Delhi District Court
Digvijay Gupta,Propritietor R.K. ... vs Dsc Limited And Anr on 23 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. AMBIKA SINGH;
DISTRICT JUDGE - 01 (SOUTH), SAKET COURTS
COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
CS DJ No. 8734/2016
In the matter of:-
Mr.Digvijay Gupta,
Proprietor R.K.Agencies,
D-1/1226, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi
............. Plaintiff
Vs.
DSC Limited
A company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956,
Through its Managing Director
Having its registered office at
C-66, South Extension, Part - II,
New Delhi - 110049
........... Defendant
Date of Institution : 01.03.2013
Arguments concluded : 12.12.2025
Date of decision : 23.12.2025
Decision : Decreed
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.48,76,323.00
ALONGIWHT FUTURE AND PENDENTE-LITE INTEREST
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, the Court shall decide the present suit for recovery of Rs.48,76,323/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest.
2. The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of providing services in the field of civil contracts, engineering, and interior decoration under the proprietorship name and style of "R.K. CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.1 of 36 Digitally signed Ambika by Ambika singh singh 2025.12.23 Date:
16:32:20 +0530 Agencies." as a sole proprietor of the same and claims to have established an unimpeachable reputation and goodwill in the said field. The Defendant No.1 is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at C-66, South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi - 110049. The Defendant No.2 is the Chairman of Defendant No.1 company, and Defendant No.3 is his wife. The Plaintiff has submitted that Defendant No.3 may also be one of the Directors of Defendant No.1, though he is not fully aware about the same. It has been the case of the Plaintiff that sometime in September 2008, Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 approached him for carrying out civil, electrical, and sanitary renovation work at their residence at C-66, South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi - 110049, which was also the registered office of Defendant No.1 company. The Plaintiff, however, is not aware of the ownership status of the said premises, which, though used as residence by Defendants Nos. 2 and 3, is officially the registered office of Defendant No.1. After several meetings, discussions, and negotiations regarding the scope, quality, quantity, and rate of work to be executed, the said work was awarded to the Plaintiff vide Work Order dated 11.10.2008. According to the Plaintiff, the said work was placed by Defendant No.1 through its authorized signatory on the instructions of Defendants Nos. 2 and 3. During the course of execution of the said works, an additional work order dated 21.10.2009 was also issued to the Plaintiff by Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 through their authorized representative. Further, as the work progressed, additional wooden work and other minor jobs not covered under the earlier work orders were CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.2 of 36 also entrusted to the Plaintiff at the same site. The Plaintiff has submitted that during the course of execution, and as per mutual understanding, he raised running bills from time to time upon Defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The said payments were made through Defendant No.1 after due verification and certification by its site engineer and supervisor. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the entire work was duly completed in February 2010 to the full satisfaction of Defendants Nos. 2 and 3. Thereafter, the Plaintiff raised Final Invoice No. 2763 dated 10.02.2010 for a total sum of Rs. 1,16,44,275.15, which included both the original work order and the additional jobs executed, including the wooden work. Up to the date of the said invoice, the Defendants had made payments totaling Rs. 82,23,948/-, inclusive of Rs. 1,96,000/- towards additional wooden work. Apart from cheque payments, the Plaintiff was paid a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- in cash, out of which Rs. 70,222/- was utilized towards material purchase, leaving a balance of Rs. 89,778/-. The Plaintiff also received TDS certificates worth Rs. 2,30,557/-. After giving credit for the cash balance and TDS amounts, the Plaintiff contends that a sum of Rs. 30,99,992.15 remained due and payable under the said final invoice. It is further stated that during the same period, the Defendants also engaged the Plaintiff for executing wooden deck work at the premises F-2/1, Khanpur, New Delhi, which was also completed to their satisfaction. In respect of this job, the Plaintiff raised Invoice No. 2764 dated 10.02.2010 for Rs. 4,62,441.18, against which payment of Rs. 3,95,990/- was made, leaving a balance of Rs. 1,96,451.18 outstanding. The total amount outstanding from the Defendants towards both the above works CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.3 of 36 aggregates to Rs.31,66,443.33. Despite repeated requests and reminders, the Defendants failed to clear the said dues. Consequently, the Plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 17.02.2012 to Defendant No.1, demanding the payment of the said outstanding amount along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and legal costs. The said notice was dispatched by speed post and courier on 17.02.2012 and was duly delivered on 21.02.2012. Although the Defendants initially assured payment upon receipt of the notice, no payment was ever made. The Plaintiff submits that the Defendants did not even reply to the said notice, thereby admitting the contents thereof by implication. The Plaintiff has therefore claimed that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid sum of Rs. 31,66,443.33, along with interest at 18% per annum from 10.02.2010 till realization. The interest accrued up to the date of filing of the suit amounts to approximately Rs.
17,09,880/-, making the total claim Rs. 48,76,323/- (rounded off). The Plaintiff has further prayed for pendente lite and future interest at the same rate and for costs of the proceedings. It has also been submitted that Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 personally supervised the work and issued instructions from time to time, particularly Defendant No.3, and that though the work orders and payments were channeled through Defendant No.1, the work was executed at their personal residence. The Plaintiff, being unaware of the internal arrangements between the Defendants, has therefore sought recovery from all of them jointly and severally.
3. Summons of the suit was served upon the defendants and they have appeared before the Court through counsel. The WS CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.4 of 36 has been filed on behalf of defendant no.1 but no written statement has been filed on behalf of defendant no.2 & 3. Perusal of record shows that defendant no.2 & 3 were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 04.01.2018. Vide order dated 26.090.2024, the defendant nos. 2& 3 were dropped from the array of parties on the application of the plaintiff on the application of the plaintiff.
