Delhi District Court
Delhi Development Authority vs M/S. Deepak Electric & Trading Co on 25 September, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV AGGARWAL ADJ03
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS / DELHI
SUIT NO. 069/2008
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/S. DEEPAK ELECTRIC & TRADING CO.
THROUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR
177374, BHAGIRATH PLACE, CHANDNI
CHOWK, DELHI - 110006. ....DEFENDANT
Date of Institution : 04.10.1996
Date on which the judgment was reserved: 28.08.2012
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 25.09.2012
J U D G M E N T
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the suit for recovery of Rs. 17,21,633.14.
2. Brief facts are, it is stated that the plaintiff is a government corporation constituted under the Delhi Development Act 1967 having its Head office at Vikas Sadan, INA Market, New Delhi and that the plaintiff corporation is engaged in the development of Delhi as per the Master Plan. It is stated that Sh. A. Biswas who has signed, verified and instituted that present suit is the Chief Engineer and is competent to sign, verify and institute the present suit and other proceedings connected therewith.
Suit No. 69/08DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
23. It is further stated that the defendant is the sole proprietor of M/s. Deepak Electric & Trading Co. and that the work of development of 128.99 hectare of land and 5.47 km, 30M wide peripheral road in west of Rohini was awarded to the defendant on 27.11.1992 at tendered cost of Rs. 92,96,366/. It is further stated that date of start and completion of work were 07.12.1992 and 06.12.1993 respectively. It is further stated that an agreement no. 24/EE/RPD3/A/9293 was entered into between the parties.
4. It is further stated that the stipulated material under agreement was issued by the plaintiff. It is stated that however the progress of the work was very slow and due to the mismanagement of defendant, he even failed to lift the material from the store. It is further stated that an indent no. 102840 dated 10.05.1993 was issued to the defendant for procurement of C.I. Pipes from Store Division No. II. That the same indent was revalidated on 28.05.1993, 26.06.1993 and 25.08.1993 at the request of defendant, as he failed to procure the C. I. Pipes. That the said indent was verified by the Store Division on 27.08.1993 and was validated upto 06.091993. It is stated that inspite of it, the defendant had failed to procure the C. I. Pipes from Store Division No. II.
5. It is further stated that inspite of best efforts and full cooperation on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendant had failed to fulfill his Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
3obligation of expediting the progress of work and completing it within the stipulated period. That due to defendant's poor performance and mismanagement only 40% of work was got completed against the required achievement of 90%. That as a result of it, notice for show cause under clause 2 of the agreement was issued to the defendant by the competent authority i.e. Superintending Engineer vide its letter no. SE(320)/EE(P)/ CC_14/93_94/DDA/882 dated 15.07.1993. That no reply to the same was received from the defendant. Therefore, a compensation under Clause 2 of the agreement amounting to Rs. 7,71,734/ was levied upon the defendant by the concerned Superintending Engineer.
6. It is further stated that due to poor performance of defendant a show cause notice under clause 3 was served on defendant vide no. F.1(507)/EE/RPD_3/A/93_94/308385 dated 25.06.1993. That a reply to said notice was submitted by the defendant vide its letter no. 11/982 dated 11.08.1993. That the reply of defendant was found unsatisfactory, and the work was rescinded by the competent authority i.e. Executive Engineer vide its letter no. F.1 (807)/EE/RPD_3/A/93_94/608183 dated 28.10.1993.
7. It is further stated that after rescission, the balance work was awarded to M/s. Parmar Construction Co. at the risk and cost of defendant. That the work was awarded at a tendered cost of Rs. 61,66,808/ vide award letter no. F.1(507)/EE/RPD_3/94_95/Vol.
