witness and exhibited accordingly:
Sl No. Documents Exhibited as
1. Copy of the letter from Anshum Builders dated Ex.PW1/R1 (OSR) 11.05.2018 requesting release of EMD
8. PW1 namely Sh. Gian Chand Singla, has been cross-
examined by ld. Counsel for the defendant, at length. During cross- examination, PW1 deposed that he is a government-licensed contractor, deals with contracts assigned by various Government Departments, however, he has not submitted a copy of his license or identity card as proof. He deposed that his firm, GEE Internationals, is a proprietorship concern registered with CPWD and is distinct from Anshum Builders, with which he has worked as an associate but holds no formal partnership. PW1 deposed that no document is available to confirm his association with Anshum Builders, and he ceased working with them after the death of its proprietor, Arvind Kumar Shangle, on 03.03.2020. The witness admitted to being authorized to write letters to the Defendant but could not recall when the authorization was granted. He admitted that no formal authorization was given to write letters specifically, for the case in question. He expressed lack of knowledge about the succession certificate for the deceased proprietor and stated that all legal heirs mentioned in his affidavit were major. He initially claimed to have filed the present suit but later stated that it was instituted by Siddhant Shangle.
Digitally signed by PREETIPREETI AGRAWAL AGRAWAL GUPTA CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. GUPTA Date:
2025.06.27 10/43 16:27:57 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 8.1 On further cross-examination on merits of its testimony, PW1 denied having no knowledge about the tender rates but could not recall the same. PW1 expressed lack of knowledge about the residential address(es) of the legal heirs of the deceased proprietor of M/s Anshum Builders. He admitted seeing the offer letter, which was not written by him. He deposed that the Plaintiff did not maintain a dispatch register for official correspondence. PW-1 categorically asserted that letter of revocation of offer vide Ex. PW1/6 was handed over personally to the office of the defendant around 10:30 to 10:45 a.m. on 11.05.2018, though the defendant did not specifically noted down the time of handing over the same. PW1 further emphatically denied the suggestion of the defendant that Ex.PW1/6 was handed over at the office of the defendant on 11.05.2018 at 4:35 p.m. The deposing plaintiff witness during his testimony raised allegations that the document confronted to him vide Ex. PW1/R1 was a fabricated documents in respect of the writing at Point-A thereof.
8.2 The witness deposed that the offer was withdrawn owing to personal reasons, before the Defendant accepted it. PW1 denied that the Plaintiff's offer was accepted on 10.05.2018 or that the Plaintiff firm failed to perform its obligations, leading to the forfeiture of earnest money. He also denied that the suit was filed by an unauthorized person.
9. Plaintiff/Sh. Siddhant Shangle, tendered himself in evidence as PW2 and his affidavit of chief-examination is tendered and relied upon as Ex.PW2/A bearing his signatures at Point A and Point B. By way of affidavit of chief-examination, PW2 has deposed Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. AGRAWAL Date:
GUPTA 2025.06.27 11/43 16:28:01 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 as per the averments in the plaint and has relied upon documents following documents:-
Sl No. Documents Exhibited as
1 Copy of surviving member certificate dated Ex. PW2/1 (OSR)
08.07.2007
2 No objection certificates 'No objections Already marked as
certificate' executed in favour of Sh. Siddhant Mark C, D, E and F Shangle by :
Meenakshi Shangle (daughter), Sushma Shangle (wife), Ashima Goyal (daughter) and Anisha Shangle (daughter) During examination in chief. Ld. Counsel for the defendant objected to mode of proof of Ex.PW2/1 for want of affidavit/certificate under section 65B of the Evidence Act, which objection is left open for adjudication by the Court at appropriate stage.
10. PW2 namely Sh. Siddhant Shangle, has been cross-
examined by ld. Counsel for the defendant, at length. During cross- examination PW-2 deposed that his date of birth is 04.07.1999 and that he is the current proprietor of M/s Anshum Builders, a construction company having its office at 6, Central Avenue, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. PW2 further deposed regarding his association with the plaintiff firm since 2020, with its principal place of business, at B-411, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. 10.1 PW-2, during further cross-examination deposed that the tender under reference was filed by his father, who was the previous proprietor of Anshum Builders. PW-2 further explained that the company's official communications are received at the Maharani Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI AGRAWAL AGRAWAL GUPTA CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. GUPTA Date:
2025.06.27 12/43 16:28:06 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 Bagh address, though, its GST registration is at New Friends Colony.
PW-2 neither confirmed nor denied that communication with the defendant regarding the transaction took place from which of the above-mentioned addresses. He asserted that Sh.Gian Chand, who has deposed as PW1, was the authorized signatory of Anshum Builders around 2014-2015 and handled all communications in regard to the subject matter, with the defendant. PW2 expressed lack of awareness as to whether a dispatch register was maintained or not. PW2 denied that Gian Chand was never authorized or that he was not associated with Anshum Builders, being a Government Contractor. PW2 admitted that no Succession Certificate was obtained, after death of his father. (The Court had taken note of the 'Surviving Member Certificate' dated 08.07.2007, relied upon as Ex.PW2/1 (OSR)) 10.2 The deposing witness PW2 was further cross-examined in respect of the recall/revocation of the offer of the tender in question, to which PW2 failed to recall the exact date, month, or year of withdrawal. PW2 further testified that Anshum Builders had 6-7 days to withdraw the offer and categorically denied that the alleged letter of acceptance dated 10.05.2018 vide Ex. PW1/3 was received first and that letter of revocation/withdraw of offer vide Ex. PW1/6 was sent thereafter, as suggested. The Plaintiff did not examine any other witness and the plaintiff's evidence was closed.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
11. In defence evidence, defendant examined Sh.Rathlawath Suman, Executive Engineer(Civil), DSIIDC, AS Digitally signed by PREETI CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. PREETI AGRAWAL 13/43 AGRAWAL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.06.27 16:28:11 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 DW-1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A bearing his signatures at Point A and Point B. By way of affidavit of chief-examination, the defendant witness has deposed as per the averments in the Written Statement and has relied upon documents as under:-
Sl No. Documents Exhibited as 1 Copy of the details of tender and merits with Ex.DW1/1 (OSR) orders
2. Copy of the letter received from Anshum Ex.PW1/R1 (OSR) Builders dated 11.05.2018
3. Original letter dated 11.05.2018 received by Ex.DW1/P1 defendant from Anshum Builders regarding release of EMD
4. Copy of the acceptance letter dated 10.05.2018 Ex.DW1/2(OSR) to Anshum Builders, with postal receipt and Ex.DW1/3 (OSR)