4. The written statement filed by the defendant no.1 wherein it is submitted that vide Board Resolution dated 1st August 2012, Mr. Ram Kumar Saini has been duly authorized to sign, verify, and file the Written Statement on behalf of Defendant No.1 Company and to take all necessary steps for protecting the interest of Defendant No.1. It is argued that the present suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed in limine. It is further argued that the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties. The plaintiff has wrongly impleaded Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and there is no document on record to show that the alleged work orders were placed by Defendant No.1 on behalf of Defendants Nos. 2 and 3. On the contrary, the plaint itself admits that the said two work orders were issued by Defendant No.1, and all corresponding payments were made by Defendant No.1 alone. It is further argued that the plaintiff has failed to provide the necessary particulars or calculation details of the alleged Final Bill No. 2763 dated 10.02.2010. The figures mentioned therein are false, arbitrary, and fabricated with an ulterior motive to extract unwarranted money from Defendant No.1. The summary chart filed by Defendant No.1 clearly reflects the quantum of work executed and reconciled up to RA-IV. No RA-VI exists as claimed. The CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.5 of 36 plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. The plaintiff had abandoned the work midway, compelling Defendant No.1 to engage other contractors to complete the pending work, incurring an additional expenditure of Rs. 6.43 lakhs. The suit, therefore, deserves dismissal with exemplary costs. Defendant No.1 has already made full and final payment for the work executed at C-66, South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi and F-2/1, Khanpur, New Delhi. No amount whatsoever is due or payable to the plaintiff.
5. The averments of the corresponding paragraph of the plaint were admitted to the limited extent that the plaintiff is engaged in civil, interior, and engineering works. However, it was denied that the plaintiff has any unimpeachable reputation or goodwill. The inferior quality of work executed and the plaintiff's abandonment of the project midway clearly demonstrate poor workmanship and lack of professionalism. It was denied that the Defendant no.1 is a Private Ltd. Company and infact the Defendant No.1 is a Public Limited Company, duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 3rd Floor, E-9, South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi - 110049. Defendant No.2 was Chairman only till 01.09.2011, and Defendant No.3 has never been a Director of the company. It was denied that Defendant Nos. 2 or 3 ever approached the plaintiff for renovation work. Rather, the plaintiff approached Defendant No.1 for the said work, and after negotiations, Work Order dated 11.10.2008 and Addendum dated 21.10.2009 were issued by Defendant No.1 alone. It was specifically denied that the additional work order dated CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.6 of 36 21.10.2009 was issued through Defendant Nos. 2 or 3. All such orders were directly placed by Defendant No.1. The plaintiff has also failed to provide proper particulars of certain additional woodwork. Since the work orders were placed by Defendant No.1, all bills were required to be raised on Defendant No.1, and payments were made accordingly. The site engineer maintained the measurement book and recorded progress periodically. Payments were made on a lumpsum basis, not strictly on the plaintiff's alleged bills. The plaintiff did not complete the work by February 2010 as alleged. The work was abandoned in October 2009, leaving Defendant No.1 to complete the balance through other agencies at its own expense. The workmanship was substandard, as evidenced by defects in plumbing, carpentry, electrical, painting, and structural work (details annexed in Annexure-A). As per the certified records and measurement book, the total value of work executed by the plaintiff was of Rs.87,83,259/-, with VAT @ 12.5% = Rs. 10,97,907/-, totaling Rs.98,81,167/-. After permissible deductions of Rs. 2,56,800/- on account of incomplete and defective work, the net payable amount stood at Rs. 96,24,367/-. Against this, Defendant No.1 paid Rs. 92,00,000/- (details of cheques provided in Annexure- B), plus Rs. 1.60 lakhs in cash for material purchases (balance Rs. 89,778/- refundable to Defendant). After adjustments, the balance payable was Rs. 3,34,589/-, but considering excess payment at Khanpur (Rs. 2,27,041/-), only Rs. 1,07,548/- remained due. The plaintiff's alleged Final Bill No. 2764 dated 10.02.2010 relating to Khanpur work is incorrect and inflated. Payments of Rs. 5,91,990/- were already made, whereas actual CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.7 of 36 work value was Rs. 3,64,941/-, showing an excess payment made to the plaintiff. It is further argued that it is the plaintiff who should reimburse an amount of Rs.6.43 lacs to the defendant no.1 in respect of the work executed at C-66, South Extension, New Delhi and at Khanpur.
6. On completion of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 27.10.2016 :
1. Whether the plaintiff had completed the entire work in February, 2010 to the complete satisfaction of the defendants? OPP
2. Whether the present suit is barred by limitation? OPD-1.
3. Whether the present suit is filed within the period of limitation? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to money decree for a sum of Rs.31,66,443.33? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pre-suit, pendente-lite and future interest, as prayed for? OPP
6. Relief.
7. Thereafter, matter was fixed for PE and the plaintiff tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A and had relied on following documents : (i) Work order dated 21.10.2009 as Ex.PW1/1, (ii) Work order dated 21.10.2009 as Ex.PW1/2,
(iii) Final bill no.2763 alongwith summary chart as Ex.PW1/3,
(iv) e-mail dated 06.03.2010 as Ex.PW1/4, (v) Files/summary chart, cost abstract and analysis of rates, etc. sent with e-mail dated 06.03.1010 as Ex.PW1/5 (Colly.), (vi) Three postal receipts dated 08.03.2010 as Ex.PW1/6 (Colly.), (vii) e-mail dated 01.11.2009 as Ex.PW1/7, (viii) Files/summary chart, cost CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.8 of 36 abstract and analysis of rates, etc. sent with e-mail dated 01.11.2009 as Ex.PW1/8 (Colly.), (ix) Sheet dated 05.11.2009 alongwith copies of supporting sheets dated 07.09.2009 as Ex.PW1/9 (Colly.), (x) Form 26AS as Ex.PW1/10, (xi) e-mails dated 31.03.2010 & 30.05.2010 as Ex.PW1/11 (Colly.), (xii) Copies of other e-mails as Ex.PW1/12 (Colly), (xiii) Letter dated 10.02.2010 as Ex.PW1/13, (xiv) Legal notice dated 17.02.2012 issued to the defendant no.1 as Ex.PW1/14, (xv) Postal receipts (3 in number each) as Ex.PW1/15 (Colly), (xvi) Courier receipts (3 in number each) as Ex.PW1/16 (Colly) respectively, (xvii) AD cards (3 in number) as Ex.PW1/17 (Colly.), (xviii) Web printouts of delivery report through speed post as Ex.PW1/18 (Colly.), (xix) Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act in support of digital record as Ex.PW1/19.