Suit No. 69/08DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
4II/Pt./DDA/31993221 date 08.06.1994. That the value of risk and cost worked out to the tune of Rs. 5,90,218/. That the details of total recoveries to be made from the defendant worked out to be as under :
i). Levy of compensation under clause2 = Rs. 7,71,734.00
ii). Forfeiture of Security Deposit (stipulated as per agreement) = Rs. 2,34,347.00
iii).Value of risk and cost = Rs. 5,90,218.00 Rs.15,96,299.00 Less Value of Security Deposit lying with the plaintiff (forfeited in March 1994) in the shape of Earnest Money = Rs. 1,54,396.00 Total recoverable amount = Rs. 14,41,903.00
8. It is further stated that the above recoveries were circulated under Clause - 29 or the agreement amongst all the division of DDA as per details given here under : S. No. Letter No. : Amount
i) F.1(507)/EE/RPD_3/A/9495/4405 dated 04.08.94 Rs. 5,90,218.00
ii) F.1(507)/EE/RPD_3/A/9495/961 dated 15.02.94 Rs. 7,71,734.00
iii) F.1(507)/EE/RPD_3/A/9495/161921 dated 15.0s3.94 Rs. 79,951.00 Total: Rs. 14,41,903.00 Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
59. It is further stated that under an another agreement no. 25/EE/RPD_3/A/9293 the recoveries of Rs. 4,10,246/ were circulated under clause - 29 of the agreement. That a total sum of Rs. 5, 50,407/ were recovered from another division i.e. Eastern Division no. 6 as per Clause - 29 of the agreement. Out of which Rs. 4,10,296/ were adjusted towards the recoveries to be made under the agreement no. 25/EE/RPD_3/A/9293 and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,40,101 was adjusted towards the agreement no. 24/EE/RPD_3/A/9293 i.e. agreement pertaining to the present suit.
10.It is further stated that on 21.05.1996 the total amount due from the defendant works out as under : Total recovery under the agreement No. 24/EE/RPD_3/A/9293 Rs. 14,41,903.00 Part amount recovered from another Division i.e. Eastern Division No. 6 as per Cl. 29 of the agreement. Rs. 1,40,101.00 Rs. 13,01,802.00 + interest @ 18% per annum from 08.06.1994 to Rs. 4,19,831.14 Total : Rs. 17,21,633.14
11. It is further stated that the plaintiff has valued the suit for the Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
6purposes of court fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 17,21,633.14 on which the plaintiff has paid the prescribed court fees at Rs. 18780.00. It is therefore prayed that :
1. A decree of Rs. 17,21,633.14 may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
2. Interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 21.05,1996 till realization of amount may be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
3. Cost of the suit may be awarded in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
12.In the written statement filed by the defendant in the preliminary objections, it is stated that the defendant has not executed any agreement no. 24/EE/RPD_3/A9293 as mentioned in para no. 3 of the suit and agreement no. 25/EE/RPD_3/A9293 as mentioned in para 10 of suit, therefore no recovery is tenable and suit may be dismissed on this ground alone. The plaintiff may produce the contract agreement signed by the defendant with Executive Engineer Rohini Project Division No. 3 Delhi Development Authority. The suit be dismissed on this ground alone.
13.It is further stated that the defendant entered into contract agreement no. 29/EE/RPD_1/DDA/9293 with the Executive engineer Delhi Development Authority Rohini Project Division Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
7No. 1 for "Dev. of land of 128.99 Hectare of land and 5.47 KM 30 M wide peripheral road in west of Rohini in Village Pooth Kalan SH providing and laying and peripheral water lines in sector 20, Rohini, and contract agreement no. 30/EE/RPD_1/DDA/9393 for "Dev. Of 128.99 Hectare of land and 5.47 KM 30 M wide peripheral road in west of Rohini in village Pooth kalan sh; providing and laying of peripheral water lines in Sector22 , Rohini and the Executive engineer Rohini Project Division No. 1 Delhi Dev. Authority is the only Engineerincharge of the Agreement as per term of the Contract Agreement under definition 2 (e) of the Agreement and is competent to deal and initiate and take actions under the relevant clause(s) of the Agreement and no other person is competent to initiate or take any action, since the actions have been taken by a person other than Executive Engineer Rohini Project Division No. 1 Delhi Development Authority the suit is void, illegal, not maintainable as not filed by as proper person. Therefore suit is likely to be dismissed.
