Delhi District Court
Naipal Singh vs Gsba Builders Pvt Ltd on 17 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SHRI LAL SINGH,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-01),
SOUTH-EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 265/2024
In the matter of:
Sh. Naipal Singh
Proprietor of: M/s. New Power Solutions,
WZ-230, Street No.6, Sadh Nagar,
Palam Colony, New Delhi-110045.
Mobile No. 9811120486
Email I.D.- [email protected] ............Plaintiff
Versus
GSBA Builders Pvt. Ltd.
(Formerly known as Gurbakhsh
Singh B.A. Builders Pvt. Ltd.)
Through its M.D./Director/Principal Officer
Regd. Office: B-8, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110048.
E-mail ID: [email protected]
Also at:
Jindal Global City, Sector-33,
Sonepat, Haryana. .........Defendant
Date of institution : 08.04.2024
Date of reserving judgment : 02.12.2024
Date of judgment : 17.12.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The instant suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.20,06,600/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Six Thousand Six Hundred Only) alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum.
2. It is stated that the plaintiff is dealing in Electrical and CS (Comm) No. 265/2024 Page 1 of 19 Sh. Naipal Singh Vs. GSBA Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Mechanical Engineering, Designing & Contracting etc., in the name and style of "M/s New Power Solutions". The defendant is a Private Ltd. Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is averred that the defendant approached the plaintiff for placing the Work order in Delhi for electrical works for the Project: "Sonepat Global City"
Township Project at Sector-33, 34 & 35 Sonepat, Haryana, vide Purchase/Work order Ref: No. JRPL/15J08/2016/075 dated 18.03.2016 and accordingly plaintiff supplied the said goods/Services to the defendant at the given address/project. It is further averred that the plaintiff accordingly raised the number of bills/ invoices against the said completed works/supplied materials totaling of Rs.71,79,380.91/-. The bills which have been issued to the defendant company are as under:
S. No. Invoice / Bill No. Dated Amount
1 NPS/GSBA/GC/15-16/001 13.03.2016 Rs.18,863.72/-
2 NPS/GSBA/GC/15-16/002 01.04.2016 Rs.73,186.52/-
3 NPS/GSBA/GC/15-16/003 05.05.2016 Rs.1,34,542.69/-
4 NPS/GSBA/GC/16-17/004 03.06.2016 Rs.1,77,569.08/
5 NPS/GSBA/GC/16-17/005 01.07.2016 Rs.1,18,890.00/-
6 NPS/GSBA/GC/16-17/006 01.08.2016 Rs.2,86,627.40/-
7 NPS/GSBA/GC/16-17/007 01.09.2016 Rs.2,04,082.86/-
8 NPS/GSBA/GC/16-17/008 01.10.2016 Rs.4,10,195.62/-
9 NPS/GSBA/GC/16-17/009 01.11.2016 Rs.4,14,844.78/-
10 NPS/GSBA/GC/16-17/010 01.12.2016 Rs.3,61,907.32/-
11 NPS/GSBA/GC/16-17/011 04.01.2017 Rs.5,63,874.42/-
12 NPS/GSBA/GC/16-17/012 04.02.2017 Rs.2,96,449.14/-
13 NPS/GSBA/GC/16-17/013 02.03.2017 Rs.3,78,573.70/-
14 NPS/GSBA/GC/16-17/014 31.03.2017 Rs.3,86,973.14/-
15 NPS/GSBA/GC/16-17/015 07.05.2017 Rs.2,56,049.36/-
16 NPS/GSBA/GC/16-17/016 01.06.2017 Rs.1,09,399.42/-
17 NPS/GSBA/GC/16-17/017 30.06.2017 Rs.2,33,620.82/-
CS (Comm) No. 265/2024 Page 2 of 19
Sh. Naipal Singh Vs. GSBA Builders Pvt. Ltd.