8. Thereafter vide order dated 04.01.2018, Ms. Rosy Sharma was appointed as Local Commissioner for recording of evidence. Local Commissioner has filed her report on 31.08.2018 whereby examination of PW1 & DW1 was recorded.
9. PW1, Sh. Digvijay Gupta was cross-examined and during cross-examination, PW1 deposed that defendant no.3 called him to come and inspect the place and take brief from her and the order was in writing. He deposed that civil interior renovation works assigned to him which includes flooring, plastering, brick work, concrete work, wood work, shutters, panelling, cupboards, windows, painting, tiling, electrical, plumbing etc and civil interior includes everything except making the structure. He deposed that he used to raise running bills based on joint measurements being done by clients, engineers and the plaintiff CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.9 of 36 company. He deposed that the payments were made by defendant no.3 by way of cheques of account of defendant no.1 on raising bills. He deposed that the additional work was assigned during the continuation of the first work by defendant no.3. He deposed that the joint measurement book used to be with Mr.Patho- Client's Engineer and the same is not in his possession. PW1 after seeing the document Ex.PW1/D1 from Page No.18 to 77 deposed that it is not the joint measurement book. He again stated that it seems to be a measurement book. After seen the page no.64 of Ex.PW1/D2, witness deposed that it seems to be the signature of Mr. Partho, Engineer. PW1 deposed that the joint measurement books used to be signed by Mr. Partho, Client's Engineer and Proprietor or Representative of R.K.Agencies. The bills used to be raised on the finalized quantities based on joint measurement book. He had not annexed the said finalized measurements quantities along with the suit. He voluntarily deposed stated that the final measurement book used to remain with the client's engineer and for their records they we used to note down the quantities themselves. He further deposed that no endorsement or verification made by the defendants on the bills annexed with the record raised by him. He denied the suggestion that the bills filed by him are manufactured, forged and fabricated. He deposed that he had completed his work till February, 2010 but he did not remember whether he had filed any document in this regard. He had received more than Rs.80,00,000/-. He deposed that Ms. Surina used to make the payment is also party to the present suit and had issued cheque from the account of defendant no.1 company. He deposed that the CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.10 of 36 defendant no.2 is the chairman of the company and defendant no.3 is wife of the defendant no.2. He denied the suggestion that defendant not no. 2 and 3 were not holding any position in the company and they are not liable in anyway. After seen the document at page no.10 i.e. Ex.PW1/3, witness deposed that the last payment made by the defendant to him on 12.11.2009. He denied the suggestion that he had not done any work after 31.10.2009. He further denied that the last and final measurement was made on 31.10.2009. He denied the suggestion that the cheque was given to him by the company and not by Surina Narula. He denied the suggestion that the present claim is false, fabricated and baseless and not supported by any document on record. He denied the suggestion that he had not accomplished his work and left in between. He deposed that he cannot say to the specific question asked to him whether he was aware that the defendant had engaged some other agencies to complete the remaining work which was left by him and had to incur Rs.6.43 lakhs on that account. He deneid the suggestion that the defendant no.2 & 3 had nothing to do with the work in question. He further denied the suggestion that the work of plumbing, carpentary, electrical, painting and structural work were defective. He denied the suggestion that he had been paid Rs.92 Lakhs including TDS. He affirmed the suggestion that Rs.1,60 lakhs in cash was paid to him or that from said amount he had spent Rs.70,222/- and remaining amount of Rs.89,778/- left with him. He deposed that he did not remember whether he had been paid Rs 227041/- excess in connection with the work done in khanpur. He deposed that he had not worked in Khanpur at the CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.11 of 36 instructions of defendant no.1 company. He voluntarily deposed that he had worked at Khanpur at the instructions of Surina Narula. He deposed that Ms.Surina Narula had given him cheque of defendant no.1/Company. He denied the suggestion he had been paid excess amount of Rs.2,27,041/- for the work done at Khanpur. He denied the suggestion that due to his bad workmanship the defendant had to suffer a loss. He denied the suggestion that he is liable to pay compensation of amount to the tune of Rs.6.43 lakhs to the defendant for the loss they had suffered. He denied the suggestion that there is nothing to do with the defendant no.2 & 3 and they were made parties only to harass and to extort money from them. He denied the suggestion that no money was due towards the defendants. He denied the suggestion that he had filed the false & fabricated suit on the basis of false, manufactured documents. He deposed that he cannot say whether the present suit is time barred or not.
10. Thereafter, DW1 Mr. Sunil Asnani had tendered his evidence by way of Ex.DW1/A and had relied on documents : (i) Authority letter executed in his favour by Mr. Ram Kumar Saini, Director of the defendant company as Ex.DW1/1 (OSR), Summary Chart as Ex.DW1/2, Copy of measurement book as Ex.DW1/3 (OSR), Copy of detailed statement indicating amount of work exhibited under each item which is certified by the Site Engineer of the defendant no.1 company as Ex.DW1/4 (Colly.).