14. It is further stated that no compensation can be levied before the expiry of stipulated date of completion. As per Agreement stipulated date of completion was 06.12.1993 and (whereas the defendant on 02.04.1993 submitted bill for the work executed amounting to Rs.38.46 lac and the same had been paid by the plaintiff on 05.06.1993). Whereas compensation has been levied on 26.10.1993, the levy of compensation is illegal and void and no Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
8recovery can be made for compensation, therefore the present suit is not maintainable, illegal and void and may kindly be dismissed/or likely to be dismissed.
15.It is further stated that the work cannot be terminated just 2 days after levy of compensation. 10% compensation was levied on 26.10.1993 and the work was rescinded on 28.10.1993 vide letter no. F (507)EE/RPD3/A/9394/608183 dated 28.10.1993. This rescission has been done by a person other than Executive Engineer Development Authority Rohini Project Division No. 1 therefore the rescission /termination is void illegal, malafide and no recovery of any amount can effected and suit may be dismissed as the present suit has been filed with malafide intention and the plaintiff has not come with clean hands before this Court.
16. It is further submitted that the work was rescinded on 28.10.1993 just 2 days after levy of compensation, compensation was levied on 26.10.1993, the plaintiff cannot deprive the defendant of his right to complete the work in stipulated period of completion which is 06.12.1993. Therefore the rescission/ termination of the contract Agreements is illegal, bad and void and suit be dismissed.
17.It is further stated that the stipulated date of completion of both Agreements was 06.12.1993, whereas the risk and cost work had Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
9not been completed till 12.02.1997 i.e. even 3 years times, therefore the levy of compensation and rescission of works agreement is bad, void and suit be dismissed. In this connection EE/Rohini Project division 3 letter NO. F1 (577)EE/RPd3/95 96/31011 dated 12.02.1997 may be referred and the plaintiff may be directed to produce the last bill paid to the risk and cost contractor.
18.It is further stated that Executive Engineer, Rohini Project Division No. 3 violated the terms of Agreement. According to Agreement cast iron pipes were to supplied by the Delhi Development Authority, but the plaintiff did not supply cast iron pipes. The defendant was to only excavate the lines and than the cast iron pipes to be supplied by the plaintiff were to be laid in the lines. The defendant excavated the lines, but the cast iron pipes were not supplied by the EE/Rohini Project Division No. 3. The demand of cast iron pipes was submitted on 04.08.1993 vide letter No. 4/980 dated 04.08.1993 and reminder vide letter NO. 11/982 dated 11.08.1993, letter dated 11.08.1993 and no. 16/870 dated 16.08.1993 letter No. 18/830 dated 19.08.1993 and letter No. 26/850 dated 26.08.1993 and No. 16/770 dated 16.09.1993 with repeated visits to their office and residence, but cast iron pipes were not supplied, so they visited the terms of agreement, therefore the suit is likely to be dismissed. The value of the cast iron pipes to be supplied by the Delhi Development Authority was 80% of the total tender amount, which they violated and the Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
10suit is therefore liable to be dismissed.
19.It is further submitted that the rescission of the contract agreements (both) agreement, and levy of compensation had been done by same person i.e. Shri V.K. Panchal who was Executive Engineer Rohini Project Division No. 3 and Executive Engineer Planning Civil Circle 14 and said action is total abuse of position and is void.
20.It is further stated that the defendant offered to complete the work on 30.10.1993, but the defendants offer was turned down by Shri V.K. Panchal Executive Engineer Rohini Project Division No. 2, by this time tender for he risk and cost work had not been accepted. Therefore, the levy of compensation and risk and cost money, forfeiture of security is void and illegal and be dismissed.
21.It is further submitted that the plaintiff Executive Engineer Delhi Development Authority Rohini Project Division No. 1 ordered to the defendant "not to start the work of P/L water supply lines in Sector22 Rohini" as the work of construction of storm water drains was in progress in this sector and water supply lines if laid would fall down and was directed to restart the work, when the excavation for the storm water drains had been done, therefore defendant was ordered not to start work in Sector22 Rohini Agreement No. 29/EE/DDA/RPD1/9293". The said fact is duly recorded in the hindrance register/site order book registers i.e. Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
11one register. Therefore, the rescission of contract agreement and risk and cost money is void and suit be dismissed.