18 NPS/GSBA/GC/16-17/018 15.12.2019 Rs.14,97,113.62/-
19 NPS/GSBA/GC/18-19/EX-01 15.12.2019 Rs.12,54,617.30/-
Total Rs. 71,79,380.91/
3. It is also averred that as per books of account maintained by the plaintiff in the ordinary course of business, amount of Rs.17,00,241.91/- is balance outstanding dues against the defendant company as on 21.04.2022 after deducting all the payments / debit note / adjustment i.e. Rs.54,74,139/- made by the defendant, on account basis from time to time. The plaintiff has made several calls and reminders to the defendant for making the payments of said outstanding balance dues amounting to Rs.17,00,241.91/- to the plaintiff but defendant did not make the said outstanding payment. Thereafter, plaintiff finally issued a legal notice dated 05.06.2023, thereby calling upon the defendant to make the said outstanding balance dues of plaintiff with interest @ 18% per annum. However, despite service of notice, defendant did not reply to the said notice, but the defendant has made part-payment of Rs.3,00,000/- on 12.12.2023. The plaintiff is claiming the recovery of amount as under:
S. NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT
(a) Principal amount as on 21.04.2022 Rs.17,00,241.91/-
(b) Interest @ 18% P.A. on
Rs.17,00,241.91/- from the date of its Rs.5,01,329/-
outstanding i.e. 21.04.2022 till
11.12.2023 (21.04.2022-11.12.2023)
(c) Less- Part amount made by the (Rs.3,00,000/-)
defendant on 12.12.2023
(d) Interest @ 18% per annum from
12.12.2023 to 03.04.2024 on bal. Rs.1,05,029.23/-
outstanding of Rs.19,01,570.91/-
Total Outstanding Rs.20,06,600/-
(Rupees Twenty Lacs
Six Thousand Six
Hundred only)
CS (Comm) No. 265/2024 Page 3 of 19
Sh. Naipal Singh Vs. GSBA Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Thus, the plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.20,06,600/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest.
4. Defendant has been duly served. Defendant has filed the written statement stating therein that on 18.03.2016, the defendant has awarded work order to the plaintiff for Electrical Work at their site namely "Sonepat Global City" Township project at Sector 33, 34 and 35, Sonepat, Haryana. It is further stated that as per clause 4.1 of said work order, it is agreed that payment shall be made to M/s New Power Solutions by the defendant within 40-45 days on receipt of bill on back to back basis. Defendant contented that plaintiff has only raised/provided bills no.RA001 to RA018 to the defendant. The Bill no. RA Ex-01 dated 15.12.2019 was never received by the defendant. Defendant further contended that even otherwise there was no good reason for raising this bill No.RA Ex-01 by the plaintiff as the work awarded to plaintiff was confined to the work order only and no extra work was done by the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any amount under the alleged bill No. RA Ex-01 for the alleged extra work. As per the defendant, in fact even the last bill No. RA-018 was never got approved by the plaintiff from the Site In-charge as required under clause 4.1 of the said work order, therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to release of its complete amount. It is further contended by the defendant that as per agreed terms the plaintiff is only entitled to receive the payment 40-45 days after the same is received by the defendant from M/s Jindal Realty (P) Ltd., Shivaji Marg, Delhi, who had awarded the contract to the defendant for the said site i.e. Structural work for built up units (G+2Floors & Villa) at "Sonepat Global City" Townshíp Project and the plaintiff was given sub-contract by the defendant only for Electrical work CS (Comm) No. 265/2024 Page 4 of 19 Sh. Naipal Singh Vs. GSBA Builders Pvt. Ltd.