11. During, cross-examination, DW1 deposed that he had visited the property no.C-66, South Extension-II, New Delhi many times for doing the repairing work and that the said house was being used as residence by Mr.H.S.Narula (NRI), whenever, CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.12 of 36 he visits in country. He deposed that he is not aware the time period when Mr.H.S.Narula alongwith family reside in the said house. He deposed that he first visit to the said house/property in the end of October, 2009. He deposed that he did not recollect the exact date, however, the corporate office of the defendant company shifted in year 2012-2013. On being specifically asked the nature of files got misplaced, he deposed that the the files indicating the process of work for the house in question, few bills related to purchase of material procured, slips related to release of payment to labour after the plaintiff had abandoned the work in October, 2009. He further deposed that the documents which have already been filed by the defendant company in the instant case was not misplaced, however, he did not recollect any other document. He deposed that he came to know about the alleged loss of files after filing of the case by the plaintiff when they were preparing the reply to this case. He deposed that HR person namely Mr.Jorawar was handling the shifting of their documents to South-Ex Office. He deposed that he did not recollect whether he had seen the alleged lost files personally. He deposed that he had involved in the present court case on behalf of defendant company few months before the affidavit was signed. He deposed that he did not meet the plaintiff regarding the execution of the work in question or otherwise. He deposed that he had not sent any communication/email/letters etc. to the plaintiff qua the work in question. He voluntarily stated that as per the concerned staff at the site their team was verbally constantly informed to improve the bad workmanship. He deposed that the Engineer Mr.Partho who was looking after the work had told him about the CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.13 of 36 verbal information and the bad workmanship was reflected in the fourth RA bill in which certain amount had been put up on hold but he did not recollect the date but it may be somewhere in beginning of 2009. He deposed that he did not sent any email/letter to any one from defendant concerning the work in question. He voluntarily stated that it was verbally discussed with the concerned staff. He deposed that no any email/communication exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendant concerning the work in question marked/copied to him as well. He deposed that the official e-mail ID used by the defendant no.1 company at the relevant time was [email protected]. He deposed that he was not involved in the meeting/negotiations that took place between the plaintiff and the defendant prior to 11.10.2008 i.e. the date of the work order or thereafter. He deposed that he did not recollect whether he know Mr.H.K.Gupta working with the defendant company. He deposed that he know Mr.Partha Ray working the defendant company. He voluntarily deposed that he is no more working with them. He deposed that Mr.Partha Ray was involved in execution of work in question as he was involved as a Civil Engineer and they were in touch with each other since 2008/2009. He deposed that he did not recollect the exact date, however, he left the defendant company after 2012/2013. He further deposed that he was in touch with Mr.Partha Ray on telephone after he left the defendant company. He deposed that he did not carry out the measurement of the work done by the plaintiff. He voluntarily deposed that they were occupied in rectifying the bad quality work carried out by the plaintiff. He CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.14 of 36 deposed that no measurement work carried out by the plaintiff in his presence. He voluntarily deposed that the measurement was done by Mr.Partha Ray. He deposed that he did not involved in the process of finalization/certification of the bills submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant. He deposed that Mr.Partha Ray, Engineer and his team was responsible from defendant's side for measurement of the work done by the plaintiff. He affirmed the suggestion that the measurement of the work carried out by the plaintiff was done in the presence of the plaintiff or his representative. He voluntarily deposed that whatever measurement were carried out at site were recorded in the measurement book (MB) maintained at site. He affirmed that the plaintiff or his representative were also to sign the MB. He voluntarily deposed that the representative of the plaintiff did not turn up for signing the MB. He denied the suggestion that no recordings were done in the MB simultaneously with the measurement. He voluntarily stated that the measurements are initially recorded in a note book and then copied in the MB. He denied that the alleged note book and the MB were always in possession of the defendant and remained so after plaintiff left the site. He voluntarily deposed that once the measurement is recorded and signed /verified in MB, note book has no value. He affirmed the suggestion that the MB were always in possession of the defendant and remained so after plaintiff left the site. He affirmed that suggestion that no recordings either in the alleged note book or in the MB were ever done in his presence. On being specifically asked did you mean by "signed/verified" in answer to question no. 39, signed and verified by both plaintiff and the CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.15 of 36 defendant, to which witness deposed that no, it means it was signed by the engineer and verified by their auditor. He deposed that the plaintiff had not signed any note book/MB or any part thereof, however, it the cheques were accepted by the plaintiff it means that the measurements are accepted. He deposed that he did not personally call the plaintiff to sign the MB. He deposed that he did not aware if the defendant had ever send any communication /letter /email to the plaintiff calling him to sign the MB. On being specifically asked Did the defendant company paid every RA bill of the plaintiff in full as per MB related to that particular RA bill, witness deposed that the payments were made in adhoc and there was never any issue of scarcity of funds. He further deposed that the payments of RA Bills were made without signatures of the plaintiff on note Book/MB. He voluntarily stated that if the cheques were accepted by the plaintiff it means that the measurements are accepted. Again said (after referring to his own record) some of the pages of MB were signed by the plaintiff also. On being specifically asked whether, the record document which he referred before answering the previous question has been filed in the present, witness deposed in negative. He deposed that MB has been filed on record as Ex.DW1/3. He deposed that Ex.DW1/3 does not record the entire work done by the plaintiff, but it is specific to RA Bill No.5. He denied the suggestion that in these type of contract only one MB is prepared to record the entire quantity executed and it is never specific to any particular RA Bill. He voluntarily deposed that if one MB is filed up to its entire pages, second MB is used and final bill is usually recorded in a computer sheets taking into CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.16 of 36 consideration complete work complete work done by the plaintiff. He deposed that the MBs were prepared volume wise and RA bills wise. He deposed that he can identify the signature of Mr.Partha Ray and the document Ex.DW1/3 bears his signature and Mr.Partha Ray had put his signature on 31.10.2009 i.e. the date of measurement. He deposed that he did not put his signature on Ex.DW1/3 in his presence. He denied the suggestion that Ex.DW1/3 is forged and fabricated document and it was not prepared/signed by Mr.Partha Ray either on 31.10.2009 or other date. He voluntarily stated that the document is genuine and correct. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff and defendant both used to put their respective signature on the MB and the plaintiff never reused to sign the MB. He further denied that the defendant has not deliberately produced the actual MB bearing signature of the plaintiff despite being in possession of the same. He deposed that Ex.DW1/3 is an MB and not a notebook. On being specifically asked about the stages involved in preparation and verification of MBs in present case, to which witness deposed that firstly the measurement is recorded in the notebook and then item wise recorded in the measurement book by the concerned engineer i.e. Mr.Partha Ray and the MB goes to the account Section/Auditor for verification of its calculation. He further statement that a separate sheet is made by the auditor showing the amount verified by him less the advance paid, taxes deducted of the plaintiff's bill. He deposed that Ex.DW1/3 was also sent to the account Section but he do not remember the date of sending. He voluntarily deposed that this is the defendant company policy that no bill is passed without cross-checking CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.17 of 36 done by account section/auditor, however, he did not recollect the name of the Auditor to whom Ex.DW1/3 was sent for checking. He deposed that both the account department and auditor put their signatures on the separate sheet and separate sheet in regarding Ex.DW1/3 was also prepared. He voluntarily deposed that the payments were