Delhi District Court
Sh. Harpreet Arora vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation on 2 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURVINDER PAL SINGH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS15498/2016
Sh. Harpreet Arora,
Sole Proprietor of
M/s Harpreet Arora,
Office at 3035/37, Bedon Pura,
Karol Bagh, Delhi110005.
.......Plaintiff
VERSUS
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
through its Commissioner,
Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi.
....... Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 3,43,651/ WITH INTEREST
Date of institution of suit : 02.06.2015
Arguments heard on : 09.12.2016
Date of decision : 02.01.2017
CS15498/2016
Sh. Harpreet Arora Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Page 1 of 25
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff, proprietor of M/s Harpreet Arora has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 3,43,651.00 with interest from defendant. Adumbrated in brief the facts of the case of plaintiff are as follows. Plaintiff averred to have been awarded work of "Imp./Dev. of side berms by pdg. RMC from C1/9 to C3/20 in CBlock Rajouri Garden 98/KBZ"
vide Work Order No. EE(MKBZ)I[EE I]/SYS/20132014/490, dated 16.12.2013 for contractual amount of Rs. 3,60,593/. The time of completion provided in the work order was 3 months. Plaintiff submitted that he completed entire work to the satisfaction of the defendant within time i.e., by 13.03.2014. Earnest money of Rs. 8,300/ was also deposited by plaintiff at the time of submission of tender by plaintiff. After completion of work by the plaintiff, the defendant Corporation prepared and passed first and final bill of plaintiff for sum of Rs. 3,07,592.00 after deducting Rs. 27,759.00 towards security of plaintiff after adjusting Rs. 8,300.00 deposited by the plaintiff as earnest money. Also was submitted that the defendant corporation was liable to return the security amount as well as the earnest money after the expiry of defect liability period of six CS15498/2016 Sh. Harpreet Arora Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Page 2 of 25 months from the date of completion as per Clause17 of application General Rules & directions/Standard conditions of contract of the defendant Corporation. It has been further averred that the defect liability period of six months expired on 12.09.2014 from the date of actual completion of the work i.e., 13.03.2014 and thus the defendant was also liable to refund the security amount including the earnest money. It has been averred that despite passing of the aforementioned bill and several requests of plaintiff, the defendant neither released the payment nor showed any reason for withholding the said payments. It has been further averred that plaintiff contractor was deprived of the use and investment of his due amount and thus the defendant was further liable to pay interest @ 24% per annum on the afore elicited amount of Rs.3,43,651.00 from due dates i.e., on final bill amount of Rs. 3,07,592.00 from 16.05.2014 till payment and on security amount of Rs. 36,059.00 from 12.09.2014 till the date of payment. Since, the due payment was not released by the defendant, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 04.03.2015 on the defendant through speed post, however, the defendant failed to make the payment despite service of legal notice. Resultant had been this suit.
CS15498/2016 Sh. Harpreet Arora Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Page 3 of 25
2. Defendant interalia put forth in defence that suit was premature as agreement interse parties had specific condition that payment of bill will depend on availability of funds in particular head of account from time to time in North DMC. The payment of bills shall be made strictly on the queue basis i.e. first the past liabilities will be cleared and after that the release of payment for passed bills will be in order of the demand received at Head Quarter under particular head of account. Accordingly, delay in making the payment did not attract any liability and the plaintiff was not entitled to interest on account of delay in payment as per the amended rules incorporated by circular, which had been gone through by plaintiff who had participated in the tender and executed the work. Also is the defence of defendant that the security amount can only be paid after payment of the final bill, that too when the Contractor applies for refund of security amount and make necessary formalities in this regard including submission of the Clearance Certificate from the Labour Officer as per clause 45 of the General Terms and Conditions of the tender documents. Also was stated that the security deposited shall not be refunded before expiry of one year from the date of completion of the work as per clause17 of the General Terms and Conditions of the CS15498/2016 Sh. Harpreet Arora Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Page 4 of 25 tender documents. It is also the averment of defendant that the net payable amount to plaintiff was Rs. 3,07,592/ for which the first and final bill was passed and sent to the Head Quarter for payment on queue basis vide demand no. 109, dated 19.09.2014 and same will be released by the Head Quarter on availability of funds under