for the said project. It is further contended by the defendant that since M/s Jindal Realty (P) Ltd. has not made complete payment to the defendant for the said electrical work, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to get the same. Even otherwise the ledger maintained by the plaintiff is not correct as firstly the bill No. RA-018 was not got approved/verified and secondly the plaintiff cannot raise alleged bill No. RA-EX-001 for alleged extra work as the same was never done at the site. The plaintiff is only entitled to get complete amount of bills No. RA-001 to 017 i.e. Rs 44,27,650.60/-, as the same has been received by the defendant from M/s Jindal Realty (P) Ltd. Further, since bill No. RA-018 was not got approved, therefore full payment has not been received by the defendant from M/s Jindal Realty (P) Ltd. and the defendant has already paid to the plaintiff the amount received i.e. around Rs.13.5 lakh against the said bill No. RA018. It is also contended by the defendant that the plaintiff is not entitled to any further payment as on date in view of clause 4.1 of the work order. The defendant has already paid to the plaintiff till date a total sum of Rs.57,74,139/- against the bills raised totaling to Rs.59,24,763.6l/-. As on date the plaintiff is only entitled to said amount of Rs.57,74,139 in view of above clause no.4.1 and only Rs.1,50,624.61/- is outstanding subject to release of said amount by M/s Jindal Realty (P) Ltd. The defendant had released payment of Rs.3,00,000/- to the plaintiff upon receiving the same from M/s Jindal Reality (P) Ltd. in compliance of the terms laid down in clause 4 of the work agreement. It is further contended by the defendant that the defendant is not liable to pay Rs.20,06,600/- to the plaintiff. As such, defendant prayed that the present suit may be dismissed with costs.
5. Plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement of defendant wherein plaintiff denied the contentions of the written CS (Comm) No. 265/2024 Page 5 of 19 Sh. Naipal Singh Vs. GSBA Builders Pvt. Ltd.
statement of the defendant and reiterated and reaffirmed the averments as made in the plaint.
6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 23.09.2024, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.20,06,600/- from the defendant? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest and if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
3. Relief, if any.
7. Thereafter, the plaintiff led the evidence and examined Sh.
Naipal Singh as PW1 and Sh. Vishal as PW-2. PW-1 Sh. Naipal Singh has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex.PW1/A and in his evidence, PW-1 also relied upon the following documents:
S. No. Documents Exhibit
Purchase/work order bearing reference no. Ex.PW1/1
1.
JRPL/15J08/2016/075 dated 18.03.2016.
Copies of 19 bills totaling of Rs.71,79,380.91/- Ex.PW1/2 against which goods/services were supplied to the (colly)
2. defendant.
Computer generated ledger account of plaintiff in Ex.PW1/3 respect of the defendant company for the period (colly)
3. 01.04.2015 to 17.01.2024 alongwith certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
E-mail correspondence with the defendant demanding the outstanding dues vide e-mails w.e.f Ex. PW1/4
4. dated 05.09.2020 to 26.07.2021 alongwith certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act.
Office copy of legal notice dated 05.06.2023 sent to Ex. PW1/5
5. defendant company.
Two original postal receipts. Ex. PW1/6
6.
(colly)
CS (Comm) No. 265/2024 Page 6 of 19
Sh. Naipal Singh Vs. GSBA Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Copy of delivery tracking report with certificate u/s Ex. PW1/7
7.
65 B of Indian Evidence Act. (colly)
Original returned envelope. Ex. PW1/8
8.
Copies of e-mail correspondences dated 04.01.2019, 05.01.2019, 19.12.2016 and 21.12.2016 with the Ex. PW1/9
9. defendant, alongwith certificate u/s 65B of Indian (colly) Evidence Act.
Original receiving of bill bearing no. Ex.PW1/10
10. NPS/GSBA/GC/16-17/018 dated 15.12.2019.
Certificate/affidavit under Order XI Rule 6 of Ex. PW1/11
8. PW1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant. In his cross examination, PW-1 admitted that the project where he had worked for the defendant was awarded to the defendant by M/s Jindal Realty Pvt. Ltd. for their Sonipat, Global City Township project. PW-1 also deposed that the defendant never used to make payment on bill to bill basis but was making payment on account basis. PW-1 also deposed that the debit note mentioned in ledger account Ex.PW1/3 relates to the goods which were got damaged at the site and the material issued by the defendant to them at site. PW-1 further deposed that the financial year reflected as 16-17 in bill Ex.PW1/10 was actually for the financial year 2019-2020. However, due to typographical error, in the bill Ex.PW1/10, the financial year has been wrongly reflected as 16-17. PW-1 denied to the suggestion that since bill Ex.PW1/10 is a forged and fabricated bill therefore, it bears a wrong financial year. PW-1 further deposed that the defendant used to assure him that they had forwarded the scope of extra work to M/s Jindal Realty Pvt. Ltd. and on receiving their confirmation they will issue amended work order for extra work carried at site. PW-1 CS (Comm) No. 265/2024 Page 7 of 19 Sh. Naipal Singh Vs. GSBA Builders Pvt. Ltd.