released to the plaintiff confirms that the account department/auditor had signed the separate sheet. He further deposed that he cannot specify from the over all payments released to the plaintiff. He deposed that he did not recollect when the separate sheet qua Ex.DW1/3 was prepared and who had signed the sheet from account section and from Auditors. He deposed that as and when the plaintiff used to submit his bills, the same were checked and verified by the engineer Mr. Partha Ray and his team and thereafter they used to send the same to the accounts section/auditor of the defendant company, and then accounts/audit section used to verify the calculations and on the basis of verification and certification by the accounts /audit section the verified/certified bill amount used to be released to plaintiff after deducting the advance payment. He deposed that the RA bill no.5 submitted by the plaintiff was also certified by the accounts/audit section of the defendant company. He voluntarily stated that RA Bill No.5 bill submitted by the plaintiff was verified by the engineering team and the bill made by the engineer was sent to the accounts or audit section for further verification and then they prepared and signed the "separate sheet". He deposed that the final invoice bearing no. 2763 dated 10th Feb 2010 submitted by the plaintiff was also verified by the engineering department and then by account/audit section of the CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.18 of 36 defendant company. On being specifically asked, when the said invoice bearing no.2763 was verified by the engineering team of the defendant company and by account/audit section, the witness after going through the judicial file deposed that the said bill was verified by the engineering team on 31.07.2010 but he did not recollect the date when the account/audit section certified/verified it. He deposed that no invoice bearing no.2764 dated 10.02.2010 was submitted by the plaintiff with the defendant. He voluntarily deposed that the last bill submitted by the plaintiff was the invoice bearing no.2763 and on the basis thereof a cumulative bill was prepared by defendant company and accordingly, paid to the plaintiff. He deposed that the "cumulative bill" was also verified and certified by the account/audit Section but the same is not on record. He deposed that no wooden deck work at F-2/1, Khanpur, New Delhi was executed by the plaintiff. He further deposed that the plaintiff had executed only cutting of wood pieces to the required shape at F-2/1, Khanpur. He deposed that he did not recollect if the said work executed at said Khanpur site was billed in the said final invoice no. 2763 or the plaintiff raised the separate invoice for that work. He deposed that the rate agreed to be paid to the plaintiff for work at Khanpur site was Rs.165/- per sq. ft. of the finished product/wood pieces. He deposed that no work order mentioning the agreed rate for the work at Khanpur site was issued to the plaintiff by the defendant company. He deposed that 650 Sq. Feet was the quantity in Khanpur site. He deposed that there was oral agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the work at Khanpur site mentioning the rate quantity CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.19 of 36 etc.. He deposed that he was not present when the said "oral agreement" was arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant company. He deposed that he was not aware of any bill raised by the plaintiff claiming the amount regarding the work done at the Khanpur site from the defendant company. He deposed that the total amount paid to the plaintiff for said work at Khanpur site was Rs. 5,91,990/- by three account payee cheques. He deposed that he cannot say whether there was no work order for the work at Khanpur site. He deposed that he did not know on what basis the account /audit team of the defendant approved payments through cheques for the work at Khapur site without there being no work order and without there being any written contract regarding rates to be paid. He deposed that the amount payable to the plaintiff comes to Rs.97,500/-. He voluntarily stated that there may be some other work executed by the plaintiff at that site in addition to cutting of wood pieces. However, he was not aware about those additional work carried out by the plaintiff at Khanpur site as there was no work order. He deposed that he did not aware about the bill whereby plaintiff raised an amount of Rs.4,62,441/-. He deposed that the defendant company not usually award the work without any formal work order/agreement. He deposed that he was not aware why no work order had been issued for the work at Khanpur Site and it was kept oral agreement. He deposed that there was no written record regarding the rate and quantity agreed with the defendant company and the same has not been deliberately produced by the defendant company. He deposed that he was not aware if the bill of Rs.4,62,441/- is having bill no.2764 dated 10.02.2010 CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.20 of 36 submitted by the plaintiff. He deposed that he was not aware if the measurement for the Khanpur Work carry out by Mr. Partha Ray and his team or by someone else. He deposed that he was not aware if the measurement for the said Khanpur work carried out by the defendant company. He deposed that the MB related to the Khanpur work is not placed on record. He deposed that he cannot say if the Ex.PW1/9 (Colly.) pages 14-16 related to the woodwork executed by the plaintiff at C-66, South Extension or those documents have been prepared by Mr.Partha Ray and bears his signature at the bottom of the said pages. He verified the signature of Mr.Pratha Ray on page 14 at point of Ex.PW1/9 (Colly), however, he cannot say if the signature of Mr.Partha Ray is at point B on page 16 being photocopy. Again said, Ex.PW1/9 is a denied document. He deposed that he did not recollect if the defendant used to make payments of the bills raised by the plaintiff after deducting TDS. After going through the record, the witness has deposed that the TDS was liable to be deducted before making payment to the plaintiff. He deposed that the defendant company maintaining a practice of issuing a written 'notice of defect' notifying the defects in the work carried out by a contractor for the company and this practice was followed in the present case also. He did not recollect the date when such notice of defect was given to the plaintiff by the defendant. He voluntarily deposed that the defect list is written in the MB of fourth RA Bill). He deposed that no written notice issued by defendant company to the plaintiff calling upon him to rectify the alleged defective work. He voluntarily deposed that the plaintiff on many occasions was verbally told to rectify the defects.). He CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.21 of 36 deposed that he did not personally tell the plaintiff to rectify the defects. He deposed that no written notice issued by defendant company to the plaintiff calling upon him to rectify the alleged abandoned left over work and also notifying him that in case of failure the defendant will get the same done from any other contractor or on its own. He did not recollect when the defendant company receive the final bill no. 2763 from the plaintiff. He deposed that he did not recollect if the defendant company upon receipt of the said final bill no. 2763 send any response thereto to the plaintiff. He deposed that no any any written notice issued by the defendant company to the plaintiff notifying him that he had abandoned the site leaving the work incomplete. Again said he was not aware about the same. He deposed that he was not aware if the plaintiff repeatedly sent emails to the defendant requesting for payment against his final bill no. 2763 and 2764. He deposed that he did not recollect whether the payment of Rs. 92 lacs stated to have been made to the plaintiff in para 21 of your affidavit includes any payment made vide cheque no. 6311397. He deposed that the basis of averments regarding the payment of 92 lakhs to the plaintiff is a list of cheques given in para 7 of the written statement (at page no. 17). He deposed that he did not verify from the bank statement of the defendant company that all the cheques mentioned in list were debited from the account of the defendant company before giving his affidavit. He deposed that he did not know if the cheque no. 631397 mentioned in serial no. 6 of the said list was neither debited from the defendants accounts nor accredited to the plaintiffs account. He deposed that the payment/ cost of Rs. 6.43 lacs as referred in para 25 of his CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.22 of 36 affidavit was not under his approval. He voluntarily deposed that it was approved by the management. He was not involved in the said payment of Rs. 6.43 lacs. He voluntarily deposed that the work he was occupied to rectify the bad work/items carried out by the plaintiff). He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff completed the entire work and did not abandon the site. He deposed that the defendant provided TDS certificate of Rs. 230,557/- to the plaintiff. He neither admitted nor denied that the defendant made a payment of Rs. 84 lacs only (including TDS) against bill no. 2763. He neither admitted nor denied that the payment vide cheque no. 694766 made by the defendant against the new wood work at C-66, South Ex, and not against the work done at Khanpur site. He denied the suggestion that the documents Ex. DW-1/2 (colly), Ex. DW-1/3 (Colly), are forged and fabricated documents.