the particular head of account. Defendant denied that the plaintiff made several visits and requests as alleged. Defendant also denied that the defect liability period expired as alleged or the defendant was liable to make the payment of security amount as alleged. Also has been denied that the plaintiff had been deprived of the use and investment of the amount or that the defendant was liable to pay interest as alleged. It has been further averred that question of release of payment to the plaintiff did not arise at all till that date even the demands, raised prior to the demand of the plaintiff, have not been released due to paucity and crisis of funds with the North DMC. No cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant on any dates as alleged. Rest of the averments of the plaint have been denied by the defendant. Defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
CS15498/2016 Sh. Harpreet Arora Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Page 5 of 25
3. During the course of proceedings, an application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of The Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC) was filed by plaintiff on 17.10.2015, seeking judgment on admissions stating that a policy decision cannot entitle defendant to either not make payment or delay payment after admitting its obligation to make the payment. Since the outstanding payment of amount of first and final bill totaling Rs. 3,07,592.00 stood admitted in unequivocal, unambiguous, unqualified terms by defendant in favour of plaintiff, after hearing the counsels for parties, the plaintiff was held entitled for judgment on admissions for recovery of sum of Rs. 3,07,592.00 from the defendant under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC vide separate judgment dated 19.12.2015.
4. So far as the facets of security amount and component of interest, its period, rate or whether it is payable by defendant to plaintiff were concerned, they being the mixed questions of fact and law, required leading of evidence by the parties, so, the matter was fixed for framing of issues.
CS15498/2016 Sh. Harpreet Arora Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Page 6 of 25
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 02.01.2016 : ISSUES
1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for refund of earnest money/security deposit, as claimed, or not? Onus of proof on parties.
2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest? If so, on what amount, at what rate and for which period? OPP
3)Relief.
6. In evidence, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 vide affidavit Ex PW1/A. PW1 relied upon documents viz., (i) copy of Work Order exhibited as PW1/1; (ii) copy of the first and final bill exhibited as Ex PW1/2; (iii) copy of legal notice alongwith original speed post receipt exhibited as Ex PW1/3; and (iv) since original of copy of Clause17 of General Terms & Conditions was not got summoned, same was marked as MarkPX. PW1 was crossexamined.
CS15498/2016 Sh. Harpreet Arora Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Page 7 of 25
7. Defendant examined Sh. K.C. Gupta, Executive Engineer (MI), Karol Bagh Zone, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Road No. 34, Opposite Fire Station, Moti Nagar, New Delhi, as DW1 vide affidavit Ex DW1/A. DW1 relied upon documents viz., (i) the booklet of the General Terms and Conditions exhibited as Ex DW1/1; (ii) since originals of photocopies of (a) circular dated 19.05.2006; and (b) circular dated 10.06.2014; were not brought, these photocopies were marked as MarkDX2; and MarkDX3, respectively. DW1 was crossexamined.
8. I have heard arguments addressed by Sh. Vikas Sharma, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff; Sh. Umesh Gupta, Ld. counsel for defendant; and have given thoughts to the rival contentions put forth, pleadings of the parties, evidence and have also examined the record of the case.
9. My issue wise findings are as under : Findings on Issue No(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for refund of earnest money/security deposit, as claimed, or not? Onus of proof on parties.
CS15498/2016 Sh. Harpreet Arora Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Page 8 of 25 In paras3 and 10 of the plaint, it is the averment of the plaintiff contractor that Rs. 36,059.00 as security was deposited with the defendant Corporation but his final bill was approved, which was not including the aforesaid security. In corresponding reply on merits to paras3 and 10 in written statement, the defendant did not deny the fact of deposit of aforesaid security amount. The fact of deposit of security sum aforesaid is deemed to be admitted by defendant.
10. In written statement, defendant averred that the earnest money/security amount can only be paid after payment of final bill, that too when the plaintiff applies for refund of earnest money/security amount and makes necessary formalities in this regard, including submission of the Clearance Certificate from the Labour Office as per clause45 of the General Terms and Conditions of the tender documents. It was further was averred that the demand of final bill raised was to be paid as per seniority on queue basis subject to availability of fund in the particular head of account.