22.On merits, it is stated that the defendant had not entered into agreement no. 24/EE/RPD_3/A/9293 and agreement no. 25/EE/RPD_3/A/9293 as alleged in the suit. It is further stated that the suit be dismissed on this ground. However, the agreement which was executed between the defendant and Executive Engineer Rohini Project Division No. 1 was as follows : Tendered cost Stipulated material stipulated date Cast iron pipes to of completion supplied to plaintiff DDA as per agreement Agreement No. 29/EE/RPD_1/ 72,10,589/ 6.12.93 DDA/9293 92,96,366/.
Agreement No. 30/EE/RPD_1/DDA/9293 87,58,072/ 67,58,324/ 6.12.93
23.It is further stated that the Executive Engineer Rohini Project Division No. 1 DDA issued indent to the defendant against agreement no. 29/EE/RPD_1/DDA/9293 (Sector20 and 21) and the defendant procured cast iron pipes from the Store Division II and executed work amounting to Rs. 38.40 lacs upto 02.04.1993 and submitted his bill i.e. he achieved approx 42% progress in four months (33% period of agreement) and was working well and used cast iron pipes, that were all supplied to the defendant.
Suit No. 69/08DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
12Thereafter cast iron pipes were not issued to the defendant and balance work awaited cast iron pipes to be supplied by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the work was transferred from Executive Engineer Rohini Project Division No. 1 to Executive Engineer Rohini Project Division No. 3 without the consent of the defendant, who was party to the agreement. This was also objected vide letter no. 24/870 dated 24.04.1993. Executive Engineer Rohini Project Division No. 3 in his letter no. F(507) EE/RPD_3/9394/308385 dated 25.06.1993 stated that the progress achieved @ 40% was very slow. To complete the work, defendant did not want to have any confrontation, but the things went bad and bad to worse and defendant replied vide out letter no. 11/982 dated 11.08.1993, in which defendant said that the requisite indent issued by plaintiff's office had turned down and had not been honoured by the Store Division II and they had refused to issue cast iron pipes on their indent and the same was returned back to EE/Rohini Project Division, on the back of which the objections of the store Division II were notified. Defendant submitted demand of cast iron pipes on 04.08.1993 and was awaiting supply of cast iron pipes from the plaintiff eagerly and was ready to complete the work. Therefore, the allegations levelled against the defendant for not lifting the cast iron pipes from the store are bogus, baseless and false.
24.It is further stated that the defendant also mentioned in the letter dated 11.08.1993 that nothing in the store site order book dated 09.03.1993, 22.03.1993 was recorded and requested to Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
13supply cast iron pipes at the earliest possible opportunity. The defendant reminded Executive engineer Rohini Project Division NO. 2 vide letter no. 16/780 dated 16.08.1993, letter no. 19/830 dated 19.08.1993, letter no. 26/850 dated 26.08.1993 and letter no. 17/770 dated 16.09.1993, but still cast iron pipes were not issued by the Executive Engineer Rohini Project Division NO. 1/III. The defendant was intentionally and deliberately harassed with ulterior motives by by the plaintiff. The defendant requested and met Executive Engineer 6/7 times, but indent was not given to procure cast iron pipes from the Store Division of the Delhi Development Authority.
25.It is further stated that one day, old indent was revalidated by sh. V. K. Panchal, Executive Engineer Rohini Project Division No. 3 and was sent to store division II, through his junior Engineer without intimating to the defendant, whereas as per routine, indent is given to the defendant (contractor) and he takes all work of getting it approved from store division and collection of cast iron pipes, but being prejudiced and having malafide intentions he sent the indent direct to store division II through his junior Engineer without intimating the defendant. As the defendant had already lost all hopes to get the cast iron pipes, he rang up the Asst. Engineer for help and for issuance of cast iron pipes, so the same could be laid in the lines excavated. Asst. Engineer told that the Executive Engineer had sent the indent to store division II and defendant may verify from Store Division II.