12. After examination of DW1, the Local Commissioner had filed the report before the Court and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
13. I have heard the final arguments on behalf of both the parties and have carefully perused the record. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff deleted defendant no. 2 & 3 as defendants in the present case and vide order dated 26.09.2024, they were dropped from array of defendants. My issue-wise finding is as follows :
Issue No.1 & 4
1. Whether the plaintiff had completed the entire work in February, 2010 to the complete Satisfaction of the defendants? OPP CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.23 of 36
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to money decree for a sum of Rs.31,66,443.33? OPP
14. Both these issues require common discussion, hence they are taken up together. The plaintiff has filed his evidence by way of affidavit in which he had deposed that in September, 2008, defendant no.2 & 3 approached him for Civil, Electrical and Sanitary renovation work at their residence at C-66, South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi and it was the registered office of defendant no.1. After negotiation, the defendant no.2 & 3 award him work vide work order dated 11.10.2008 (Ex.PW1/1). It is deposed by the plaintiff in his evidence by way of affidavit that during the execution of work, an additional work order dated 21.10.2009 (Ex.PW1/2) was also issued to him by the defendant no.2 & 3 through their AR and the defendant no.2 & 3 had also got some additional jobs done including the wooden work done at the said site which were not part of the abovesaid two work orders. He further deposed that while execution of the work was in progress, he raised the running bills upon defendant no.2 & 3 which was paid from time to time. The said payments were made by defendant no.1 after it was verified from their site engineer and supervisor. He deposed that he had completed the entire work on 10.02.2010 to the complete satisfaction of the defendants and raised the final invoice bearing no.2763 upon defendant no.3 for a sum of Rs.1,16,44,275.15 after adjusting the amount of Rs.75,000/- on account of payment made by the defendant to the labour contractor. Copy of letter dated 10.02.2010 under cover of which the final bill no.2763 alongwith summary chart was sent is Ex.PW1/3. The print out of the e-mail CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.24 of 36 dated 06.03.2010 whereby the final bills were sent through e- mail is Ex.PW1/4. The computer printout of the files/summary chart, cost abstract and analysis of rates etc. sent with e-mail dated 06.03.2010 is Ex.PW1/5 (Colly.) and the three postal receipts dated 08.03.2010 whereby the final bills were dispatched is Ex.PW1/6 (Colly.)
15. PW1 has denied the suggestion that the work done by the plaintiff was average or below average. He has also deposed that the joint measurement book was used to be with Mr. Partho, JE of the defendant and was not in his possession. He was also shown one measurement book to which he deposed that it is not joint measurement book, however that was the photocopy only and the original measurement book was not produced. He denied the suggestion that all the bills as raised are manufactured, forged and fabricated. He denied the suggestion that he had not done any work after 31.10.2019. He was also asked specifically during cross-examination whether he was aware that the defendant had to engage some other agencies to complete the remaining work to which he deposed that he could not comment upon the same. He also deposed that he has done the work in Khanpur at the instance of defendant no.3 (since deleted from the array of defendants). However, he deposed that defendant no.1 had made the payment. He denied suggestion that any excess amount was paid to him qua the work done at Khanpur. He denied the suggestion that he had done bad workmanship and defendant had to suffer a loss.
In view of the above, it is crystal clear that plaintiff has proved the work orders dated 11.10.08 and 21.10.2009 as CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.25 of 36 Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2. He has also proved the running bills i.e. RA-5 and RA-6 and final bill no. 2763 for Rs. 11644275.15/- i.e. Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/8. The plaintiff has also shown the emails showing the submission of final bills i.e. Ex.PW1/4, Ex.PW1/7 and Ex.PW1/11. Moreover, there are TDS form 26 AS i.e. Ex.PW1/10 reflecting tax deduction on the payment supporting the claim of plaintiff regarding the amount received and balance still pending. Therefore, the plaintiff has proved that he has completed the entire work on 02.10.2010. RA-5 was duly acknowledged by defendant which is proved by email dated 01.11.2009 and 06.03.2010 showing submission of RA-5 and no objection has been raised subsequently. The TDS certificate shows that they have credited higher amount in their payment book but the actual payment was less which fortify there claim that balance amount is still payable. Once the plaintiff has proved, now it is upon the defendant to show that it was the plaintiff who abandoned the work and there was a bad workmanship on part of the defendant.