CS15498/2016 Sh. Harpreet Arora Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Page 9 of 25
11. It is also the argument of Ld. Counsel for defendant that the security deposited is not to be refunded before expiry of one year from the completion of the work as per clause9 of the General Terms and Conditions of the tender documents.
12. In para2 of of the plaint, it is the averment of the plaintiff that the work of the contract was completed well before the time of completion. In corresponding reply on merits in para2 of written statement there is no denial of defendant for completion of the work before the date of completion.
13. In the course of defendant evidence, the defendants did not produce the original of photocopy of circular dated 19.05.2006 Mark DX2 during the deposition of DW1 or before or later and so photocopy of circular Mark DX2 stands not proved. Followings are the protection clauses17 and 45 contained in General Conditions of Contract for Municipal Corporation of Delhi Works Ex DW1/1 : CS15498/2016 Sh. Harpreet Arora Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Page 10 of 25 "Clause 17 :
Contractor Liable for Damages, defects during maintenance period :
If the contractor or his working people or servants shall break, deface, injure or destroy any part of building in which they may be working, or any building, road, road curb, fence, enclosure, water pipe, cables, drains, electric or telephone post or wires, trees, grass or grassland, or cultivated ground contiguous to the premises on which the work or any part is being executed, or if any damage shall happen to the work while in progress, from any cause whatever or if any defect, shrinkage or other faults appears in the work within six months (3 months in the case of any work other than road work costing Rs. 1,00,000/ and below) after a certificate final or otherwise of its completion shall have been given by the EngineerinCharge as aforesaid arising out of defect or improper materials or workmanship the contractor shall upon receipt of a notice in writing on that behalf make the same good at his own expense or in default the EngineerinCharge cause the same to be made good by other workmen and deduct the expense from any sums that may be due or at any time thereafter may become due to the contractor, or from his security deposit except for the portion pertaining to asphaltic work which is governed by sub - para (iii) of clause 35 of the proceeds of sale thereof or of a sufficient portion thereof. The security deposit of the contractor except the portion pertaining to asphaltic work which is governed by sub - para (iii) of clause 35 shall not be refunded before the expiry of six months CS15498/2016 Sh. Harpreet Arora Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Page 11 of 25 (three months in the case of any work other than road work costing Rs. 1,00,000/ and below) after the issue of the certificate final or otherwise, of completion of work or till the final bill has been prepared and passed whichever is later. Provided that in the case of road work in the opinion of the EngineerinCharge, half of the security deposit is sufficient to meet all liabilities of the contractor under this contract, half of the security deposit will be refundable after three months and the remaining half after six months of the issue of the said certificate of completion or till the final bill has been prepared and passed whichever is later.
Clause 45 :
Release of security deposit after labour clearance :
Security deposit of the work shall not be refunded till the contractor produces a clearance certificate from the Labour Officer. As soon as the work is virtually complete the contractor shall supply for the clearance certificate to the Labour Officer under intimation to the EngineerinCharge. The EngineerinCharge, on receipt of the said communication, shall write to the Labour Officer to Intimate if any complaint pending against the contractor in respect of the work. If no complaint is pending on record till after 3 months after completion of the work and/or no communication is received from the Labour Officer to this effect till six months after the date of Completion it will be deemed to have received the clearance certificate and the security Deposit will be released If otherwise due."