5. Copy of the technical bid evaluation summary Ex.DW1/4 (OSR) dated 03.05.2018
6. Copy of the financial bid evaluation summary Ex.DW1/5 (OSR) dated 04.05.2018
7. Copy of the statement of account from Mark-A 01.04.2018 to 30.04.2018
8. Copy of the Bid opening cover fee dated Mark-B
12.04.2018
9. Copy of the cheque of Anshum Builders dated Ex.DW1/6 10.04.2018 of Rs.22,57,100/-
10. Copy of the affidavit of Sh. Arvind Kumar Ex.DW1/7(OSR) Shangle, dated 10.04.2018
11. Copy of the Challan of payment of Rs. 5,373/- Ex.DW1/8(OSR)
12. Copy of Integrity Pact (letter) sent by Anshum Ex.DW1/9(OSR) Builders.
13. Copy of Integrity Agreement dated 10.4.2018 Ex.DW1/10(OSR)
12. During cross-examination of DW-1 by ld. Counsel for plaintiff, following documents were put to the witness and exhibited accordingly:
Digitally signed by PREETIPREETI AGRAWAL AGRAWAL GUPTA CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. GUPTA Date:
2025.06.27 14/43 16:28:16 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025
Sl No. Documents Exhibited as
1. Original letter dated 11.05.2018 received by Ex.DW1/P1
defendant from Anshum Builders regarding released of EMD The sole defendant witness DW1 namely Sh.
Rathlawath Suman, has been cross-examined by ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, at length. During cross-examination, DW1 deposed that he joined services with the defendant in August 2021 as Executive Engineer. He testified that the incoming letters in the office are logged by a clerk at R & I Office in a diary register, maintained in that regard. However, the defence witness admitted that copy of diary register has not been filed in the Court. He deposed that when a letter is received at the office of the defendant, in most of the cases, its time of receipt is mentioned. On being confronted with letters Ex. PW1/6, Ex.PW1/7 and Ex.PW1/8, he admitted that time of receipt was not mentioned in/on these letters. DW1 affirmed that the authority of the signatories of Ex.PW1/6, Ex.PW1/7 and Ex.PW1/8 was never challenged. He baldly denied the suggestion that the diary register was not filed as it would have detailed the time of receipt of letters Ex.PW1/6 (letter dated 11.05.2018 relating to recall of the order), Ex.PW1/7 (Request for refund/release of EMD) and Ex.PW1/8 (Notice U/S 80 CPC). DW1 further admitted that he did not identify the signatures of Sh. Gian Chand and that of the Proprietor of the plaintiff firm.
13. DW1 was further cross-examined in respect of the affidavit dated 10.04.2018, of Sh. Arvind Kumar Shangle, erstwhile Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI AGRAWAL CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. AGRAWAL GUPTA Date:
15/43GUPTA 2025.06.27 16:28:22 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 proprietor of M/s Anshum Builders, tendered on record as Ex.DW1/7. DW1 deposed that the said document has been tendered on record from office record, believing the same to be genuine, though, denying any personal knowledge of the same. He deposed that no letter was written to the plaintiff, intimating it about the forfeiture of earnest money but again said, that plaintiff was informed on 06.07.2018 vide Ex.PW1/9, admitting that no intimation about the forfeiture of earnest money was issued to the plaintiff. He stated, per CPWD manual, there was no obligation to inform the plaintiff about forfeiture. He confirmed after going through Ex.DW1/1 that the financial bid was opened on 04.05.2018.
14. During further cross-examination, DW1 denied allegations that internal notes, appended to Ex.DW1/1 have been manipulated. He admitted that Ex. DW1/1 was not shared with the plaintiff, prior to filing before the Court. He denied the suggestion that on Ex.PW1/R1, time of its receipt is not mentioned by the diary clerk or that writing at point A on Ex.PW1/R1 has been fabricated. (Ex.PW1/R1 filed on record is the same document as Ex.DW1/P1) DW1 deposed that the forfeiture was justified due to the failure of plaintiff to submit a performance guarantee, pursuant to stipulations in CPWD manual. DW1 denied that contents of Ex.PW1/9 were in contradiction to his testimony before the Court. He deposed that subsequent to letter of acceptance, no further communication was made calling the plaintiff to deposit performance guarantee. He denied that contents of Ex. DW1/A are beyond the facts pleaded in Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI AGRAWAL AGRAWAL GUPTA CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. GUPTA Date: 16/43 2025.06.27 16:28:28 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 the written statement. Defendant did not examine any other witness and the DE was closed.
15. Arguments on behalf of the parties have been heard at length and the entire record including the pleadings have been perused. The applicable law has been duly considered. The entire evidence, both oral and documentary, have been appreciated. Issue- wise findings are being discussed hereunder:-
ISSUE NO.1
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.16,81,750/-
from defendant? O.P.P.
16. The Present Suit has been filed on behalf of M/s Anshum Builders, a proprietorship concern, through his legal heir Sh. Siddhant Shangle, pursuant to death of the erstwhile proprietor late Sh. Arind Kumar Shangle. The Suit has been filed by one of the five LRs of deceased proprietor on the basis of 'No Objection' letter issued by the remaining LRs of the deceased in favour of Sh. Siddhant Shangle, duly filed on record. Death Certificate of the deceased proprietor is also filed, as also the Authority Letter issued by the plaintiff in favour of his authorised representative Sh. Gyan Chand Singla, tendered as Ex.PW1/1.