also deposed that the defendant has not issued any amended work order till date for the said work carried out by the plaintiff at the site of defendant. He denied that no extra work was carried out by the plaintiff at the site of defendant or that the plaintiff has wrongly raised the bill no. NPS/GSBA/GC/18-19/Ex-01 dated 15.12.2019. PW-1 admitted that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant that the payment shall be made by the defendant to the plaintiff, as and when M/s Jindal Realty Pvt. Ltd. releases the amount to the defendant. He also deposed that the defendant had never made back to back payment bill wise, rather, the defendant used to make payment on account basis. PW-1 admitted that on the site of defendant, many other works like plumbing, painting, construction etc. were also going on at the relevant point of time. PW-1 denied to the suggestion that bill Ex.PW1/10 & bill no. NPS/GSBA/GC/18-19/Ex-01 dated 15.12.2019 were never raised by the plaintiff. He also denied that the defendant had already made the payment of bill mentioned at S. No.1 to 17 which are part of Ex.PW1/2 (colly).
9. PW-2 Sh. Vishal has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex.PW2/A and he also relied upon the documents already exhibited by PW-1 Naipal Singh in his evidence vide Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/10. PW-2 further relied upon authority letter dated 05.10.2024 issued in his favour as well as ID Card vide Ex.PW2/1 (colly).
In his cross examination, PW2 admitted that none of the documents placed on record bears his signatures, except Ex.PW1/1 & Ex.PW1/10. PW-2 denied that ID card which is part of Ex.PW2/1 (colly), is fake and fabricated document and due to said reason, there is no mentioning of name, signature, designation and validity period etc. of the issuing authority. PW-2 also deposed that the financial year reflected as 16-17 in bill Ex.PW1/10 was actually for the financial year 2019-2020.
CS (Comm) No. 265/2024 Page 8 of 19Sh. Naipal Singh Vs. GSBA Builders Pvt. Ltd.
However, due to typographical error, in the bill Ex.PW1/10, the financial year has been wrongly reflected as 16-17. PW-2 denied that his signatures appearing at page no.22 of Ex.PW1/1 at point X was done subsequently and due to said reason, his signatures are not there on page no.20 & 21 of Ex.PW1/1. He also denied that he is not working as Billing and Accounts Manager with the plaintiff's firm. PW-2 also denied that being son of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had issued authority letter Ex.PW2/1 in his favour or that the contents of the said authority letter are false.
10. Defendant has examined Sh. Kamlesh Singh Yadav as DW-1, who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex.DW1/1. In his evidence, DW-1 also relied upon letter of intent dated 16.10.2015 vide Ex.DW1/A. In his cross examination, DW-1 deposed that his job is doing the office work in the office throughout the day. DW-1 deposed that he rarely visit the site of the defendant. He stated that M/s. Jindal Realty Pvt. Ltd., has awarded the contract to the defendant company in the year 2015. DW-1 also deposed that as far as he remember, the said project was completed in the year 2019. DW-1 admitted that after completion of the project, the site was handed over to M/s. Jindal Realty Pvt. Ltd, in the year 2019 itself. DW-1 denied that they have received the entire payment from M/s. Jindal Realty Pvt. Ltd. He also deposed that he cannot tell what is the exact amount due. DW-1 further deposed that M/s. Jindal Realty Pvt. Ltd., had deducted debit note of around Rs.39.05 lakhs while making payment to the defendant against the final bill raised by the defendant. He also deposed that he does not know the exact amount of final bill raised by the defendant company. DW-1 admitted that M/s. Jindal Realty Pvt. Ltd., had raised debit note towards the damages. DW-1 further deposed CS (Comm) No. 265/2024 Page 9 of 19 Sh. Naipal Singh Vs. GSBA Builders Pvt. Ltd.