Suit No. 69/08DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
14The defendant rushed to the store division II, where it was found that the indent had expired and pipes cannot be issued on this indent. This was brought to the notice of the Executive Engineer Rohini Division 1/III by defendant vide letter no. 16/770 dated 16.09.1993 and he also claimed Rs. 20,000/ per month for not issuing the cast iron pipes. Therefore the plaintiff's allegations are baseless and wrong. Since they had malafide intentions therefore they did not issue cast iron pipes to rescind the agreement.
26.It is further stated that Sh. V. K. Panchal was functioning as Executive Engineer Rohini Project Division 0.3. and Executive Engineer planning Civil circle - 14. He issued notice to defendant no. F.1(507) EE/RPD_3/A/9394/3083/85 dated 25.06.1993 for termination of agreement and notice from circle office no.SE(320)EE/(P)/CC14/9394/DDA/882 dated 15.07.1993 for levy of compensation whereas in the notice dated 25.06.1993 (supra), he admitted that the defendant made 40% progress, therefore levy of compensation amounting to Rs. 7,71,734/ on 26.10.1993 was illegal without giving any personal hearing, and simply on the first notice and rescinded the agreement on 28.10.1993 just after two days on one and simple notice, where as the fault lies with them, for not issuing cast iron pipes (stated supra). Sh. V. K. Panchal abused and misuse the two positions held by him in levying compensation and rescission of the contract agreements. The plaintiffs were duty bound and had to Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
15discharge their part of contractual obligation i.e. they should have supplied cast iron pipes and then only the defendant could be blamed. Defendant had been running every where, but he was not supplied the cast iron pipes, therefore it is the plaintiff's fault and suit be dismissed.
27.It is further stated that no compensation can be levied during the / before the expiry of stipulated period of completion which was 06.12.1993. Levy of compensation notice dated 15.07.1993, is illegal, void and no compensation can be recovered from the defendant. When compensation was levied, the defendant had the right to complete the work. Defendant requested vide letter dated 30.10.1993 that defendant be allowed to complete the work, but Executive Engineer Rohini Division No. 3 rejected the request. This request was made before the acceptance of risk and cost contractor(s) tender. Therefore the levy of compensation before the expiry of stipulated date of completion and going for risk and cost contract is void and bad in law. Further the forfeiture of security amount of Rs. 2,34,347/ is bad in law in view of the position explained above and security forfeited is liable to be adjusted in the amount spent for the completion of work, therefore the claim of Rs. 5,90,218/ is bad in the eyes of law and void and illegal and suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
28.It is further stated that the defendant had not executed any Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
16agreement no. 25/EE/RPD_3/A/9293 with Executive Engineer Rohini Project Division, therefore no recoveries are tenable on said account and the suit is liable to be dismissed. The defendant entered into agreement no. 30/EE/RPD_3/DDA/9293 for P/L water lines in sector - 22, Rohini, with the Executive Engineer Rohini Project Division No. 1 DDA, who ordered the defendant not to take up any water supply line work in sector - 22, Rohini "as the storm work construction work is in progress and water supply lines will fall when excavation for the construction of storm water drain will be done" therefore the defendant acted accordingly". Defendant protested for the transfer of work from Executive Engineer Rohini Project Division - I to Executive Engineer Rohini Project Division - 3. On transfer of work, a few Nishans were given by the Executive Engineer Rohini Project Division No. 3 where the defendant made excavation and requested for supply of cast iron pipes, which were to be supplied by the Executive Engineer Rohini Project Division, which was not supplied as stated above. The defendant submitted bill for the work executed on 05.07.1993 but it was not paid. The intimation regarding the execution of work was communicated on 18.06.1993 and during the excavation of work, DDA representatives used to supervise the work. In the letter dated 18.06.1993, defendant mentioned that "regarding orders of store, site order book dated 23.02.1993, 19.03.1993 and 08.04.1993 are back dated and not agreed, that is why these are not noted" and if these were written on those dates, these should Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
17have been communicated through letters instead of repeating in the site order book. The defendant requested to complete the work but if was turned down by the Executive Engineer Rohini Project Division - 3 DDA, therefore their action was void. The action for rescission of the agreement is not by the Executive Engineer Rohini Project Division - I therefore the rescision is bad, illegal and no recovery initiated or done is bad and be refunded with interest. The suit is bad in view of the position explained and same be dismissed with cost.