17. The plaintiff, who has filed the suit on behalf of proprietorship firm, has proved his identity vide his Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/2. The present suit has been filed making prayer for release Digitally signed by PREETI CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. PREETI AGRAWAL 17/43 AGRAWAL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.06.27 16:28:33 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 of the earnest money deposit (EMD) to the tune of Rs.16,81,750/-
stated to be recoverable from the defendant. It is case of the plaintiff that the defendant (DSIIDC Ltd.) called an open tender from the contractors for submitting their competitive offer for execution of work C/o cluster bus depot at sector - 5 Bawana Indl. Area Delhi. SH: C/o admn block building, boundary wall, workshop, E.S.S, Guard Room, Rest room, UG tank and rain water harvesting etc (Civil+ Electrical) with Estimated Cost: Rs 84085635/- vide Notice Inviting Tender. Plaintiff had participated in the tender and had offered their competitive rates for execution of work in question. The NIT was called for the aforesaid work by the defendants and the Plaintiff had offered their rates alongwith EMD of Rs.16,81,750/- through RTGS from PNB Ashok Vihar on 12.04.2018 as against the required EMD of Rs.16,81,713/-.
18. The facts which give rise to the alleged cause of action in the present case are in respect of issuance of letter dated 11.05.2018, whereby plaintiff claimed to have withdrawn his offer, before the acceptance of tender by the defendant. The present suit has been filed seeking release of his Earnest Money Deposit in view of the claim of the plaintiff that the contract between parties did not conclude. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant backdated the alleged LOA (Letter of Acceptance) as 10.05.2018 and dispatched the said letter alleged to be acceptance letter dated 10.05.2018 vide Speed post no. ED 372504902IN on 11.05.2018 at about 15:16 hours i.e after receiving the letter of withdrawal of offer, from the plaintiff, with malafide intentions to forfeit the 'Earnest Money Digitally signed by PREETI CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA 18/43 AGRAWAL Date:
GUPTA 2025.06.27 16:28:39 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 Deposit' of the Plaintiff. There was no concluded contract between the parties till acceptance of offer as per Law and therefore, the defendant had wrongly forfeited the amount of Earnest Money Deposit of the Plaintiff vide letter dated 11.05.2018.
19. It is further the case of the plaintiff that several letters were issued by the plaintiff vide letter dated 29.06.2018, another letter dated 07.08.2018 and thereafter, a Notice u/s 80 CPC was also issued requesting and demanding from the defendant to release the Earnest Money Deposit for an amount of Rs.16,81,713/-, which was not released by defendant despite several requests. The present Suit has been filed before this Court on the basis of address of the defendant which lies within the jurisdiction of this court and accordingly, as per Section 20(c) CPC. It is case of the plaintiff that the defendant is liable to release the earnest money, which has been unlawfully and unjustifiably withheld by defendant despite a valid demand of the plaintiff for its return thereto.
20. The defence raised by the defendant in the Written Statement has been of outright denial of the case of the plaintiff on merits. There are objections raised on the aspect of authority of the plaintiff to file the present suit on behalf of other LRs of the deceased proprietor of the plaintiff firm. Unfounded objection on the aspect of limitation has also been raised amongst other preliminary objections.
21. On merits, it is the case put forth by the defendant that as per the tender process, the LOA (Letter of acceptance) was issued to Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. AGRAWAL AGRAWAL GUPTA 19/43 Date:
GUPTA 2025.06.27 16:28:44 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 M/s. Anshum Builders on 10.05.2018, and the EMD (Earnest Money Deposit) was forfeited, following due procedure. However, the firm submitted the withdrawal letter 44 days after the NIT date. A complaint dated 29.06.2018 was made by plaintiff firm to EE, CD-
20, which was duly responded to on 06.07.2018, citing CPWD procedures, justifying the forfeiture. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is baseless. Defendant has vehemently denied that Shri Arvind Kumar Shangle withdrew the offer before its acceptance. It is averred that the LOA was issued on 10.05.2018, but the firm submitted a withdrawal letter on the 45th day, i.e., 11.05.2018, after the NIT submission on 28.03.2018. This abrupt withdrawal by plaintiff firm caused a three-month delay in the project, without any justification by the plaintiff. Since the agency (plaintiff) withdrew after being declared L-1, without any technical reason, the defendant had to cancel and reissue the tender, which resulted in a significant loss to the defendant.
22. The defendant has strongly denied the allegations that there has been any manipulation in the letter of acceptance dated 10.05.2018 or that the same has been issued after receiving the withdrawal letter of the plaintiff dated 11.05.2018. It is also denied that there was any concluded contract until the acceptance of the offer or that the defendant wrongfully forfeited the plaintiff's EMD. The claim that the acceptance letter dated 10.05.2018 was issued after receiving the withdrawal letter, is also strongly denied. The forfeiture of EMD was lawful, and the plaintiff is not entitled to release of EMD or interest for any period.
Digitally signed by PREETIPREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA AGRAWAL Date:
CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. GUPTA 2025.06.27 20/43 16:28:49 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025
23. In support of its case plaintiff has examined two witness, PW1 namely Sh. Gyan Chand Singla and PW2 namely Sh. Siddhant Shangle. PW1 has relied upon the averments in the plaint on the basis of documents tendered vide his Authority letter Ex.PW1/1. PW1 has placed heavy reliance on the Letter of Acceptance dated 10.05.2018 Ex.PW1/3 with its postal letter envelop and postal receipt vide Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/5. The letter dated 11.05.2018, which forms foundation of the present case, is tendered as Ex.PW1/6. Other letters/Notice have been relied upon and are exhibited as Ex.PW1/7, Ex.PW1/8 and Ex.PW1/9.
24. PW1 has been vehemently cross-examined wherein he has been confronted with the copy of letter of the plaintiff dated
11.05.2018 relied upon as Ex.PW1/6, from the records of the defendant which is the purport original letter received by defendant from plaintiff and relied upon as Ex.PW1/R1 (Original filed as Ex.DW1/P1). PW1 has been cross-examined regarding his authority on behalf of M/s Anshum Builders, but nothing in the cross- examination has been able to suggest that the testimony of PW1 is without authorisation the plaintiff or without any association with the plaintiff firm. Furthermore, the perusal of letter relied upon by the plaintiff itself reveals that PW1 was in association of the tender process in question with the defendant, throughout the tender process. PW1 further testified that the present suit was filed through Sh. Siddhant Shangle as the authorised LR on behalf of deceased proprietor of the plaintiff firm.
