Delhi District Court
Sh. Munish Anand vs ) North Delhi Municipal Corporation on 10 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURVINDER PAL SINGH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS18138/2016
Sh. Munish Anand,
Sole Proprietor of M/s Durga Builders,
26/30, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi110060.
.......Plaintiff
VERSUS
1) North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
through its Commissioner,
4th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi110001.
2) The Executive Engineer (MI) SPZ,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
S.P. Zone, Idgah Road, Delhi110006.
....... Defendants
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 16,05,056.00 WITH INTEREST
Date of institution of suit : 09.09.2015
Arguments heard on : 14.12.2016
Date of decision : 10.01.2017
CS18138/2016
Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 1 of 25
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff, sole proprietor of M/s Durga Builders, a firm duly enrolled as Municipal Contractor with the defendants (erstwhile MCD) has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 19,14,628.00 with interest from defendants. Adumbrated in brief the facts of the case of plaintiff are as follows. Contractor Plaintiff averred to have been awarded works of (i) Imp Dev of Zonal office bldg in C.85/SPZ by pdg from at 3 rd and 4th floor by pdg aluminum window in Idgah road vide Work Order No. EE(M SPZI) (EE III)/SYS/20122013/132, dated 27.11.2012 for contractual amount of Rs. 4,21,365/; (ii) Imp. Dev. of lanes of Phatak Dhobian, Katra Nagina Mehal Gali Chhoti Badam in W85/SPZ vide Work Order No. EE(M SPZI) (EE III)/SYS/20132014/188, dated 13.09.2013 for contractual amount of Rs. 7,14,524/; and (iii) Imp. Dev. to lane and drainage system at Fasil Road in Mohalla Nihariyan Chowk in W85/SPZ vide Work Order No. EE(M SPZI) (EE III)/SYS/20132014/ 189, dated 13.09.2013 for contractual amount of Rs. 7,19,345/. The time of completion provided in the work orders was 3 months. Plaintiff submitted that he completed entire work to the satisfaction of Engineer CS18138/2016 Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 2 of 25 inCharge/defendant no2 before the stipulated time. Earnest amount of Rs. 2,09,016/ [i.e., (i) Rs. 43,615/; (ii) Rs. 82,422/; and (iii) Rs. 82,979/] was also deposited by plaintiff at the time of submission of tender by plaintiff. After completion of work by the plaintiff, the defendant prepared first and final bills of plaintiff for sum of (i) Rs. 3,46,790/ on 27.11.2013; (ii) Rs. 5,97,221/ on 30.06.2014; and (iii) Rs. 6,01,728/ on 30.06.2014, totaling Rs. 15,45,739/ after deducting Rs. 2,09,016/ towards security of plaintiff. It has been averred that despite passing of the aforementioned bills and several requests of plaintiff, the defendants neither released the payment nor showed any reason for withholding the said payments. As per clause9 of General Terms and Conditions of the defendants, the defendants were liable to release the payment of the passed bills within a period of three months. Plaintiff through Counsel served legal notice dated 13.05.2015 upon the defendants. However, the defendants neither replied the same in any manner whatsoever nor complied with the same. Resultant had been this suit.
CS18138/2016 Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 3 of 25
2. Defendants 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. In terms of amended General Terms and conditions of tender documents, 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. It is also the averment of defendant that the net CS18138/2016 Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 4 of 25 payable amount to plaintiff was Rs. 15,45,739.00 for which the first and final bills were passed and sent to the Head Quarter for payment on queue basis vide demand numbers (i) 222/11, dated 20.01.2014; (ii) 26/92, dated 23.09.2014; and (iii) 37/42, dated 30.09.2015 and same will be released by the Head Quarter on availability of funds under the particular head of account. Also has been averred that there was no clause for payment of any interest to the plaintiff in the Agreement entered into between the parties as well as in the Tender Documents. Also was stated that if the contractor does not prepare and submit the bills, then the Engineerin Charge of MCD 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, as per clause7 of the General Terms and Conditions of the tender documents. Plaintiff had not submitted any bill with the defendants and the EngineerinCharge of defendants had himself prepared the final bill of the plaintiff. Defendants denied that the plaintiff had been put to loss of investment or interest. Defendants denied to be liable to pay any interest or cost as alleged to the plaintiff. Rest of the averments of the plaint have been denied by the defendants. Defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
CS18138/2016 Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 5 of 25
3. During the course of proceedings, the plaintiff filed application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC on dated 23.11.2015, 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 bills totaling Rs. 15,45,739.00 stood admitted in unequivocal, unambiguous, unqualified terms by defendants 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. 15,45,739.00 from the defendants under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC vide separate judgment dated 11.02.2016.