CS15498/2016 Sh. Harpreet Arora Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Page 12 of 25
14. Bare perusal of afore elicited clause45 reveals of no pre requisite for the contractor to deposit original G8 receipt issued at the time of deposition of earnest money amount. Notice Ex PW1/3, dated 04.03.2015 was sent by plaintiff through Counsel by speed post on 05.03.2015 for demand of payments for work done as well as security deposit amount and interest within two months. Sending of notice is detailed in para11 in the plaint. In corresponding reply on merits in written statement, the defendant has not denied of receipt of aforesaid notice of plaintiff. Receipt of speed post dated 05.03.2015 is placed on the notice Ex PW1/3. The said notice is deemed to be served on or before 12.03.2015. It is proved on record that on date of service of notice Ex PW1/3 i.e., on 12.03.2015, more than reasonable period had passed after completion of the works in question. It is own admission of the defendant that it had passed the bill in question for Rs. 3,07,592.00 and had sent it to the Head Quarter for payment vide demand no. 109, dated 19.09.2014. The assertion of defendant of passing of bill in demand and sending said bill in demand clearly prove the facts that with respect to the cleared items in the bill in demand there was no dispute since they were CS15498/2016 Sh. Harpreet Arora Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Page 13 of 25 approved by the officers of defendant Corporation. Notice Ex PW1/3 served on 12.03.2015 on defendant contained demand interalia of refund of the security sum aforesaid within two months from receipt of the notice i.e., on or before 11.05.2015. Neither defendant responded to the notice Ex PW1/3 nor refunded the security sum so withheld.
15. Security deposit/earnest money could have been retained by defendant as per clause17 of the General Terms and Conditions of the contracts/works of defendant Corporation only for duration of defect liability period of one year from the date of completion of work. In the fact of the matter, the afore elicited security deposit/earnest money has been retained after expiry of defect liability period and also despite service of notice Ex PW1/3 on 12.03.2015.
16. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled for refund of the earnest money/security deposit sum of Rs. 36,059.00 from the defendant. Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant accordingly.
CS15498/2016 Sh. Harpreet Arora Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Page 14 of 25 Findings on Issue No(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest?
If so, on what amount, at what rate and for which period? OPP
17. As afore elicited, in terms of averments of plaint, the work of work order in question was completed on 13.03.2014 to the satisfaction of defendant Corporation and before date of completion. There is no denial in written statement of defendant of afore elicited fact of completion of work within the prescribed period as per satisfaction of defendant. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that as per the clause7 of General Terms and Conditions of contracts/works of Corporation, if the contractor does not prepare and submit the bills, then the EngineerinChief of Corporation will prepare the same and in such an event, the contractor will not be entitled to any claim whatsoever due to delay in payment including that of interest.
18. Neither plaintiff prepared nor filed bill on completion of work of work order in question. Be that as it may, the fact remains that in CS15498/2016 Sh. Harpreet Arora Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Page 15 of 25 para8 of reply on merits in written statement, it is the averment of defendant that the defendant had prepared and passed bill for Rs. 3,07,592.00 and sent it to Head Quarter for payment vide demand no. 109, dated 19.09.2014.
19. It is the argument of Ld. Counsel for defendant that payment of bills depended upon availability of funds on particular head of account from time to time in North DMC and in terms of amended General Terms and Conditions of tender documents. The payment of bills were to be made strictly on queue basis i.e., first the past liabilities will cleared and after that the release of payment for passed bills will be in order of demand received at Head Quarter under particular head of account. So, as per Ld. Counsel for defendant, delay in making the payment did not attract any liability and plaintiff was not entitled to any interest on account of delay in payment as per the amended rules incorporated vide circular dated 19.05.2006, which had been gone through by plaintiff and participated in the Tender and executed the work.
CS15498/2016 Sh. Harpreet Arora Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Page 16 of 25
20. Following is the Clause7 of General Conditions of Contract for Municipal Corporation of Delhi Works Ex PW1/1 : "CLAUSE 7 Payment on intermediate Certificate to be Regarded as Advances :
No payment shall be made for work estimated to cost Rs. Twenty thousand or less till after the whole of the work shall have been completed and certificate of completion given. For works estimated to cost over Rs. Twenty thousand, the interim or running account bills shall be submitted by the contractor for the work executed on the basis of such recorded measurements on the format of the Department in triplicate on or before the date of every month fixed for the same by the EngineerinCharge. The contractor shall not be the entitled to be paid any such interim payment if the gross work done together with the net payment / adjustment of advances of material collected, if any, since the last such payment is less then the amount specified in Schedule 'F' in which case the interim bill shall be prepared on the appointed date of month after the requisite progress is achieved. Engineerin Charge shall arrange to have the bill verified by taking or causing to be taken, where necessary, the requisite measurements of the work. In the event of the failure of the contractor to submit the bills, Engineerin Charge shall prepare or cause to be prepared such bills in which event no claims whatsoever due to delays on payment including that of interest shall be payable to the contract. Payment on account of CS15498/2016 Sh. Harpreet Arora Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Page 17 of 25 admissible shall be made by the EngineerinCharge certifying the sum to which the contractor is considered entitled by way of interim payment at such rates as decided by the EngineerinCharge. The amount admissible shall be paid by 10th working day after the day of presentation of the bill by the contractor to the EngineerinCharge of his Asstt. Engineer together with the account of the material is issued by the department, or dismantled materials, if any.