Digitally signed by PREETIPREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. AGRAWAL Date:
GUPTA 2025.06.27 21/43 16:28:55 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025
25. On the aspect of cross-examination upon letter of revocation vide Ex.PW1/6, PW1 categorically testified that he handed over the letter personally to the office of defendant around 10:30 to 10:45 a.m. on 11.05.2018. He further emphatically denied that Ex.PW1/6 was handed over to the office on 11.05.2018 at 4:35 p.m., specifically, raising the allegation that the timing noted at Point-
A on Ex.PW1/R1 as 4:35 p.m. was by way of manipulation and fabrication of the document, while in custody of the defendant. The witness explained personal reasons for withdrawing the offer of the tender process.
26. Sh. Siddhant Shangle has been examined as PW1 who has tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW2/A and has placed reliance on the Surviving Member Certificate issued by the competent authority as Ex.PW2/1 with NOC issued in his favour by the other family members of the deceased proprietor namely Sh. Arvind Kumar Shangle. The aspect of proof of Ex.PW2/1 was left open for determination by this Court and on examination of the document, Court is satisfied that there is no reason to doubt the credibility of Ex.PW2/1 and the objection pertaining to requisite Certificate U/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act, holds no water, as the document is a public document and not a document executed by the deposing witness.
27. During cross-examination, PW2 testified that he was the successor Proprietor of M/s Anshum Builders and explained that Digitally signed CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. PREETI by PREETI AGRAWAL 22/43 AGRAWAL GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.06.27 16:29:00 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 there were two addresses of the company, which is not discussed further, as having no relevance to the issues of the case. PW2 asserted that Sh. Gian Chand Singla was his authorised signatory and that he was handling all communications. As regards his cross- examination on the aspect of the letter of revocation Ex.PW1/6, PW2 expressed lack of knowledge about the exact date, time or month, not being associated with the working of the firm, at the relevant time. It shall also be relevant to consider that till the stage of applying for pre-litigation mediation in respect of the present suit, the erstwhile proprietor (deceased) was handling the proprietorship concern and PW2 as his son, has stepped into the functioning, thereafter. However, PW2 categorically denied that the contract was concluded in respect of the tender in question and asserted that the letter of revocation Ex.PW1/6 was received at the office of the defendant prior to issuance of the letter of acceptance dated 10.05.2018 by the defendant. The plaintiff evidence was thereafter closed.
28. The other relevant testimony for examination is that of the sole defendant witness DW1/1 who has furnished the details of tender as Ex.DW1/1 and has placed on record the corresponding letter Ex.PW1/6 from its own record as Ex.DW1/P1. This is the same letter that was confronted to PW1 and who specifically denied the noting at Point-A in respect of time of the receipt of letter. Its own letter of acceptance dated 10.05.2018 has been relied upon as Ex.DW1/2 and its postal receipt as Ex.DW1/3. The other document relied upon are copies of the technical bid/financial bid, document filed alongwith tender in question as Ex.DW1/3 to Ex.DW1/6. The Digitally signed by PREETI CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. PREETI AGRAWAL 23/43 AGRAWAL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.06.27 16:29:06 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 other relevant document for consideration, which is disputed during cross-examination of DW1, is the alleged copy of affidavit of Arvind Kumar Shangle dated 10.04.2018 relied upon as Ex.DW1/7. The other documents are official documents with one more relevant document as 'Integrity Agreement' dated 10.04.2018 tendered as Ex.DW1/10.
29. During cross-examination, DW1 admitted that he was not the officer concerned related to the tendering process and that his testimony was as per record of the defendant. He has been specifically confronted with the non production of the diary register of the defendant, to show a time of entry of letter dated 11.05.2018 Ex.PW1/6 given by the plaintiff at the office of the defendant allegedly on 11.05.2018 between 10:30 AM to 10:45 AM. DW1, interestingly, admitted that there was a log register maintained by R & I Branch of defendant office, but did not give any tangible explanation for non-production of the register. As regards other letters, admittedly received by defendant vide Ex.PW1/7, Ex.PW1/8, have also not been shown as entered in any diary register of the defendant with timing thereof logged in. There is nothing to suggest the practice of the defendant to log in the time of receipt by way of any maintenance of a case register. Even if there is any such case register maintained by R & I at the reception of the defendant office, it has been deliberately withheld from the court, in order to fortify its own defence more particular, when the timing of receipt of Ex.PW1/6 is crucial to the outcome of the present case. DW1 admitted that there was no notice of forfeiture of Earnest Money Digitally signed PREETI by PREETI CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. AGRAWAL AGRAWAL GUPTA 24/43 GUPTA Date: 2025.06.27 16:29:12 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 Deposit issued to the plaintiff, though denying any such necessity as per prevalent rules.
30. As considered, the entitlement of the plaintiff for release of the Earnest Money Deposit is based on the case of the plaintiff that the letter of revocation dated 11.05.2018 was received by the defendant at its office before noon. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the Letter Of Acceptance, on which, date 10.05.2018 is mentioned, was despatched vide postal receipt by defendant in favour of the plaintiff, at 3:16 p.m., vide duly proved postal receipt Ex.DW1/3 vide testimony of DW1 and the corresponding testimony of PW1, proved as Ex.PW1/5.
31 It is now appropriate to consider the legal position pertaining to conclusion of contract, as per the provision of Indian Contract Act and well settled law in this regard, is as under:-
Section 4 of Indian Contract Act provides as under:
"Section 4. Communication when complete. The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made.
The communication of an acceptance is complete, as against the proposer, when it is put in a course of transmission to him, so as to be out of the power of the acceptor;
as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer.
The communication of a revocation is complete, as against the person who makes it, when it is put into a Digitally CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. signed by PREETI 25/43 PREETI AGRAWAL AGRAWAL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.06.27 16:29:18 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 course of transmission to the person to whom it is made, so as to be out of the power of the person who makes it;
as against the person to whom it is made, when it comes to his knowledge.
Section 5 of Indian Contract Act provides as under:
Section 5. Revocation of proposals and acceptances. A proposal may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards.
An acceptance may be revoked at any time before the communication of the acceptance is complete as against the acceptor, but not afterwards."