that the defendant has received the bill no. RA-01 to RA-17. However, the defendant has not received the bill no. RA-18 and RA Ex.01 in the office of defendant. DW-1 also deposed that the plaintiff has not done any work and hence there is no question for raising the bill no. RA Ex.01. DW-1 also deposed that he does not know if the defendant had given any receiving or not to the plaintiff in respect of bills nos. RA-01 to RA-17. DW-1 admitted that Sh. Kumud Ranjan was posted as Site Engineer at the above site during the period from 2016 to 2019 by the defendant company. Sh Arvind Gupta was GM in the defendant company and he was also looking after the said site during the period 2016 to 2019. DW-1 also stated that Sh. Gaurav Dargan was working with the defendant company between 2016 to 2021. DW-1 admitted that the email ID [email protected] is of the defendant company and email ID [email protected] is the email ID of the owner of the defendant company. DW-1 deposed that he is not aware of the email ID of the plaintiff. He denied that intentionally he is deposing falsely that he is not aware about the email ID of the plaintiff. DW-1 further deposed that he does not know whether the ledger account Ex.PW1/3 has been received by the defendant or not. He also deposed that he is not aware that on the basis of said ledger account, the defendant has been making on account payment to the plaintiff. DW-1 denied that he is intentionally giving evasive reply regarding signature at Point X on Ex.PW1/10 or that signature at Point X on Ex.PW1/10 was signed by the official of the defendant company. DW-1 also shown his ignorance if the site engineer of the defendant Sh. Kumud Ranjan had approved the bill No.RA-018 and No.RA-Ex.01. DW-1 further shown his ignorance if Sh. Arvind Gupta, GM of the defendant had instructed through various emails dated 04.01.2019, 05.01.2019, 19.12.2019 and 21.12.2019 for carrying out CS (Comm) No. 265/2024 Page 10 of 19 Sh. Naipal Singh Vs. GSBA Builders Pvt. Ltd.
extra work against the bill No.RA-Ex.01. DW-1 also denied that prior to filing of the present case, the defendant never raised any dispute regrading raising of bill no. RA Ex.01 and approval of RA-18.
11. Final arguments heard.
12. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that defendant approached the plaintiff for placing the work order for electrical works for the project "Sonepat Global City" Township Project, Sonepat, Haryana, vide purchase/work orders dated 18.03.2016 and accordingly, plaintiff supplied the said goods/services to the defendant. Plaintiff raised invoices/bills against the completed works/supplied materials at the project for the total amount of Rs.71,79,380.91/- to the defendant company. He submitted that as per the books of account maintained by the plaintiff, there is outstanding balance of Rs.17,00,241.91/- due against the defendant company as on 21.04.2022 after deducting all the payments/debit note/adjustment i.e. Rs.54,74,139/- made by the defendant on account basis from time to time. He also submitted that the plaintiff issued legal notice dated 05.06.2023 to the defendant, thereby calling upon the defendant to make the outstanding payment and after receiving the said notice, the defendant did not reply the same, however, the defendant has made part-payment of Rs.3,00,000/- on 12.12.2023. He also submitted that the purchase/work order was placed by the defendant from Kailash Colony Office of the defendant and hence, there is no dispute regarding jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present suit. He further submitted that the defendant has made last payment on 12.12.2023 as reflected in ledger account and thus, the suit has also been filed by the plaintiff within the limitation period. However, the dispute regarding bill No.RA-018 dated 15.12.2019 was raised by the defendant for the first time in 2024 in the written statement of the defendant.
CS (Comm) No. 265/2024 Page 11 of 19Sh. Naipal Singh Vs. GSBA Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Further, the defendant also disputed the bill No.EX-01 dated 15.12.2019 regarding extra work done by the plaintiff, however, the said objection was also taken by the defendant at the time of filing of the WS. He submitted that the plaintiff is entitled to the amount claimed in the present suit.
13. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the defendant submitted that the defendant was awarded project by M/s Jindal Realty (P) Ltd. for "Sonepat Global City" Township Project. Further, for electricity work, defendant had sublet the contract vide work order dated 18.03.2016 to the plaintiff. He also submitted that as per clause 4.1 (a), it has been agreed between the parties that the payment shall be made on back to back basis, which means upon receipt of payment from M/s Jindal Realty (P) Ltd., the payment to the plaintiff shall be made. He argued that defendant had made payment of Rs.57,74,139/- against the bills totaling to Rs.59,24,763.61/- and only a sum of Rs.1,50,624.61/- was due, which was subject to release of amount by M/s Jindal Realty (P) Ltd. He further argued that no extra work was done at the site and therefore, there was no good reason for raising bill No.RA-EX-01. He further submitted that even the bill No.RA-018 was not approved by the site incharge and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to its complete amount. He submitted that plaintiff has failed to prove his case and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed with cost.
14. I have considered the above submissions of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and Ld. Counsel for the defendant and also perused the file and gone through the evidence on record.
15. My issue wise findings are as under:
ISSUE No. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.20,06,600/- from the defendant? OPP.CS (Comm) No. 265/2024 Page 12 of 19
Sh. Naipal Singh Vs. GSBA Builders Pvt. Ltd.
The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. So as to prove his case, the plaintiff Naipal Singh has examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex.PW1/A and also relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/11. It is the case of the plaintiff that vide purchase/work order dated 18.03.2016, defendant placed the order for electrical works for the project "Sonepat Global City"
Township Project to the plaintiff. As per the plaintiff, accordingly the plaintiff carried the said work/services at the said project of the defendant as per the work order and the plaintiff raised 19 (nineteen) bills/invoices for a total amount of Rs.71,79,380.91/- for the completed works/supplied material. It is the contention of the plaintiff that as per books of account maintained by the plaintiff, there was outstanding balance of Rs.17,00,241.91/- after deducting all the payments/debit note/adjustment to the tune of Rs.54,74,139/- made by the defendant on account basis from time to time. After issuance of legal notice dated 05.06.2023, defendant made part-payment of Rs.3,00,000/- on 12.12.2023. Thus, after deducting the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from outstanding principal amount and adding interest of Rs.5,01,329/- for the period from 21.04.2022 to 11.12.2023 and interest of Rs.1,05,029.23/- for the period from 12.12.2023 to 03.04.2024, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for a sum of Rs.20,06,600/-. Defendant in its written statement contended that the defendant has already paid the amount to the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.57,74,139/- against the bills raised totaling to Rs.59,24,763.61/- and as on date the plaintiff is only entitled to the remaining outstanding amount of Rs.1,50,624.61/- subject to release of said amount by M/s. Jindal Realty Pvt. Ltd. Defendant has also contended that bill No.RA- Ex.01 dated 15.12.2019 was never received by the defendant and moreover, there was no good reason for raising the said bill No.RA-Ex.01 CS (Comm) No. 265/2024 Page 13 of 19 Sh. Naipal Singh Vs. GSBA Builders Pvt. Ltd.
by the plaintiff as no extra work was done by the plaintiff and hence, plaintiff is not entitled for any amount under the said alleged bill No.RA- Ex.01. Defendant also contended that even the last bill No.RA-018 was never got approved by the plaintiff from the site-incharge as required under clause 4.1 of the said order and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to release of its complete amount. Thus, the defendant has disputed the bills No.RA-Ex.01 and No.RA-018 both dated 15.12.2019. It is contention of the defendant that no extra work was carried out by the plaintiff and moreover, no work order was placed for extra work. However, the plaintiff contended that he has carried out extra work and regarding the same the bill No.NPS/GSBA/GC/18-19/Ex.01 dated 15.12.2019 was raised for the said extra work. In his cross-examination, PW-1 deposed that defendant used to assure him that they had forwarded the scope of extra work to M/s. Jindal Realty Pvt. Ltd. and on receiving their confirmation, they will issue amended work order for extra work carried out at the site. PW-1 also deposed that defendant has not issued any amended work order for the said work carried out by the plaintiff at the site of the defendant. The plaintiff has also relied upon the email communications between the parties vide Ex.PW1/4 (colly.) regarding the said extra work as well as outstanding payment. Vide email dated 05.09.2020 as sent by the plaintiff to the defendant, plaintiff sought outstanding payment, which was due for last two years. In response to the said email of the plaintiff, defendant sent email dated 07.09.2020 to the plaintiff, which is reproduced as under:-
Dear Mr. Singh Reference to your mail on the above subject, we would like to remind you of the terms which were mutually agreed by us. The payments of your bills were to be paid on receipt of our payments from the principal employer (back to back payments). You are well aware that the Client has not paid us against the works done by you (i.e. electrical works at JRPL Sonepat) and even you are following up the said payments CS (Comm) No. 265/2024 Page 14 of 19 Sh. Naipal Singh Vs. GSBA Builders Pvt. Ltd.
yourself.