29.In these circumstances, it is prayed that the suit is liable to be dismissed.
30. Replication was filed by the plaintiff to the aforesaid Written Statement of the defendant in which the averments made in the Written Statement were denied and those made in the plaint were reaffirmed as correct.
31. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Hon' ble High Court on 13.09.04:
(i)Whether the present suit has been instituted and signed by the competent person ?
(ii)Whether the agreement between the parties having been entered into between defendant and Executive Engineer RPD 1, the only competent person to take action under the agreement was EE RPD No. 1 as alleged in P.O.No. 3 ?OPD.
(iii)Whether no compensation under Clause 2 of the agreement could be levied before the expiry of stipulated Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.18
date of completion ? OPD
(iv)Whether work could not be terminated just two days after levy of compensation on 26.10.93 and that too by a person other than EE RPD 1 ? If so its effect ? OPD
(v)Whether rescission/termination of the contract was illegal, void and bad ? OPD
(vi)Whether the work at risk and cost of the defendant had not been contemplated till 12.12.1997 ? If so its effect ? OPD.
(vii)Whether the plaintiff failed to supply the stipulated material in the form of CI Pipes ? If so its effects ? OPD.
(viii)Whether the work could not be resigned and compensation Under clause 2 of the agreement imposed by the same person Sh. V.K.Panchal ? If so its effect ? OPP.
(ix)Whether the defendant was entitled to mitigate the losses but was not allowed to do so ? OPD.
(x)Whether the defendant was told not to execute the work as stated in para 11 of the preliminary objection ? If so its effect ? OPD
(xi)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed ? OPP.
(xii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest ? If so at what rate and for what period and on what amount ? OPP.
(xiii)Relief
32. Vide order dated 05.04.05, the present case was consolidated with the suits No. 70/08 and 60A/08 and common evidence was Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
19recorded in all the cases, however in order to avoid confusion separate judgments are being rendered in the present case as well as those connected civil suits.
34. Thereafter the plaintiff DDA has examined Sh. S.K.Gupta as PW1. In rebuttal the defendant has examined himself as DW1 and no other witness has been examined.
35. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff(DDA) Ms. Beena Sharma and Naresh Sharma and counsel for the defendant Sh . V.K.Sharma and perused the written submissions filed on record on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant. Counsel for defendant has relied upon following judgments in support of his claim:
(i)1977 SC 1481
(ii)1984 SC 1703
(iii)1994(3) ALR 173
(iv)2004(3) ALR 5
(v)(2011) 5 SCC 758
36. My issue wise findings are as under:
ISSUE NO. 1The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. The plaintiff had to show to the court that the suit has been signed and verified by duly authorized competent person. Though DW1 in his cross examination dated 13.04.09 has stated as under:
I do not have personal knowledge of the facts. I have no knowledge, if the authority given to the chief Engineer of the DDA for signing, verifying and filing the case was oral or in writing".Suit No. 69/08
DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.20
However, at the same time it is settled law that in the case of large public corporations and public sector undertakings any officer or person who is acquainted with the facts of the case may depose on behalf of the corporation and similarly anyone who is acquainted with the facts of the case can file the suit on behalf of such corporation and PW1 in para No. 2 of his affidavit has stated that the petition had been signed and verified by the Chief Engineer. There is no reason to disbelieve this averment made by PW1 in his affidavit that the suit has been signed and verified by Chief Engineer, regarding the authority given to the said Chief Engineer to file the present suit. Though no such authority has been placed on the record explicitly. But at the same time in case of large public corporations and public sector undertakings and banks, such a authority can be presumed in favour of a person who is filing the suit on behalf of said public corporation, as nobody would file a suit without having any such authority on behalf of said corporation. In any case, the defendant has failed to show to the court that the Chief Engineer who had filed the present suit had no legal authority to file the suit. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the present suit has not been signed, verified and instituted by a competent person. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.ISSUE NO. 2
Regarding this issue, DW1 in his cross examination carried out on 13.04.09 stated as under:
It is correct that initially, the contract Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.21
of sector 2021 Rohini was executed between the defendant in this case and the Executive Engineer, RPD1".
