Delhi District Court
Miraz Facility Management Services Pvt ... vs Chief Medical Superintendent on 22 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS(COMM.) 94/2022
In the matter of:
M/S Miraz Facility Management Services Pvt. Ltd,
AT: 38, Mohammadpur, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066.
(Through its authorized representative)
...Plaintiff
Versus
Chief Medical Superintendent
Northern Railways,
Divisional Hospital,
Firozpur, Punjab-152001
Email: [email protected]
... Defendant no.1
Account Officer
Northern Railways,
Divisional Hospital, Firozpur,
Punjab-152001
...Defendant No. 2
Divisional Hospital
Northern Railways,
Firozpur, Punjab-152001
...Defendant No.3
Central Hospital
Northern Railways,
Basant Lane, Aaram Bagh,
Connaught Place, Paharganj,
New Delhi-110055
... Defendant no. 4
Date of Institution : 06.01.2022
Conclusion of arguments : 04.07.2025
Date of Judgment : 22.07.2025
CS(COMM.) 94/2022 Digitally signed
by PULASTYA
(Pulastya Pramachala)
PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
PRAMACHALA Date:
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Page 1 of 15 2025.07.22 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
15:00:45 +0530
Appearance:
Plaintiff : Sh. Jitender Rajpoot and Ms. Vishakha, Ld.
Counsels for the plaintiff
Defendants: Sh. Dipendra Singh, Ld. ACGC with Sh. Rahul
Kumar and Ms. Naina Nagar on behalf of
defendants.
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.12,72,409/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Seventy-Two Thousand Four Hundred and Nine) alongwith Bank Guarantee of Rs.54,725/- under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Brief Facts:
2. Plaintiff was engaged in the business of providing security and housekeeping service to its various clients since last 25 years and the present suit was filed through its authorized representative Sh. Deepak Kumar Nohvar, authorized by virtue of board resolution dated 04.02.2021.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant no. 1 and 2 were looking after the day-to-day management of defendant no. 3 and
4. The defendant no. 3 was the working location for the contract and the defendant no. 4 was the main head office. Defendants posted a tender, for hiring of sanitization service in their hospital i.e. defendant no. 3, on Gem (Government e-market place) Web- portal, and plaintiff had filed online tender document/contract, accepting to do the work at given rate on Gem Portal for the work and as per defendant's guidelines and criteria vide bid no. GEM/2019/B/391569. Subsequently defendants had given approval to do work as per contract No. CS(COMM.) 94/2022 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page 2 of 15 Patiala House Court, New Delhi GEMC-511687762531043, and the same was accepted by the plaintiff.
4. It is averred that the defendant had given permission to plaintiff vide communication dated 02.01.2020 to start the work and subsequently plaintiff had started working from 15.01.2020. Plaintiff used to raise the bills upon the defendants for its services from time to time. It is further averred that for clearing outstanding payment of plaintiff, the defendants had asked the plaintiff for submission of the Gem Contract in duly signed and stamped condition and with Bank Guarantee, to release the payment of plaintiff. On 05.05.2020 plaintiff had also sent the said Gem Contract duly signed and stamped form, and again requested defendants to release the outstanding payment of plaintiff, as the plaintiff had continuously been providing its services at defendant's location i.e. Divisional Hospital, Norther Railways, Firozpur, Punjab even during lockdown. Again on 18.05.2020 the defendants sent an email in which the defendants needed original signed hard copy of agreement to make the payment. The said emails were duly replied by the plaintiff on 29.05.2020 and 04.06.2020 but defendants always played unfair trade tactics to delay the payment of plaintiff. It is further averred that on 26.06.2020 plaintiff also submitted the bank guarantee as required by defendants.