However, we are in communication with the Client and the matter of release of our payments shall be resolved soon. It is therefore requested to kindly bear with us till the time payments are received.
Best regards Gaurav Dargan +91-9717590404 GSBA Builders Pvt. Ltd.
B-8, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110048 [email protected] Thereafter, also, plaintiff sent several emails to the defendant for payment of outstanding amount vide emails dated 05.01.2021, 18.06.2021, 30.06.2021 and 26.07.2021. Thus, from the above emails, it is amply clear that the defendant has not raised any objection regarding the bills/invoices raised by the plaintiff. Further, plaintiff also relied upon email communication between the parties vide Ex.PW1/9 (colly.). Vide email dated 05.01.2019, which is part of Ex.PW1/9 (colly.), plaintiff has sent the email to the defendant stating therein as under:-
"Dear Sir, I would like to bring your kind notice that all conduit was checked by engineer in charged at site at the time of laid in slab and wall during slab conduiting and wall conduiting.
We are also doing some modification and re conduiting work is required as per revise plan/ modification as per required, and conduit damaged by any other agency.
Lot of Electrical Extra Items were executed to complete the building work two and half years ago, And item rate was submitted around Rs.24.00 Lac, you have certified approximate Rs.17.00 lac Amount out of submitted value, but we have not received any single penny till today. I am bearing huge losses at this project after that doing the work as on today in old rate also. You are already aware of that material and wages rate had been increased after every six months. Requested you please release the payment of extra items work done immediately and increase our existing rate of conduiting work.
I am not in position to continue the work without payment of executed work and increase the rate of farther work will be executed.
With best Regards With Regards Naipal Singh New Power Solutions WZ-230 Street no:-06, Sadh Nagar Palam Colony New Delhi - 110045 Office:- 011-65292948 Mobile :- 9811120486 CS (Comm) No. 265/2024 Page 15 of 19 Sh. Naipal Singh Vs. GSBA Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Thus, regarding extra work done by the plaintiff at the site of the defendant, plaintiff has also sent above email dated 05.01.2019 and requested the defendant to release the payment of extra work. The issue of the extra work was raised by the plaintiff in January, 2019 itself. The plaintiff has raised the invoice for the extra work on 15.12.2019. As such, there is no force in the contention of the defendant that no extra work has been carried out by the plaintiff at the site of the defendant.
16. In the instant matter except letter of intent dated 16.10.2015 Ex.DW1/A between the IGL and defendant, the defendant has not relied any other document so as to prove its contentions. Though the defendant has also disputed the bill bearing RA-018 dated 15.12.2019, however, plaintiff has also filed the copy of bill No. NPS(GSBA/GC/16-17/018) (bill No.RA-018) dated 15.12.2019 Ex.PW1/10, whereby showing the original receipt on the said bill by the defendant. In his cross- examination, DW-1 initially shown his ignorance as to whose signature are there on point X of Ex.PW1/10. However, DW-1 again said that the signature at point X on document Ex.PW1/10 does not pertain to any official/officer of the defendant company. Further, in the cross- examination of DW-1, a specific question was put to him "Is it correct that Sh. Kumud Ranjan, Site Engineer of the defendant had approved the bill No.RA-018 and RA-EX.01" and to this question, DW-1 shown his ignorance stating that "I do not know as it is not in my knowledge". Thus, it appears that DW-1 has given an evasive answer in respect of bill No.RA-018 and bill No.RA-EX-01, both dated 15.12.2019. Moreover, in the written statement, defendant stated that defendant has already paid the amount of Rs.13.5 lakh against the bill No.RA-018. Thus, in respect of bill No.RA-018 defendant has taken a contradictory stand as on one hand defendant admitted the payment of Rs.13.5 lakh qua said bill and on the CS (Comm) No. 265/2024 Page 16 of 19 Sh. Naipal Singh Vs. GSBA Builders Pvt. Ltd.