From the aforesaid admission made by DW1 in his cross examination, it is clear that initially the work contract was executed between the Executive Engineer of RPD1 and the defendant. It is contended by the counsel for the defendant that there is nothing in the agreement executed between the parties which gives a right to the DDA to assign the work from one division to another. Since the agreement was between Executive Engineer RPD Zone1 on one side on behalf of DDA and on other side on behalf of defendant, therefore only Executive Engineer RPD1 could have taken action under the terms of the agreement, however the said argument of Ld. Counsel for the defendant is totally flawed, as it is the administrative discretion or the matter of internal management of the DDA whom to transfer the work contract for supervision of the same. The defendant cannot have any objection regarding the same. In any case, it was the incumbent duty of the defendant to perform the work contract as per the stipulations contained in the contract executed between the parties and the defendant cannot tell the DDA that for all times to come that the work awarded to him should be supervised by the Executive Engineer of the same zone with whom the work contract was executed. Since it is the administrative mater or the administrative discretion of the DDA whom to transfer the work contract on their part for supervision for getting the work done from the defendant, therefore it is the matter Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.22
of internal management on the part of the DDA over which the defendant has no control, therefore it cannot be said that the only person who was competent to take action under the agreement was Executive Engineer RPD1, therefore this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.ISSUE NO. 3
In this regard clause 2 of the agreement which is admitted by both the parties is reproduced as under:
The time allowed for carrying out the work as entered int the tender shall be strictly observed by the contractor and shall be deemed to be essence of the contract and shall be reckoned from the tenth day after the date on which the order to commence the work is issued to the contractor. The work shall throughout the stipulated period of the contract be proceeded with all due diligence and the contractor shall pay as compensation an amount equal to 1% of such smaller amounts the Superintending Engineer(whose decision in writing shall be final) may decide on the amount of the estimated cost of the whole work as shown in the tender, for every day that the work as shown in the tender, for every day that the work remains uncommenced or unfinished after the proper dates. And further to ensure good progress during the execution of the work, the contractor shall be bound in all cases in which the time allowed for any work exceeds, one month(save for special jobs) to complete one eighths of the whole of the work before one fourth of the whole time of the works, before one half of such time has elapsed and threefourths of Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.23
the work; before threefourths of such time has elapsed. However, for special jobs if a timeschedule has been submitted by the Contractor and the same has been accepted by the Engineerincharge. The contractor shall comply with the said time schedule.
In the event of the contractor failing to comply with this condition, he shall be liable to pay as compensation an amount equal to one percent or such smaller amount as the Superintending Engineer (whose decision in writing shall be final) may decide on the said estimated cost of the whole work for every day that he due quantity of work remains incomplete.
Provided always that he entire amount of compensation to be paid under the Provisions of this clause shall not exceed ten percent of the estimated cost of the work as shown in tender.
From the reading of clause 2 as a whole reproduced as above, it cannot be said that the work contract executed between the parties which bars or prohibits the DDA from imposing the compensation before the expiry of the work contract. There is no such stipulation bars DDA from doing so. Though it is a different matter, whether the compensation in the present case was rightly imposed or it was imposed for extraneous consideration or was arbitrary or malafide. However, as discussed above, there is nothing in the clause 2 of the work contract executed between the parties which prohibits DDA from imposition of compensation as per clause 2 before the expiry of stipulated date of completion of the work contract. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
24plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No. 4Clause No. 2 of the work contract has been reproduced as above, whereas clause 3 which is also admitted by both the parties is reproduced as under:
"The EngineerinCharge may without prejudice to his right against the contractor in respect of any delay or inferior workmanship or otherwise or to any claims for damage in respect of any breaches of the contract and without prejudice to any rights or remedies under any of the provisions of this contract or otherwise and whether the date for completion has or has not elapsed by notice in writing absolutely determine the contract in any of the following cases:
(i)If the contractor having been given by the EngineerinCharge a notice in writing to rectify, reconstruct or replace any defective work or that the work is being performed in any.