5. It is averred in the plaint that plaintiff had continuously provided its service to the defendants and also raised the monthly bill for its services upon the defendants, but the defendants every time failed to clear the outstanding amount. Plaintiff raised and sent the bill for its service from 15.01.2020 to 30.11.2020 and CS(COMM.) 94/2022 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page 3 of 15 Patiala House Court, New Delhi regularly kept requesting to release its outstanding payments, but despite several reminders, the defendants did not make the payment of plaintiff, and thus the total outstanding was to the tune of Rs.11,58,407/- till 30.11.2020. On 31.12.2020 the plaintiff stopped its services due to non-payment on defendant's part, as the plaintiff had spent huge amount on the salary of the staff deployed at the location of the defendants and the defendants were not making any payment since beginning of the contract.
6. It is further averred in the plaint that defendant no. 1 in collusion with defendant no. 2 sent an email dated 30.12.2020 in which the defendants asked the plaintiff to send the bill of services in a specific format and measurement book. Plaintiff had sent the bills of services in the format as specified by the GST law, but despite that the defendants asked the bills in the format which is an internal document/format of the defendants (Indian Railways Division), and to make the said internal document of Indian Railways would have been an Offence.
7. In the above circumstances, the plaintiff sent the legal/demand notice dated 02.12.2020 and asked the defendants to pay the outstanding dues of Rs.11,58,407/-. Despite said legal notice, defendant did not pay. Hence, the present suit for recovery of Rs.12,72,409/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Seventy-Two Thousand Four Hundred and Nine) along with Bank Guarantee of Rs.57,725/- along with @24% per annum.
8. It has been pleaded that this court has territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate this case as plaintiff is having its registered office CS(COMM.) 94/2022 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page 4 of 15 Patiala House Court, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of this court and all the correspondence/communication with regard to the tender/contract had been executed from and within the registered office of the plaintiff. Therefore, this present suit is well within territorial jurisdiction of this court.
9. Before filing of the suit, plaintiff approached New Delhi DLSA for Pre-Litigation Mediation on 23.02.2021, but the defendants did not appear despite notice. Non-starter report dated 19.03.2021 was filed by plaintiff along with the plaint.
PLEA OF DEFENDANTS
10. Defendant no. 1 to 3 were served and appeared in the present matter. It was submitted with respect to defendant no. 4, that it was not working with defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 1 to 3 filed their written statement by taking preliminary objection pleading that the present suit filed by the plaintiff is false, frivolous and is not sustainable and maintainable in eyes of law. It is further averred that defendant no. 4 has been wrongly arrayed as a party to the present suit on the pretext of being the head office of Chief Medical Superintendent, Firozpur and the matter does not relate to NRCH.
11. On merits, defendants have denied the claim of the plaintiff in toto. It is pleaded that plaintiff had not provided services from 19.03.2020 to 23.03.2020, 28.04.2020 to 17.05.2020, 12.07.2020, 03.08.2020 to 20.11.2020 and 27.11.2020 onwards and plaintiff failed to provide its services, therefore contract had been terminated. It is further averred that on 29.04.2020 the plaintiff was asked through email to submit bank guarantee being CS(COMM.) 94/2022 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page 5 of 15 Patiala House Court, New Delhi a mandatory part of contract proceedings/office procedure without which bills could not be processed for payment, but the plaintiff in each email insisted upon the making payment by setting-aside the office procedures/formalities and also failed to do so.
12. Replication was also filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of the defendants, controverting the preliminary objections as not sustainable and further denying and controverting the averments of the written statement on its merits. The plaintiff reiterated its averments contained in the plaint.
13. Vide order dated 25.04.2023 following issues were framed: -
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the suit amount, as claimed? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, on the suit amount and if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder of the parties with respect to defendant no. 4? OPD.
4. Any other Relief, if any?
14. After framing of issues, case management hearing was conducted and dates were fixed for plaintiff's evidence, defendant's evidence and final arguments.