16. Let us scrutinies the testimony of defendant witness to show that whether the defendant has discharged the onus successfully that plaintiff abandoned the work or the work was of the inferior quality. Defendant also has to prove that they have made excess payment. DW1, Sh. Sunil Asnani deposed that he had not sent any communication/email/letters etc. to the plaintiff qua the work in question. He voluntarily stated that as per the concerned staff at the site their team was verbally constantly informed to improve the bad workmanship. He deposed that the Engineer Mr. Partho who was looking after the work had told CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.26 of 36 him about the verbal information and the bad workmanship was reflected in the fourth RA bill in which certain amount had been put up on hold but he did not recollect the date but it may be somewhere in beginning of 2009. He deposed that he did not sent any email/letter to any one from defendant concerning the work in question. He voluntarily stated that it was verbally discussed with the concerned staff. He deposed that no any email/communication exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendant concerning the work in question marked/copied to him as well.
17. DW1, Sh. Sunil Asnani deposed that the defendant company maintained a practice of issuing written 'notice of defect' notifying the defects in the work carried out by a Contractor for the company and the said practice was also followed in the case of plaintiff also. However interestingly, when the defendant company was having the practise of issuing the notice of defect then, why no notice was placed on record in the present file. Meaning thereby, no notice of defect was in fact issued. DW1 has in fact deposed that he did not recollect the date of any such notice of defect given to the plaintiff by the defendant. He voluntarily stated that the defect list is written in the MB of fourth RA Bill. The original MB has never been produced by defendant. He deposed that no written notice issued by the defendant company to the plaintiff calling upon him to rectify the alleged defective work and also notifying him that in case of failure the defendant would get the rectification done from any other contractor or on its own. Therefore, no proof has been filed on record to prove that work has been done by any CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.27 of 36 other person/company after plaintiff abondoned the work. He voluntarily stated that the plaintiff on many occasion was verbally told to rectify the defects. He deposed that he never personally told the plaintiff to rectify the defects. He deposed that no written notice issued by the defendant company to the plaintiff calling upon him to rectify the alleged abandoned/left over work and also notifying him that in case of failure the defendant will get the same done from any other contractor or on its own. He voluntarily stated that he was not aware of the same, he admitted that no written notice issued by the defendant company to the plaintiff notifying him that he had abandoned the site leaving the work incomplete.
18. Moreover, the defendant has not at all produced any bills or receipt showing the purchase of the articles in due course of business which can prove that they have got completed the work at the office from any third party. The defendant has failed to prove on record any notice or email regarding the notice of abandonment of work to the plaintiff or any notice of defect which nullifies the work done to the satisfaction of defendant as mentioned by the plaintiff. The defendant has taken the stand that they had hired other agency to complete the work, however, there is nothing on record any other bill or any other witness that has been brought on record to show that they have get the work completed from some other agency. No photograph of the site has been filed to prove their stand that workmanship was of inferior quality. If we carefully scrutinize the testimony of the abovesaid witnesses, it is crystal clear that there is nothing on record to suggest that the plaintiff ever abandoned the site. DW1 CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.28 of 36 has specifically admitted that there was no evidence given or e- mail sent to the plaintiff regarding the abandonment of the work or defect notice ever sent by the defendant. It is beyond apprehension of the present Court, if the plaintiff had abandoned the work as to why the defendant had not served any notice to the plaintiff to complete the work. Therefore, there is nothing on record to suggest that the plaintiff abandoned the work as claimed by the defendant. Defendant failed to file on record any written notice, letter/email or whatsapp to sho that any notice was given regarding bad workmanship. Though defendant's witness admitted that notice of defect were to be issued, however, he admitted that no such notice was issued and only verbally it was told to the plaintiff.
19. The defendant has produced some photocopy of the joint management book, however, the defendant did not produce the complete management book particularly the payments covering January to February 2010. It was the best evidence which was necessary to prove the stand of the defendant, however, despite the clear admission on behalf of their own defendant witness that it was in their possession, they have failed to bring the same on record. In view thereof, an adverse inference is liable to be taken against them as per the Section 114(G) of the Indian Evidence Act that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavorable to the person who withholds it.
20. Therefore, defendant has specifically failed to prove that plaintiff abandoned the work on 31.10.2009 or to prove that workmanship of the inferior quality regarding the plumbing, carpentry, electrical, painting, structural work of construction CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.29 of 36 categories. On the contrary, the RA-5 bill Ex.PW1/7 was accepted and processed after November 2009 showing continued work. No figures of the amount spent or any third party engineer has been examined to prove that workmanship was of inferior quality. There is nothing on record to prove the claim of the defendant that they have got the work done from the third party as the plaintiff abandoned the work as there was bad workmanship on the part of the plaintiff. It has been alleged by the defendant that they have incurred Rs. 6.43 Lakhs through day to day payments to bad or inferior quality work, however, no single cash book, any ledger or any payments receipts have been placed on record to show that any payment has been made for the alleged expenditure of Rs. 6.43 Lakhs. Further, no site inspection report has been exhibited or any engineer has been examined from defendant side to show that the work was of the inferior quality, whereas the defendant witness has admitted that they have deputed their own engineer to look after the work.
21. Defendant has also claimed that excess payment of work was made at Khanpur site. It has also been alleged by the defendant that excess payment of work has been made. Defendants assert that the work executed was only Rs.98,81,167/-, later reducing to Rs.96,24,367/- after deductions. Their summary sheets (DW1/2 & DW1/4) are self-generated without supporting measurement book entries and the critical portions of the measurement book were not produced. Deductions for labour payments (Rs.88,799 + Rs.21,501) are unsupported by vouchers or acknowledgments on the part of plaintiff. Deduction of Rs.1,46,500 for unfinished items is CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.30 of 36 unsubstantiated, especially when the plaintiff asserts that they have completed the work to the satisfaction of the defendant. TDS entries in Form 26AS show deduction on amounts aligning with the plaintiff's billed amounts, not the lower sums asserted by defendants. TDS deduction is a statutory acknowledgment of liability. No evidence of agreed rate @150/sq.ft was produced by the defendant. Plaintiff's bill (Ex. PW1/13) was never protested contemporaneously by any whatsapp message, notice, email or notice of defendant.