other hand defendant also disputed the said bill No.RA-018. Further, defendant has not brought any document or material on record so as to show that no extra work was carried out by the plaintiff at the site of the defendant. Moreover, defendant has even not examined any witness from Jindal Realty (P.) Ltd., which has originally given the contract to the defendant, so as to establish the contention of the defendant that no extra work was carried out by the plaintiff. Further, DW-1 in his cross- examination categorically admitted that after completion of the porject, the site was handed over to M/s. Jindal Realty Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2019 itself. This shows that the plaintiff has completed the entire work assigned to to the plaintiff by the defendant including extra work in the year 2019 itself. Thus, the defendant has failed to establish its contention that no extra work was carried out by the plaintiff at the site of the defendant. Rather, as discussed above, the plaintiff has established that the extra work was carried out by the plaintiff at the site of the defendant. In the instant matter, the plaintiff has claimed the recovery of Rs.20,06,600/- i.e. principal amount as on 21.04.2022 as Rs.17,00,241.91/- and interest of Rs.5,01,329/- @ 18% per annum for the period 21.04.2022 to 11.12.2023 and interest of Rs.1,05,029.23/- for the period 12.12.2023 to 03.04.2023 on outstanding principal amount. Interest amount of Rs.5,01,329/- and Rs.1,05,029.23/- as claimed by the plaintiff upon the outstanding principal amount, shall be dealt while deciding issue No.2. Further, out of principal amount of Rs.17,00,241.91/-, the defendant has paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on 12.12.2023 and thus, the outstanding principal amount is reduced to Rs.14,00,241.91/-. As such, the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.14,00,241.91/-.
Accordingly, issue No.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff CS (Comm) No. 265/2024 Page 17 of 19 Sh. Naipal Singh Vs. GSBA Builders Pvt. Ltd.
and against the defendant.
17. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest and if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP In the instant matter, plaintiff has claimed interest of Rs.5,01,329/- @ 18% per annum upon principal amount of Rs.17,00,241.91/- for the period 21.04.2022 to 11.12.2023. Thereafter, defendant has paid Rs.3,00,000/- on 12.12.2023 to the plaintiff and as such the plaintiff has claimed interest of Rs.1,05,029.23/- @ 18% per annum on balance outstanding principal amount of Rs.14,00,241.91/- for the period 12.12.2023 till 03.04.2024. Perusal of the bills/invoices Ex.PW1/2 (colly.) shows that in the said bills/invoices, the rate of interest applicable for delayed payment is not mentioned. In these circumstances, the interest as calculated above by the plaintiff @ 18% per annum appears to be on a very higher side, particularly considering the facts that amount was to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, after releasing the same by Jindal Realty (P.) Ltd. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, interest @ 9% per annum would be appropriate on the outstanding principal amount from 21.04.2022 till filing of the case. Further, in the instant matter plaintiff is also claiming pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to award pendente lite and future interest @ 7% per annum.
Thus, the issue No.2 is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
18. Relief.
In view of the above discussion and findings, the plaintiff has proved his case against the defendant and the suit is allowed. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff CS (Comm) No. 265/2024 Page 18 of 19 Sh. Naipal Singh Vs. GSBA Builders Pvt. Ltd.
and against the defendant and plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.14,00,241.91/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Two Hundred Forty One and Ninety One Paise Only) from the defendant. The plaintiff is also entitled to interest of 9% per annum from 21.04.2022 till the filing of the suit and thereafter, the plaintiff is also entitled to interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till the realization of the above decreetal amount. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to the cost.
19. Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly.
20. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally
signed by lal
lal singh
Date:
singh 2024.12.17
16:38:53
+0530
Announced in Open (LAL SINGH)
Court on 17.12.2024 District Judge (Commercial Court-01)
South East/Saket Courts, New Delhi
CS (Comm) No. 265/2024 Page 19 of 19
Sh. Naipal Singh Vs. GSBA Builders Pvt. Ltd.