32. Therefore, as per the unequivocal statutory provisions pertaining to the completion of 'communication' of acceptance in terms of Section 4 of the Contract Act, the communication of an acceptance is complete, as against the proposer, when it is put in a course of transmission to him, so as to be out of the power of the acceptor. Meaning thereby that in the present case the communication of acceptance vide letter dated 10.05.2018 issued by the defendant (acceptor) to the plaintiff (proposer), shall be complete when it was despatched or to put in the course of transmission to the plaintiff. Accordingly, it has been proved on record vide postal receipt Ex.DW1/3 and receipt Ex.DW1/5, which has come from each of the party and being the proof of despatch of letter dated 10.05.2018, issued by the defendant to the plaintiff being the Letter Of Acceptance Ex.DW1/2 as relied upon by defendant and Ex.PW1/3 as relied upon by plaintiff, was put into course of transmission by the defendant to the plaintiff on 11.05.2018 at 3:16 PM. Accordingly, the Digitally signed by PREETI CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. PREETI AGRAWAL 26/43 AGRAWAL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.06.27 16:29:24 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 communication of letter of acceptance was complete qua the plaintiff on 11.05.2018 at 3:16 PM, as per law.
33 Now considering the law pertaining to the communication of revocation, which is letter dated 11.05.2018 Ex.PW1/6, it is case of the plaintiff that the letter was received by the office of the defendant on 11.05.2018 before noon. In contradiction to the case of the plaintiff, defendant has brought forth the original letter dated 11.05.2018 received by the defendant from the plaintiff and placed reliance upon it as Ex.DW1/P1. The material witness of the plaintiff PW1 has raised serious allegations of manipulation and fabrication in respect of noting of the time as 4:35 p.m. under the date 11.05.2018 at Point-A on Ex.DW1/P1. Careful appreciation of the same letter dated 11.05.2018, which is the letter of revocation of the plaintiff, coming from the source of the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/6 and that of the defendant as Ex.DW1/P1, show a material difference in respect of the non-mentioning of any time of receipt in the letter produced by the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/6. There are also additional signature on the copy of the defendant Ex.DW1/P1, which are not present on Ex.PW1/6. This absence of signature can be duly explained due to internal noting at the office of the defendant after receipt of letter Ex.PW1/6. It is also pertinent to observe that letter Ex.PW1/6 of the plaintiff, shows original noting on behalf of the defendant and shows the same entry number on the left of the letter, as that of the letter produced by the defendant. The only difference as regards the letter produced by the defendant Ex.DW1/P1 is an additional noting of timing at 04:35 p.m. under the date at Point-A CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. PREETI Digitally signed by PREETI 27/43 AGRAWAL AGRAWAL GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.06.27 16:29:30 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 which is in-absentia in Ex.PW1/6. It is not the case of the defendant that Ex.PW1/6 has a wrong diary registry entry or that it was never received at the defendant office with the said noting as produced by plaintiff. The facts of the case reveal that the plaintiff has duly proved Ex.PW1/6 to show the receipt of letter dated 11.05.2018, which is letter of revocation served at the office of the defendant beforenoon as duly testified by unbreached testimony of PW1 in this regard. This fact further gets strengthened by testimony of the witness of defendant itself, which is DW1, who failed to give any satisfactory answers to non-production of the case diary register of R & I Desk, at the office of the defendant pertaining to the noting of timings of the letter(s) received at the office of the defendant.
34 As per Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act, the communication of a revocation is complete, as against a person to whom it is made (defendant), when it comes to his knowledge.
Therefore, in the present case, it is duly established on record, by meticulous scrutiny of the entire evidence and documents that the communication of the revocation vide Ex.PW1/6 by the plaintiff, was complete as against the defendant on 11.05.2018 before-noon. It has already been considered that the communication of acceptance letter by the defendant, in respect of the tender in question, shall be deemed to have been served upon the plaintiff for conclusion of contract on 11.05.2018 at 3:16 p.m. It is, accordingly, established that the communication of revocation of the offer by the plaintiff was served upon the defendant, prior to the communication of the acceptance upon the plaintiff. Therefore, there was no conclusion of binding Digitally signed by PREETI CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. PREETI AGRAWAL 28/43 AGRAWAL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.06.27 16:29:36 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 contract between the parties in respect of the alleged work order in favour of the plaintiff.
35 The Court shall now examine the legal position in respect of the completion of a contract between transacting parties. A binding authority of Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Padia Timber Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of Vishakhapatnam Port Trust through its Secretary' : (2021) 3 SCC 24, decided on 05.01.2021, has laid down legal position and a condition when a contract can be said to be concluded, after duly considering several earlier jugments of Hon'ble Superior Courts in this regard and was pleased to hold as under:
"56. It is a cardinal principle of the law of contract that the offer and acceptance of an offer must be absolute. It can give no room for doubt. The offer and acceptance must be based or founded on three components, that is, certainty, commitment and communication."
In the facts of the present case, a guiding and binding legal position has been laid down that for a contract to be concluded, the communication of the acceptance upon the proposer must be complete, without which, no binding contract arise.
36 The Court shall now consider the legal position on the aspect of the defence raised by defendant in the present case claiming its entitlement for 'forfeiture of earnest money'. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, laid down the well settled principle of law in 'Suraj Besan & Rice Mills v. Food Corporation of India': 1987 SCC OnLine Del 389, decided on October 30, 1987, after examining the Digitally signed by PREETI CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA 29/43 AGRAWAL Date:
GUPTA 2025.06.27 16:30:20 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 provisions contained in Section 4, 5 and 7 of Indian Contract Act and in reiteration of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 'Union of India v. Sh. Rajendra Prasad' Jain:R.F.A. 24-D/1960, wherein it was held as under:-
"(9) Judgment given by the Division Bench of this Court in R.F.A. 24-D/1960 (Supra)is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case it was contended by Union of India that there was a clear stipulation in the condition that the tenderer was being given the tender documents and was permitted to tender in consideration of his agreement to the stipulation therein.
It was further contended that by submitting his tender, the offer made wherein was unconditionally to remain open till 26th October, 1953. Counsel for Union of India in that case thus submitted that plaintiff not only agreed to purchase on the conditions and at the price mentioned in the tender documents, but he also agreed to hold its tender open for acceptance till 26th October, 1953. It was held as under :-
In view of the above discussion it hardly seems necessary to refer to a large number of cases which have been cited by the learned counsel for the respondent in support of the proposition that the advertisement notice (Ex. D-1) was no more than a mere invitation to tender, the only offer in this case being the tender (Ex. D-2) submitted by the plaintiff and this offer, it was open to the plaintiff to revoke at any time before it was accepted by the D.G.S. & D. on behalf of the President of India."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to observe:-
"(11) In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in R.F.A. 24-D/1960 Union of India v. Sh.