Plaintiff's evidence
15. In its evidence before Local Commissioner, plaintiff examined one witness. PW1/Sh. Deepak Kumar Nahvar, its Authorized Representative vide board resolution dated 04.02.2021. He tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW1/A, and referred to CS(COMM.) 94/2022 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page 6 of 15 Patiala House Court, New Delhi and proved following documents: -
SI Documents Exhibit/Mark No. Number 1. Board Resolution dated 04.02.2021 Ex.PW1/1
2. Contract/tender document vide contract no. Ex.PW1/2 GE MC-511687762531043 3 Emails dated 02.01.2020 Ex.PW1/3
4. Emails dated 06.04.2020, 29.04.2020, Ex.PW1/4 01.05.2020
5. Emails dated 05.05.2020, 13.05.2020, Ex.PW1/5 14.05.2020
6. Emails dated 18.05.2020, 29.05.2020, Ex.PW1/6 04.06.2020, 14.06.2020, 16.06.2020, 19.06.2020, 26.06.2020 and Bank Guarantee
7. Emails dated 30.06.2020, 03.07.2020 Ex.PW1/7
8. Emails dated 01.08.2020, 11.08.2020, Ex.PW1/8 03.09.2020, 10.09.2020, 06.10.2020, 04.11.2020, 13.11.2020, 01.12.2020
9. Letter dated 16.11.2020 Ex.PW1/9
10. Legal Notice dated 02.12.2020 alongwith Ex.PW1/10 postal receipt and reply of legal notice along with email dated 10.12.2020
11. Summary of Outstanding Bills along with Ex.PW1/11 Bills
12. Email dated 29.12.2020 and 30.12.2020, Ex.PW1/12 Internal Format of defendants, reply email by plaintiff dated 05.01.2021
13. Non- Starter Report dated 15.04.2021 Ex.PW1/13
14. Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Ex.PW1/B Evidence Act CS(COMM.) 94/2022 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page 7 of 15 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
16. PW1/Sh. Deepak Kumar Nahvar was cross-examined by ld. counsel for the defendant before the Local Commissioner. PW1 reiterated the plea taken in the plaint. In his cross examination, PW1 deposed that he was working for plaintiff since July 2018.
17. Thereafter vide LC order dated 11.09.2023, plaintiff closed its evidence Defendant Evidence
18. In their defense evidence before LC, defendants examined one witness. DW1/Sh. Satya Prakash, Authorized Representative vide authority letter dated 21.09.2023 tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.DW1/A. He referred to and proved some documents i.e. Authority letter dated 21.09.2023 as Ex.DW1/1, letter dated 26.04.2022 issued by Deputy Chief Personal officer to the Hon'ble Court as Ex.DW1/2 and GEM contract document as Ex.DW1/P-1.
19. I have heard ld. counsels for the parties and perused the record carefully. First of all, I shall take up issue no. 3 for determination. My issue-wise findings in the present matter are as under: -
Issue no.3: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder of the parties with respect to defendant no. 4? OPD.
20. In respect of this particular issue DW1 exhibited a letter dated 26.04.2022 as Ex.DW1/2. This letter was issued by Northern Railways Central Hospital i.e. defendant no. 4 addressed to this Court and it was mentioned that "the Northern Railway Central Hospital is not the Head office of CMS Firozpur. Head office of CMS Firozpur is CMD office hence, this case does not pertain to CS(COMM.) 94/2022 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page 8 of 15 Patiala House Court, New Delhi NRCH." Consequently, it was contended that the present case does not pertain to Northern Railway Central Hospital as head office of defendant no. 1.
21. On the other hand, plaintiff did not prove anything as to show the role played by defendant no.4, in the alleged transactions. Since, plaintiff had impleaded defendant no.4, therefore, it was primarily for the plaintiff to prove the role of this defendant, with sufficient evidence to establish that defendant No. 4 was either a necessary or proper party to the present suit. Thus, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate as to how any cause of action arose against defendant No. 4. Therefore, in my view impleading defendant no. 4 was an instance of misjoinder in the present suit. Issue no.3 is accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
Issue no.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the suit amount, as claimed? OPP.
22. Onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. In order to prove its case, plaintiff examined one witness i.e. PW1/Sh. Deepak Kumar Nahvar. PW1 deposed on the lines of the averments made in the plaint and proved various documents referred above in support of their claim. Even otherwise defendants had already admitted all the documents filed by the plaintiff. PW1 was competent to depose as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff, being Authorized Representative on the basis of the board resolution Ex.PW1/1. It is admitted fact that plaintiff and defendants' department entered into a contract vide contract no. GEMC-511687762531043 through tender filed by the defendants on Gem (Government e-market place) for sanitization service at CS(COMM.) 94/2022 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page 9 of 15 Patiala House Court, New Delhi the premises of defendant no. 3. The said contract/document, has been exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 and remains undisputed by the defendants.
23. As per the plaintiff, the work under the contract commenced on 15.01.2020 and continued till 31.12.2020. It is further admitted fact that no payment was made by the defendants to the plaintiff. The plaintiff repeatedly requested release of payment through various email communications, which have been exhibited on record.
24. The defendants, in their written statement, have not denied the existence of the contract or the services rendered by the plaintiff. Their primary contention is that the plaintiff failed to provide the bills in the requisite format along with the measurement book and that plaintiff did not render services for some period. However, plaintiff submitted that it furnished the bank guarantee, duly signed contract documents as demanded by defendants, and bills in the GST format.
25. Ld. Counsel for defendants argued that Bank Guarantee was to be furnished within 15 days from date of award of contract i.e. 14.11.2019. The work was awarded for the period 30.11.2019 to 30.11.2021. Bank Guarantee was furnished on 26.06.2020 by the plaintiff. There had been condition to show M.B. with bill. But bill was raised without showing/submitting M.B. Finance department required that M.B. with Bill, to approve it. At the same time, workers of Plaintiff did not work on all days and payment was made by defendant as per actual work/M.B. maintained by the defendant. This fact was duly mentioned in the CS(COMM.) 94/2022 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page 10 of 15 Patiala House Court, New Delhi reply to notice of plaintiff. Clause 2.1 of the Contract (DW1/P-1, last page) shows condition of providing M.B./Logs. Clause 4.2 of the contract mentions maintaining a weekly log. Ex.PW1/2 is only 1st page of contract and complete contract was not placed on the record by the plaintiff. Clause 4.2 casts duty on plaintiff to maintain weekly log.
26. Per contra, ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that Ex.DW1/P-1 is not the contract with plaintiff, as it pertains to different agency. Defendant did not file any document to show what was recorded of plaintiff's work i.e. M.T.S. maintained by defendant. In cross- examination of DW1, he did not show M.B. Ex.PW1/12 was sent after filing this suit when for the 1 st time defendant asked to submit M.B.
27. On perusal of the communications between the parties i.e. emails placed on the record by the plaintiff, it is well evident that since the time of submitting first bill/invoice by the plaintiff, there was no whisper from the defendants about a particular format of the bill. At that time defendants kept demanding signed copy of the contract and Bank Guarantee. After submission of Bank Guarantee, defendants sent a form of bank information and asked the plaintiff to get it signed by the bank authorities and to send the same with bills. Even at that time there was no mention of a different format of bill. Thereafter, vide letter dated 16.11.2020, defendant no.1 communicated to plaintiff that plaintiff had stopped working since 03.08.2020. Plaintiff was asked to resume the work and warning was given to terminate the contract. Prior to this letter, plaintiff kept on sending bills through email to the defendant, but there was no response even to mention that CS(COMM.) 94/2022 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page 11 of 15 Patiala House Court, New Delhi plaintiff had not worked during any particular period. Taking such stand while sitting over the continuous demands from plaintiff to release earlier payments, was altogether a new stance on the part of defendants.