4. So far as the facets of security amount and component of interest, its period, rate or whether it is payable by defendants 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.
CS18138/2016 Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 6 of 25
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 23.02.2016 : 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 registration certificate, dated 07.10.2014 of plaintiff exhibited as Ex PW 1/1; and (ii) legal notice with acknowledgment of defendants exhibited as Ex PW1/2. PW1 was crossexamined.
CS18138/2016 Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 7 of 25
7. Defendants examined Sh. Shafeeq Ahmed, Assistant Engineer (M) II, S.P. Zone, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Nigam Bhawan, Old Hindu College Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi110006 as DW1 vide affidavit Ex DW1/A. DW1 relied upon documents viz., (i) General Conditions of Contract of MCD Works in booklet exhibited as Ex DW1/1; (ii) copy of circular dated 10.06.2014 exhibited as Ex PW1/3 and original was seen and returned; (iii) since original of circular dated 19.05.2006, was not brought, copy of the same was marked as Mark DX2. DW1 was crossexamined.
8. I have heard arguments addressed by Sh. Satyendra Kumar Singh, Ld. counsel for plaintiff; Sh. Umesh Gupta, Ld. Counsel for defendants; 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 : CS18138/2016 Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 8 of 25 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.
In para5 of the plaint, it is the averment of the plaintiff contractor that following are the amounts of security deposited with the defendant Corporation : Srl. Work Order No. Amount of Security No. deposit in Rs.
1. 132 43,615/
2. 188 82,422/
3. 189 82,979/ Total : 2,09,016/ In corresponding reply to para5 of the plaint in written statement, the defendants did not deny the fact of deposit of aforesaid security deposits. The fact of deposit of security sums aforesaid is deemed to be admitted by defendants.
CS18138/2016 Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 9 of 25
10. In written statement, defendants averred that the security amount can only be paid after payment of final bills, that too when the plaintiff applies for refund of 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. In written statement further was averred that the demand of final bills raised was to be paid as per seniority on queue basis subject to availability of fund in the particular head of account.
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 para4 of the plaint, it has been averred by plaintiff that the works of work orders were completed before stipulated time. There is no denial of such fact in corresponding reply on merits of para4 of written statement. It is deemed to be admitted that plaintiff had CS18138/2016 Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 10 of 25 completed the works of work orders in question before stipulated time.
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 : "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 kerb, 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 twelve months (six months in the case of work costing Rs. 5.00 lacs and below except road work) after a certificate final or otherwise of its completion shall have been given by the EngineerinCharge as aforesaid arising out of defect CS18138/2016 Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 11 of 25 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 or the proceeds of sale thereof or of a sufficient portion thereof. The security deposit of the contractor shall not be refunded before the expiry of twelve months (six months in the case of work costing Rs. 5.00 lacs except dense carpet works) 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. In case of dense carpet works the Security Deposit of the contractor shall not be refunded before the expiry of 5 & 7 years of maintenance from last day of the month in which a particular road is completed in case of binder of penetration 60/70 grades & CRMB 60 binder respectively.
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 intimate on 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 CS18138/2016 Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 12 of 25 contractor in respect of the work. If 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."
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 dated 13.05.2015 in respect of Work Orders in question was sent by plaintiff through Counsel for demand of payments for works done as well as security deposit amounts aforesaid, which was delivered by hand in the offices of defendants on 20.05.2015. With regards to averments of services of notices, aforesaid on defendants, as detailed in para14 of the plaint, in corresponding para of the written statement of defendants, the defendants never denied of services of such notices. It is proved on record that aforesaid notice was served on 20.05.2015, whereby, period much more than one year had passed after completion of the works in question. Defendants have not laid any material on record nor proved the same containing any fact of complaint pending against the plaintiff contractor CS18138/2016 Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 13 of 25 in respect of the works in question before the Labour Officer, empowering defendant Corporation to withhold the security deposits of plaintiff contractor. It is own admission of the defendants that they had sent the bills in demand after passing the same. The assertion of defendants of passing of bills in demand and sending those bills in demand clearly laid down the facts that with respect to the cleared items in the bills in demand there was no dispute nor they contained any items in dispute, as approved by the officers of defendant Corporation. Notices Ex PW1/2 served on defendants on 20.05.2015 contained demands inter alia of refund of aforesaid security sums aforesaid within 60 days from receipt of the notice on or before 19.07.2015. Neither defendants responded to the notice Ex PW1/2 nor refunded the security sums so withheld.