Rajendra Prasad Jain, I hold that under law plaintiff was entitled to withdraw or modify their offer before the communication of the acceptance was complete as against the plaintiff. Thus, the letter dated July 8, 1983 amounted to the modification of the offer. I accordingly hold that acceptance issued by telegram dated July 22, 1983 did not Digitally signed by CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. PREETI PREETI AGRAWAL 30/43 AGRAWAL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.06.27 16:30:26 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 result in a concluded agreement between the parties as there was no offer in existence at the time when defendant accepted tender of plaintiff."
37 In the facts of the present case, it has been established that the plaintiff withdrew the offer prior to the despatch of the acceptance of the tender in question and accordingly, no binding contract came into existence and it is upon the defendant to satisfy the Court about such existing conditions of the tender that would empower the defendant for forfeiture of earnest money deposit, as resorted in the present case by the defendant.
38 It is well settled law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'M/s Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority and Anr.': (2011) 13 SCC 200, decided on 09.01.2015, that dealt with the case pertaining to forfeiture of earnest money in case of a concluded contract between the parties. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered various landmark judgments and the statutory provisions U/S 73 and 74 of the Contract Act and was pleased to reiterate well standing legal position as laid down in para 68, wherein it was held:
"...68. From the aforesaid discussions, it can be held that:
(1) Terms of the contract are required to be taken into consideration before arriving at the conclusion whether the party claiming damages is entitled to the same.
(2) If the terms are clear and unambiguous stipulating the liquidated damages in case of the breach of the contract unless it is held that such estimate of damages/compensation is unreasonable or is by way of Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI AGRAWAL CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. AGRAWAL GUPTA GUPTA Date: 31/43 2025.06.27 16:30:32 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 penalty, party who has committed the breach is required to pay such compensation and that is what is provided in Section 73 of the Contract Act.
(3) Section 74 is to be read along with Section 73 and, therefore, 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. 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 a contract.
(4) In some contracts, it would be impossible for the court to assess the compensation arising from breach and if the compensation contemplated is not by way of penalty or unreasonable, the court can award the same if it is genuine pre-estimate by the parties as the measure of reasonable compensation."
39 The court has further considered the legal position as laid down in 'State of Haryana v. Malik Traders' : (2011) 13 SCC 200, decided on 17.06.2011, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to consider the fact of the case where the matter came up before consideration to adjudicate the legal position applicable to the cases where revocation of offer before communication of its acceptance is complete as against offerer, has been held proper and the consequent of such revocation in view of tender conditions of a particular case. The Hon'ble Apex Court examined if the full value of bid security would be allowed to be forfeited, if the bidder withdraws its offer, before the acceptance leads to a concluded contract.
The Court has further considered the legal position in 'NHAI v. Ganga Enterprises and Anr.' : (2003) 7 SCC 410, decided on 28.06.2003, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a bidder participates in a tender containing a specific clause allowing Digitally CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. PREETI signed by PREETI AGRAWAL 32/43 AGRAWAL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.06.27 16:30:37 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 forfeiture of EMD upon withdrawal of the bid, such forfeiture is legally valid and binding. The Court ruled that the right to withdraw an offer does not override the consequences agreed under the tender terms, including forfeiture. The bidder, having accepted such terms, cannot later invoke Section 5 of the Contract Act to avoid liability.
40 The legal position has been fortified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'NTPC Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Singh' :, (2023) 8 SCC 555, decided on 13.02.2015, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that forfeiture of EMD is enforceable when the bidder withdraws during the bid validity period, even if the contract was not concluded. The Court clarified that once a bidder agrees to a condition permitting forfeiture upon withdrawal, Section 5 of the Contract Act does not protect such withdrawal, and the authority is within its rights to forfeit the EMD as per agreed terms.
41 The facts of the case are now examined in light of the binding tender bid relied upon by the defendant vide Ex.DW1/1, in order to ascertain if there were any binding contractual conditions between the parties imposing the condition upon the bidder/offerer in regard to forfeiture of earnest money, before the contract is concluded between the parties. Defendant has not filed any document pertaining to the tender bid to show existence of any binding condition wherein the forfeiture of earnest money deposit has been stipulated as a condition precedent for withdrawal of the bid/offer once made by the bidder. The only reference that has been made is to internal notings of the defendant in the case pertaining of M/s Digitally CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. signed by PREETI 33/43 PREETI AGRAWAL AGRAWAL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.06.27 16:30:42 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 Anshum Builders, wherein an internal decision was taken by the defendant to state that as per provisions of NIT, the agency was to submit irrevocable performance guarantee of the tender amount in addition to other deposit, within 15 days of issue of letter of acceptance. The conditions resorted to by the defendant in its official noting relied upon vide Ex.DW1/1 clearly reflects the consequences of non-performance of the concluded contract between the parties and such stipulation was to arise/arrive within a definite period of issuance of Letter Of Acceptance. However, in the present facts and circumstances, the question of submitting 'Irrevocable Performance Guarantee' did not come into play for want of any 'concluded contract' between the parties. The defendant has not been able to demonstrate any such tender conditions to show that it was entitled to forfeit the earnest money in case of withdrawal of the offer by the bidder/offerer/plaintiff. In the facts of the present case, the applicability of entitlement of the defendant to forfeit earnest money deposit (EMD) was contingent on the conclusion of contract between the parties.
42 The other line of arguments raised by defendant is based on its submissions during arguments that the affidavit Ex.DW1/7 was filed on behalf the erstwhile proprietor of the plaintiff proprietorship concern, as requisite for making the financial bid in the tendering process in question. The content of the affidavit dated 10.04.2018 relied upon as Ex.DW1/7 and the relevant recital/affidavit in the form of undertaking is as under :-
Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI AGRAWAL AGRAWAL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.06.27 CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. 16:30:47 +0530 34/43 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 "1-That I undertake and confirm that eligible similar work(s) has/have not been got executed through another contractor/supplier on back to back basis. Further that, if such a violation comes to the notice of Department, then I/we shall be debarred for tendering in DSIIDC future forever. Also, if such a violation comes to the notice of Department before the issue of letter of acceptance whichever is earlier the Engineer0in-Charge shall be free to forefeit the entire amount of Earnest Money Deposit/Performance Guarantee....."