All such interim payment shall be regarded as payment by way of advances against final payment only and shall not preclude the requiring of bad, unsound and imperfect or unskilled work to be rejected, removed, taken away and reconstructed or reentered. Any certificate given by the Engineerin Charge relating to the work done or materials delivered forming part of such payment, may be modified or corrected by any subsequent such certificate(s) or by the final certificate and shall not by itself be conclusive evidence that any work or materials to which it relates is/are in accordance with the contract and specifications. Any such interim payment or any part there of shall not in any respect conclude, determine or affect in any way powers of EngineerinCharge under the contract or any of such payments be treated as final settlement and adjustment of accounts or in anyway vary or effect the contract.
Pending consideration of extension of date of completion interim payments shall continue to be made as herein provided, without prejudice to the right of the departments to take action under the terms CS15498/2016 Sh. Harpreet Arora Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Page 18 of 25 of this contract for delay in the completion of works, if the extension of date of completion is not granted by the competent authority.
The EngineerinCharge in his sole discretion on the basis of a certificate from the Asstt. Engineer to the effect that the work has been completed upto the level in question make interim advance payments without detailed measurements for work done (other than foundations, items to be covered under finishing items) upon lintel level (including sunshade etc.) and slab level, for each floor working out at 75% of the assessed value. The advance payment so allowed shall be adjusted in the subsequent interim bill by taking detailed measurements thereof."
21. In terms of said clause7, the contractor is not entitled to interest for the delay in payment on account of nonpreparation and submissions of bills. When read as a whole, said clause7 simply specifies of non entitlement of interest by contractor when he does not submit the bills after preparation and on that count the Engineerin Charge of Corporation prepares the bill. It does not mean that even after delay in preparation of the bills by the EngineerinCharge of Corporation, the Corporation will not be liable to pay interest for period later to preparation of bills by EngineerinChief for further unreasonable delay caused in making of payment of such bills to the contractor.
CS15498/2016 Sh. Harpreet Arora Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Page 19 of 25
22. In the cases of Jagbir Singh Sharma Vs. MCD & Ors. in CS (OS) 1797/2007; Sh. Ramkesh, sole proprietor of M/s Ramkesh Vs. MCD & Ors. in CS (OS) 1805/2007 and M/s Balaji Construction Company Vs. MCD & Ors., in CS (OS) 1806/2007; vide order dated 15.07.2008, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna of our own High Court held that : "Once the defendantMCD admits its obligation to make the payment, the said payment has to be arranged for and budgeted for by them. The plaintiffs have no role to play in the said exercise. How the defendant manages their internal affairs is their own business."
It was also held therein that : "Section 46 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 stipulates that where no time limit is specified, the engagement must be performed within a reasonable time"
Similar plea of defendant therein for making payments to said contractor as per their policy on "first in first out" (principle of FIFO in accountancy) was held to be lacking merits and premise and CS15498/2016 Sh. Harpreet Arora Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Page 20 of 25 shorn of merits to grant leave to defend in summary suit.