15. Security deposit/earnest money could have been retained by defendants 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 CS18138/2016 Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 14 of 25 been even retained after expiry of defect liability period despite service of notices Ex PW1/2 on 20.05.2015.
16. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled for refund of the earnest money/security deposit sums of Rs. 2,09,016.00 from the defendants. Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants accordingly.
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 of plaintiff, works of Work Orders in question were completed within stipulated time and said fact has not been denied by defendants in written statement. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for defendants 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 Engineerin Chief 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 CS18138/2016 Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 15 of 25 payment including that of interest.
18. It is admitted fact of plaintiff PW1 that he did not raise any bill on completion of works in question. Be that as it may, it is own candid admission of defendants in para6 of written statement, of fact of preparation of final bills of amount Rs. 15,45,739.00 for the works of Work Orders in question. In written statement also was the averment of the defendants that defendant no2 had sent the bills in demand vide demand numbers (i) 222/11, dated 20.01.2014; (ii) 26/92, dated 23.09.2014; and (iii) 37/42, dated 30.09.2015, after passing the same.
19. It is the argument of Ld. Counsel for defendants 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 defendants, delay in making the CS18138/2016 Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 16 of 25 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.
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 work executed on the basis of such recorded measurement on the format of the department in triplicate on or before the date of every month of the 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 note 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.
CS18138/2016 Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 17 of 25 EngineerinCharge shall arrange to have the bill verified by taking or causing to be taken, where necessary, the requisite measurement of the work. In the event of the failure of the contractor to submit the bills. EngineerinCharge 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 admissible shall be made by the Engineer inCharge certifying the sum to which the contractor is considered entitled by the way of interim payment at such rates as decided by the EngineerinCharge. The amount admissible shall be paid by 30th 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. The payment of passed bills will be subject to availability of funds in particular head of account from time to time in MCD. Payment of bills shall be made strictly on Queue basis i.e. first the past liabilities will be cleared and after that the release of payment for passed bills be in order of the demand received at HQ under particular head of accounts. No interest shall be payable to the contractor in case of delay in payment on account of nonavailability of fund in the particular head of account of MCD.
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 reerected. Any certificate given by the Engineerin Charge relating to the work done or materials CS18138/2016 Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 18 of 25 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 it any respect conclude, determine or effect 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 to be made as herein provides, without prejudice to the right of the departments to take action under the terms 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 CS18138/2016 Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 19 of 25 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.
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."
CS18138/2016 Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 20 of 25 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 shorn of merits to grant leave to defend in summary suit.
23. Defendants have not proved of there being in existence any queue for payment of bills for clearing the past liabilities first and then to release the payment of bills in question. No document has been proved by defendants specifying the order of demands received at Head Quarter under particular heads of account, including the demand for bills 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 defendants 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 CS18138/2016 Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 21 of 25 above. After the defendant Corporation admitted its obligation to make the payment by passing of the bills 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 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 13.05.2015 Ex PW1/2 was served upon defendants on 20.05.2015, which date was much later to passing of any reasonable time from completion of works in question. The works in question were to be performed in three months of the award of work and these work orders were performed within the stipulated time of completion and said fact was not denied by defendants in written statement. There was no legitimate premise with defendants to withhold the legitimate sums of plaintiff contractor admitted to be payable by defendants Corporation for the works done or the security/earnest money.
CS18138/2016 Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 22 of 25
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 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 CS18138/2016 Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 23 of 25 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. 341/2016 of Hon'ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli was received. Perusal of said order reveals 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 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 in RFA No. 341/2016 is on appeal filed by North DMC before High Court of Delhi, impugning decree and judgment of this Court of date 11.02.2016 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 20.07.2015 ( after expiry of notice period from 20.05.2015, the date of service of notice) on sum of Rs. 2,09,016.00 CS18138/2016 Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 24 of 25 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., 20.07.2015 on sum of Rs. 2,09,016.00 till realization.
RELIEF
27. In view of my findings with respect to issues no. 1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in terms that plaintiff is held entitled for recovery of security sum of Rs. 2,09,016.00 as well as interest thereon @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f., 20.07.2015 till realization with costs from defendants. Decree sheet be prepared and file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court (GURVINDER PAL SINGH) th on 10 Day of January, 2017. Addl. Distt. Judge01 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
(AD) CS18138/2016 Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 25 of 25