43. This line of argument has been strongly contended and contested on behalf of the plaintiff on the ground that such an argument is beyond pleadings and has been raised before the Court as an 'after-thought'. Even a contrary suggestion to this effect was made to the defendant witness to resist the admissibility of Ex.DW1/7. It may be further worth considering that the main line of defence that has been put forth by the defendant to support denial of return of earnest money deposit to the plaintiff, has been entirely based on two accounts, firstly, asserting that there was a concluded contract between the parties upon issuance of the letter of acceptance by the defendant dated 10.05.2018 exhibited as Ex.PW1/6 / Ex.DW1/P1 and secondly, placing reliance on its internal administrative notings citing CPWD procedure to justify the forfeiture of EMD of the plaintiff. Nevertheless, the Court shall examine the affidavit Ex.DW1/7 relied upon by the defendant owing to the well settled legal position in this regard wherein this Court in respect of 'forfeiture of earnest money deposit', especially in Government Contract.
44. As has been considered above, the recital in the affidavit Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI AGRAWAL AGRAWAL GUPTA CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. GUPTA Date:
2025.06.27 35/4316:30:58 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 Ex.DW1/7 by the erstwhile proprietor, is to the effect of submission of an undertaking about experience of the contractual work in the past for similar nature of work by the contractor/bidder and undertaking to provide quality services, as per the work order vide tender in question. The undertaking on behalf of the plaintiff at the time of participating in the bidding process also contemplates the discovery of any violation to the notice of the department, before the issuance of Letter of Acceptance in which case the department/defendant would be entitled to forfeit the entire earnest money deposit/performance guarantee.
45. It shall now be relevant to consider the thread of letters issued by the defendant, which have been brought forth during evidence before the Court. The Court has already considered the absence of any such stipulation for forfeiture of earnest money vide document Ex.DW1/1 which arise out of any contractual condition of the bidding process of tender in question. It shall not be out of place to observe that any internal administrative noting of the department of the defendant, to their understanding of the contingency of forfeiture of earnest money, is subject to judicial scrutiny in this case.
46. Now considering the document pertaining to the bidding process Ex.DW1/4 proved through its witness by the defendant, summarises 'technical bid evaluation' and Ex.DW1/5 summarises 'financial bid evaluation'. The other document annexed as Ex.DW1/6 which is the cheque of deposit of the earnest money, which is the subject matter in question. The Court has already considered the Digitally signed by PREETI CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. PREETI AGRAWAL AGRAWAL GUPTA 36/43 Date:
GUPTA 2025.06.27 16:31:04 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 contents of the affidavit Ex.DW1/7 in its discussion in the foregoing paras.
47. Ex.DW1/8 is the printout of the successful financial transactions which is not relevant for consideration. The Integrity Pact Agreement Ex.DW1/9 has been further relied upon as Acceptance of the bidder to the 'Integrity Agreement' between the parties which is annexed as Ex.DW1/D (Ex.DW1/10). This document may be relevant for evaluation in the facts of the present case in light of Article-3: Consequences of Breach, Article-2, which refers to the Commitment of the Bidder(s)/Contractor(s), who are participating in the tendering process. However, the recital of the commitment of the parties in 'Integrity Agreement' Ex.DW1/10 are for a purpose of trust and confidentiality. This agreement Ex.DW1/10 does not come to teh rescue of the defendant in regard to the forfeiture of earnest deposit of the tender in question.
48. The Court has now considered the evidence tendered on behalf of defendant, in placing reliance on letter dated 06.07.2018 written on behalf of the defendant vide Ex.PW1/9. The portion of the letter wherein the forfeiture of earnest money deposit has been mentioned, which forms part of Ex. PW1/9 is as under:
"It is a matter of records that your withdrawal letter Dt.11.05.2018 was received in this office after issuing of letter of acceptance. Accordingly the action is taken up by thi soffice as per terms and condition of NIT as well as the provision in the CPWD, Manuar 2014. Thus the EMD deposited against the aforesaid work was forfeited by this office and there is no malafide intention as alleged by you."
Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI AGRAWAL AGRAWAL GUPTA CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd.
Date:
GUPTA 2025.06.27
16:31:09
37/43
+0530
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 There are no fresh reasons disclosed in the letter which justify the forfeiture of earnest money deposit of the plaintiff except as per binding contractual obligations between the parties.
49. After considering the entire arguments led in the case in light of the averments and evidence recorded and the statutory position and binding precedents considered, the Court has come to the considered conclusion that the letter dated 11.05.2018 issued by the plaintiff and received by the defendant before-noon, contains unequivocal withdrawal from the offer to perform the contract which was awarded in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of the construction of a cluster bus depot at sector - 5 Bawana Indl. Area Delhi, pursuant to having participated in the tender. It is an undisputed fact on record that the plaintiff form namely M/s. Anshum Builders was found to be successful in submitting the least suitable bid as L-1 and after finding its bid reasonable and justified, it was recommended for a work order to be awarded in favour of L-1 i.e. M/s Anshum Builders, at their quoted rates, as on 09.05.2018. After technical clearance, as reflected vide Ex.DW1/1, the department of defendant noted the directions for issuance of the LOA i.e. Letter of acceptance in favour of L-1/M/s Anshum Builders. It has further been considered that the plaintiff has been able to successfully discharge the onus to prove that the letter of revocation Ex.PW1/6 dated 11.05.2018 was served upon the defendant before-noon, whereas the LOA/Letter of acceptance was issued by the defendant vide postal receipt dated 11.05.2018 at 3:16 p.m. The Court has duly considered CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. Digitally signed by PREETI 38/43 PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA AGRAWAL Date:
GUPTA 2025.06.27 16:31:14 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 the legal position to infer that the letter of revocation was communicated to the defendant prior to the date and time when the letter of acceptance was put into transmission to make the LOA binding upon the proposer(plaintiff herein). As per law, the plaintiff has been able to establish on records that the bid/offer vide L-1 stood withdrawn before the Letter of Acceptance became binding upon the plaintiff in terms of Section 4 and 5 of Indian Contract Act.