28. Even if plaintiff was obligated to maintain M.B, it cannot be said that defendants were not expected to maintain similar record of work done by plaintiff at the place of defendant 3. DW1 was not even aware of M.B. It was for the defendants to prove on the record that for a period as alleged in the Written Statement, plaintiff had not provided the services. No such record was produced and proved before the court. Denying the payments to the plaintiff on one or another pretext i.e. by raising one or other kind of objections at different time, is well evident from the exchange of emails between the parties. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the plea that plaintiff did not work for some period or that bills were not paid for want of being in a particular format.
29. The defendants have admitted all the documents filed by the plaintiff in their affidavit of admission and denial, including the invoices and ledger statements. This clearly establishes that an amount of ₹12,72,409/- remains due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff. The claim is further substantiated by the deposition of PW1 and the supporting documents such as Legal Notice dated 07.09.2020 (Ex.PW1/10), email communications (Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/9), summary of outstanding bills and invoices (Ex.PW1/11), with a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
CS(COMM.) 94/2022 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page 12 of 15 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
30. A comprehensive reading of the pleadings, evidence, and admitted documents reveal that the liability of the defendants towards the plaintiff is not disputed. It was only on the basis of technical objections, that defendants did not pay for the services rendered by the plaintiff. That plea cannot be a ground to reject the claim of the plaintiff.
31. Other defence of the defendants remained to the effect that the plaintiff had interrupted services during specific periods from 19.03.2020 to 23.03.2020, 28.04.2020 to 17.05.2020, 12.07.2020, 03.08.2020 to 10.11.2020, and 27.11.2020. However, defendants failed to prove any evidence in respect of record of work done by the plaintiff. Hence, such contention is of no avail when the defendants themselves have admitted the contractual documents and the outstanding liability.
32. In the light of the foregoing discussions, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff has successfully proved its entitlement to the recovery of ₹12,72,409/-, based on the invoices, ledger, and uncontroverted documentary evidence placed on record. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants 1 to 3.
Issue No.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, on the suit amount and if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
33. Plaintiff has also prayed for interest @ 24% per annum. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 34 CPC and the prevalent rate of interest in the banks and trade in business, 24% interest is too excessive. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it CS(COMM.) 94/2022 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page 13 of 15 Patiala House Court, New Delhi is deemed just and proper in the interest of justice to allow pendente-lite and future interest @ 12 % per annum from filing of the suit till realization of the decretal amount. Issue no. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants 1 to 3.
34. The plaintiff has also claimed the cost of the suit. In reference to Section 35 and 35A of CPC, it has been proved that defendants failed to pay the amount due despite service of legal notice. The defendants are responsible for burdening the plaintiff with this litigation and therefore, they are liable to bear the cost as per rules. The plaintiff is therefore, entitled for the cost of litigation.
Relief:
35. In view of the above observations, discussion and findings, the suit for recovery is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no. 1 to 3 for Rs.12,72,409/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Seventy-Two Thousand Four Hundred and Nine), payable along with pendente lite and future interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and from the date of decree till realization of the decretal amount. Cost is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants as per rules. Advocate's Fee certificate be filed by the plaintiff within 10 days.
36. Plaintiff also prayed for directing the defendant no. 1 to 3 to release/returned/refund the bank guarantee of Rs.54,725/- which was submitted by the plaintiff to defendants. In view of the same, the defendants are hereby directed to release or refund (if already encashed) the bank guarantee amount of Rs. 54,725/- to the CS(COMM.) 94/2022 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page 14 of 15 Patiala House Court, New Delhi plaintiff forthwith. On failure to do so within 30 days from today, defendant no. 3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. on the aforesaid amount till payment of the same to the plaintiff.
37. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
38. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by PULASTYAPULASTYA PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date:
2025.07.22 15:01:00 +0530 Pronounced in the (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) Open Court on this District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, 22nd day of July, 2025 Patiala House Court, New Delhi CS(COMM.) 94/2022 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page 15 of 15 Patiala House Court, New Delhi