23. Defendant has not proved of there being in existence any queue for payment of bill for clearing the past liabilities first and then to release the payment of bill in question. No document has been proved by defendant specifying the order of demands received at Head Quarter under particular heads of account, including the demand for bill in question so received therein to make out what is the number of demand in question in said queue amongst of demands received at Head Quarter nor defendant have proved any fact on record what was the availability of funds at the Head Quarter of defendant Corporation to elicit there being nonavailability of funds for payment of past bills in question, elicited above. After the defendant Corporation admitted its obligation to make the payment by passing of the bill and sending of the demand to the Head Quarter for payment, it was the duty of the defendant Corporation to arrange for the said payment and/or budget it earlier or later. Plaintiff had no role to play in said exercise as to how the defendant Corporation manages its internal affairs as it is their own business. In terms of Section 46 of Indian Contract Act and as per the law laid in the cases of CS15498/2016 Sh. Harpreet Arora Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Page 21 of 25 Jagbir Singh Sharma (supra) and Ramkesh (supra), when there is no time limit specified, the engagement must be performed within a reasonable time. Notice of demand for payments of work done and security, interest of date 04.03.2015 Ex PW1/3 was served upon defendant on 12.03.2015, which fact has not been disputed by defendant. There is nothing proved on record to entitle defendant to withhold the legitimate sums of plaintiff contractor admitted to be payable by defendant Corporation for the work done and/or the security/earnest money.
24. In the case of Varinder Jeet Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr., 2013 (134) DRJ 284, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli interalia held that : "15. It is settled law that if a person is deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled, he has a right to be monetarily compensated for the said deprivation. [Ref: (1992) 1 SCC 508: Secretary, Irrigation Deptt. Govt. of Orissa v. G.C. Roy; (2004) 5 SCC 65 : Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, and (2009) 8 SCC 507 : Sri Venkateswara Syndicate v. Oriental Insurance CS15498/2016 Sh. Harpreet Arora Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Page 22 of 25 Company Ltd. and Anr.] The object behind awarding interest to a party, who has suffered loss, due to a legitimate deprivation of the enjoyment of the use of money that he was entitled to rightfully, is to balance the equities and while doing so, the facts involved in each case must be examined by the Court.
16. The statutory provisions with regard to payment of interest are laid down in Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978, that provides that in any proceedings for the recovery of any debt or damages or in any proceedings in which a claim for interest in respect of any debt or damages already paid is made, the court may, if it thinks fit, allow interest to the person entitled to the debt or damages or to the person making such claim, as the case may be, at a rate not exceeding the current rate of interest, if the proceedings do not relate to a debt payable by virtue of a written instrument at a certain time, from the date mentioned in this regard in a written notice given by the person entitled or the person making the claim to the person liable, then interest will be claimed, till the date of institution of the proceedings."
25. On 24.12.2016, order of date 01.12.2016 in RFA No. 725/2016 of Hon'ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli was received. Perusal of said order reveal that RFA NO. 786/2016 had been treated as a lead matter in all connected appeals filed by appellant North DMC, therein and in terms thereof, the Hon'ble High Court has passed the consent CS15498/2016 Sh. Harpreet Arora Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Page 23 of 25 order with respect to the principal amount payable and interest on principal amount to plaintiff in terms thereof and has left the aspect of security and interest thereon pending adjudication in this Court to be continued. Aforesaid decision of Hon'ble High Court is also in RFA No. 131/2016, whereby the North DMC had filed appeal before High Court of Delhi, impugning decree and judgment of this Court of date 19.12.2015 and passed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, herein before elicited.
26. In view of Section 3 of Interest Act, 1978, the plaintiff is entitled to interest from the date 12.05.2015 ( after expiry of notice period from 12.03.2015, the date of service of notice) on sum of Rs. 36,059.00 of security. In the fact of the matter, having regard to nature of the commercial transaction between the parties, the plaintiff is accordingly held entitled for interest @ 7.5% per annum (current rate of interest on fixed deposits in bank) w.e.f., 12.05.2015 on sum of Rs. 36,059.00 till realization.
RELIEF
27. In view of my findings with respect to issues no. 1 and 2, the CS15498/2016 Sh. Harpreet Arora Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Page 24 of 25 suit of the plaintiff is decreed in terms that plaintiff is held entitled for recovery of security sum of Rs. 36,059.00 as well as interest thereon @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f., 12.05.2015 till realization with costs from defendant. Decree sheet be prepared and file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court (GURVINDER PAL SINGH) nd on 2 Day of January, 2017. Addl. Distt. Judge01 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
(AD) CS15498/2016 Sh. Harpreet Arora Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Page 25 of 25