50. The Court has further examined the defence put forth by the defendant, who has failed to substantiate its defence of making out the case in its favour to show the entitlement to forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit, in absence of any concluded contract pursuant to the tendering process in question. It has been considered herein-above that there is no binding contingency or qualified condition that has been shown by defendant that was binding on the plaintiff, before the plaintiff could exercise the option to withdraw its offer which was soon after i.e. within two days of having participated in the bidding process, in respect of the work order in question. It is law of the land that since the communication of acceptance was not completed qua the proposer i.e. the plaintiff, before the revocation of the offer itself by the plaintiff vide Ex.PW1/6, no binding contract arose between the parties. Since the plaintiff withdrew its offer before the department, before despatch of the acceptance, no concluded contract became biding upon the plaintiff. Furthermore, the defendant has not been able to demonstrate any specific clause proposed in the tender, allowing forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), upon withdrawal of the bid, which is a necessary requirement in terms of Digitally signed by CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. PREETI PREETI AGRAWAL 39/43 AGRAWAL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.06.27 16:31:20 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 well settled binding legal position and precedent. The defendant has further not been able to show any such undertaking on behalf of the bidder/plaintiff to show that it agreed to a condition permitting forfeiture, upon withdrawal from the bidding. There has been no justification or authority, in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff to entitle the defendant to forfeit the Earnest Money Deposit, in terms of any binding agreement between the parties. It shall also be further relevant to consider that the other arguments of the defendant based on forfeiture of EMD owing to non-performance of contract, cannot be invoked as the question of any 'performance guarantee' by the plaintiff arises post a concluded contract in respect of the work order in question.
51. As a last straw of defence, defendant relied upon the recital of Ex.DW1/7 which is strongly disputed by the plaintiff as introduction of a new defence, an afterthought; the Court scrutinise the document Ex.DW1/7 in view of the condition that the plaintiff could not be permitted to withdraw from any undertaking taken during the tendering process, which may have serious consequences on the aspect of the claim of the plaintiff, seeking return of the earnest money deposit from the defendant, upon withdrawal of the bid/offer. It is not the case put forth by the defendant that subsequent to the awarding of L-1, in favour of the plaintiff on 09.05.2018 and in between the issuance of Letter of Acceptance dated 10.05.2018 Ex.PW1/3 which was despatched on 11.05.2018, any such circumstances arose which called for issuance of any notice of violation upon the plaintiff for lack of satisfaction of the work done.
Digitally CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. signed by PREETI 40/43 PREETI AGRAWAL AGRAWAL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.06.27 16:31:25 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 The said stipulation vide Ex.DW1/7 would perhaps come into operation after a concluded contract, during the period of performance guarantee, if the assured quality of work or timeline of work would be flouted by the plaintiff, after the award of contractual services upon the plaintiff. However, the stage and eventuality of performance of contract did not arise in view of the withdrawal by the plaintiff from the tender bid, which was on record awarded to the next best applicant contained in the administrative notings of department vide Ex.DW1/1. Therefore, the contention on behalf of the defendant that considerable time period was lost due to unilateral withdrawal of offer by the plaintiff, does not hold water, since no quantisation or evidence has been led by the defendant to show its entitlement to assert any compensation on account of alleged breach or losses caused to the defendant, owing to withdrawal of bid by the plaintiff.
For the foregoing facts and reasons, in light of the discussions hereinabove, plaintiff has been able to successfully establish its entitlement for recovery of the Earnest Money Deposit to the tune of Rs. 16,81,750/- in its favour and against the defendant.
Issue no.1 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO.2.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.6,72,700/-
towards interest calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from 11.05.2018 till date of filing of the Suit, from defendant? O.P.P. Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI AGRAWAL CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. AGRAWAL GUPTA GUPTA Date: 41/43 2025.06.27 16:31:34 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025
52. The Plaintiff has filed the present Suit for recovery of Rs.23,54,450/- against the Defendant, comprising the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.16,81,750/- and interest of Rs.6,72,700/- @ 12% p.a. w.e.f.11.05.2018 till filing of the suit, with further interest @12% pendentelite and future.
53. The plaintiff has not placed any binding contract between the parties to the suit to show any contractual rate of interest arrived at between the parties, in case of unforeseen failure of conclusion or performance of contract, which may not be attributable to any fault finding of either of the party. The Court is of the considered view that after the plaintiff withdrew the offer and duly communicated it to the defendant on 11.05.2018, it shall be reasonable to grant a period of 90 days to process the release of earnest money in favour of the plaintiff. It is further considered that in view of the nature of contract between the parties and the unilateral withdrawal by the plaintiff from the tendering process, no justification for claiming interest @ 12% per annum, is made out. However, it shall be in the interest of justice and equity, to allow recovery of a reasonable interest for the period when the earnest money deposited was unreasonably withheld by the defendant.
54. It is held that plaintiff shall be entitled to recover the interest @7% per annum, simple interest, on Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.16,81,750/- from expiration of three months from 11.05.2018, till date of filing of the Suit.
Issue no.2 is decided accordingly. Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI AGRAWAL AGRAWAL GUPTA CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. GUPTA Date: 42/43 2025.06.27 16:31:45 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 ISSUE NO.3
3. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled to pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum? O.P.P.
55. The reasons and findings of the Court in issue no.2 be considered in this issue as well. The plaintiff is held entitled to pendentelite and future interest @7% per annum, till date of its realisation.
ISSUE NO.4.
4. Relief.
56. Keeping in view the above findings, suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, for a sum of Rs.16,81,750/- as recoverable EMD, alongwith interest @7% per annum, w.e.f. expiration of three months from 11.05.2018, till the date of its realisation.
There is no order as to costs.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room, after due completion.
Announced in the open Court today on this 27th day of June, 2025 AGRAWAL Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL Date: GUPTA 2025.06.27 16:31:54 +0530 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025 CS (Comm.) No.552/2021 Siddhant Shangle Vs. DSIIDC Lttd. 43/43 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
27.06.2025