22. Lastly very conveniently the defendant has submitted that files has been misplaced due to shifting of office and therefore, they were not been able to bring on record these proofs. However, they cannot be the ground for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff who has proved his case beyond preponderance of probability. The defendant witness has deposed that he did not recollect the exact date when Mr. Partha Ray i.e. their engineer had left the defendant company, however, it was after the year 2012/2013. He deposed that he did not carried the measurement of the work done by the plaintiff. He voluntarily stated that they were occupied in rectifying the bad quality work carried out by the plaintiff. He deposed that no measurement of the work carried out by the plaintiff in his presence. He voluntarily stated that the measurement was done by Mr. Partha Ray. He deposed that their engineer Mr. Partha Ray and his team was responsible from the defendant's side for measurement of the work done by the plaintiff. He affirmed the suggestion that the measurement of the work carried out by the plaintiff was to be done in the presence of the plaintiff or his representative. He further affirmed CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.31 of 36 that the MB were always in possession of the defendant and remained so after plaintiff left the site. He further affirmed that no recordings either in the alleged note book or in the MB were ever done in his presence. He has denied his knowledge to joint measurement book altogether. He further deposed that the above referred MB has been filed by the defendant and the said document as Ex.DW1/3. He deposed that the document Ex.DW1/3 does not record the entire work done by the plaintiff but it is specific to RA Bill No.5. Their own document is not correct as it does not contain the full work done. Most importantly, as discussed earlier it does not contain the period from January to February 2010. He denied that the defendant has not deliberately produced the actual MB bearing signature of the plaintiff despite being in possession of the same.
23. Defendant witness has admitted that he got involved in the present court case on behalf of defendant company few months before the affidavit was signed. He deposed that he did not meet the plaintiff regarding the execution of the work in question or otherwise. He did not recollect that the said work executed at said Khanpur site was billed in the said final invoice no.2763 or the plaintiff raised the separate invoice for that work. He further deposed that the rate agreed to be paid to the plaintiff for the work at Khanpur site was Rs.165 per Sq. Ft. of the finished product/wood pieces. He deposed that no work order mentioning the agreed rate for the work at Khanpur site was issued to the plaintiff by the defendant company. He deposed that the work on 650 Sq. Feet. was executed by the plaintiff at the Khanpur site. He affirmed that the agreement between the plaintiff and the CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.32 of 36 defendant regarding the work at Khanpur site mentioning the rate quantity etc. was oral. As regarding the excess payment of work, DW1, Sh. Sunil Asnani has deposed that he was not aware of the any such e-mails repeatedly sent by the plaintiff to the defendant requesting for payment against his final bill no.2763 and 2764. He deposed that he did not recollect whether the payment of Rs.92 lakhs stated to have been made to the plaintiff in para 21 of his affidavit includes any payment made vide cheque no.6311397. Then, the witness has altogether denied having the knowledge as to whether the cheque no. 631397 mentioned in serial no.6 of the said list was either debited from the defendant's accounts or accredited to the plaintiff's account.
24. As discussed earlier, defendant has failed to bring on record various documents on the ground that files has been misplaced during shifting of office. The defendant no.1 had deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit that during the shifting of the corporate office of the defendant no.1 company some of the files pertaining to the present case were misplaced and could not be found. During cross-examination, DW1 was asked specifically what was the nature of the files which were got misplaced to which he deposed that the files indicating the process of work for the house in question, few bills related to purchase of material procured, slips related to release of payment to labour after the plaintiff had abandoned the work in October, 2009. On being specifically asked he deposed that the documents which have already been filed by the defendant company in the instant case was not misplaced, however, he did not recollect any other document. The defendant no.1 has taken the defence that CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.33 of 36 some of the documents has been misplaced by them, however, they have also failed to place any communication i.e. legal notice, letter or e-mail in support of their claim that plaintiff had abandoned the work. Therefore, the defendant miserably failed to prove his case.
25. In view of the above, the plaintiff has proved that he has completed the work. On the other hand, the defendant has failed to bring on record anything contrary to prove his stand that the work was abandoned or it was of inferior quality. Defendant has also failed to prove that any excess amount has been paid.
26. In view of the submissions made, issue no.1 & 4 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 31,66,443.33 from the defendants.
27. Issue no.2 & 3 (2) Whether the present suit is barred by limitation? OPD-1 (3) Whether the present suit is filed within the period of limitation? OPP
28. Both the issues are taken up together as they require common discussion.It is the case of the plaintiff that he had completed his work as assigned by the plaintiff vide work order dated 11.10.2008 and 21.10.2009. He had completed the entire work on 10.02.2010 to the complete satisfaction of the defendants. He further deposed that the total value of the work executed by the plaintiff at site was of Rs.1,17,19,275/- (inclusive of VAT) and after deducting the amount of Rs.75,000/- on account of payment made by the defendant to the labour contractor, the final bill was raised as Rs.1,16,44,275.15 vide CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.34 of 36 final invoice bearing no.2763. He has filed on record print out of the e-mails dated 06.03.2010 whereby the final bills were raised and the suit was filed on 01.03.2013, which is well within the limitation period of three years. No evidence has been brought on record on behalf of the defendant to show that suit is not within the limitation period.
29. In view thereof, both the issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
30. Issue No. 5Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pre-suit, pendente-lite and future interest, as prayed for? OPP
31. The onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sought interest @24% per annum. Nothing is produced before the Court to hold that plaintiff is entitled to interest @24% per annum and that too from the date of filing of the suit, in the opinion of the court, interest @24% per annum does not seem appropriate. This Court thus finds that interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of amount shall be apt to compensate the plaintiff.
32. Thus, this issue is allowed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant wherein the rate of interest shall be 9% per annum payable from the date of filing of the present case till its actual realisation. The issue is decided accordingly.
33. Relief
34. In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.31,66,443.33/-
CS DJ No.8734/2016DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.35 of 36 from the defendant alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the present case till its actual realisation.
Cost of the suit is awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by AmbikaAnnounced & dictated in Ambika singh Date: the Open Court on 23.12.2025 singh 2025.12.23 16:32:31 +0530 (Ambika Singh) DJ-01/South District Saket Courts, New Delhi CS DJ No.8734/2016 DIGVIJAY GUPTA VS. DSC LIMITED Page no.36 of 36