Inefficient or otherwise improper or unworkmanlike manner shall omit to comply with the requirements of such notice for a period of seven days thereafter or if the contractor shall delay or suspend the execution of the work so that either in the judgment of the EngineerinCharge(which shall be final and binding) he will be unable to secure completion of the work by the date for Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
25completion or he has already failed to complete the work by that date.
(ii) If the contractor being a company shall pass a resolution or the Court shall make an order that the company shall be wound up or if a receiver, or a manager on behalf of a creditor shall be appointed or if circumstances shall arise, which entitle the court or creditor to appoint a receiver or a manager or which entitle the court to make a winding up order.
(iii)If the contractor commits breach of any of the terms and conditions of the contract.
(iv)If the contractor commits any acts mentioned in Clause 21 hereof.
When the contractor has made himself liable for action under any of the cases aforesaid, the EngineerinCharge on behalf of the President of India shall have powers:
a)To determine or rescind the contract as aforesaid(of which termination or rescission notice in writing to the contract or under hand of the Engineer Incharge shall be conclusive evidence) upon such determination or rescission the security deposit of the contractor shall be liable to be forfeited and shall be absolutely at the disposal of the Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.26
government.
b) To employ labour paid by the CPWD and to supply materials to carry out the work or any part of the work debiting the contractors with the cost of the labour and the price of the materials(of the amount of which cost and price certified by the Engineerincharge shall be final and conclusive against the contractor) and crediting him with the value of the work done in all respects in the same manner and at the same rates as if it had been carried out by the contractor under the terms of his contract. The certificate of the Divisional Officer as to the value of the work done shall be final and conclusive against the contractor provided always that action under the sub clause shall only be taken after giving notice in writing to the contractor. Provided also that if the expenses incurred by the department are less than the amount payable to the contractor at his agreement rates, the difference should not be paid to the contractor.
c) After giving notice to the contractor to measure up the work of the contractor and to take such part thereof as shall be unexecuted out of his hands and to given it to another Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.27
contractor to complete in which case any expenses which may be incurred in excess of the sum which would have been paid to the original contractor if the whole work had been executed by him(of the amount which excess the certificate in writing of the EngineerinCharge shall be final and conclusive) shall be borne and paid by the original contractor and may be deducted from any money due to him by Government under this contract or on any other account whatsoever or from his security deposit or the proceeds of sales thereof or a sufficient part thereof as the case may be.
In the event of any one or more of the above courses being adopted by the EngineerinCharge the contractor shall have no claim to compensation for any loss sustained by him by reason of his having purchased or procured any materials or entered into any engagements or made any advances on account or with a view to the execution of the work or the performance of contract. And in case action is taken under any of provisions aforesaid. The contractor shall not be entitled to recover or be paid any sum for any work thereof or actually performed under this contract unless and until the EngineerinCharge has certified in writing the performance of such work and the value payable in respect thereof and he shall only be entitled to be paid the value so certified."
Suit No. 69/08DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
28As per clause 2 of the work contract the Superintending Engineer in violation of conditions laid down in the said clause in order to ensure the good progress for the execution of the work has the power to impose compensation upon the contractor, however as per clause 3 the Engineer Incharge who has defined as Executive Engineer as per clause 2(e) of the admitted agreement is having powers to determine or rescind the contract in view of the breaches stipulated in clause 3 of the work contract, which is a general form contract executed between the contractors and the DDA. The defendant has not refuted the terms of clause 2 and 3 reproduced as above. However, from the the cojoint reading of clause(s) 2 and 3 of the work contract reproduced as above, there appears to be no bar for levy of compensation two days prior to the termination of the work contract, as no such prohibition has been mentioned in the same.
It is admitted case of the parties that compensation under clause 3 amounting to Rs. 7,71,734/ was levied upon the defendant by Superintending Engineer vide letter dated 15.07.93 and thereafter show cause notice was issued upon the defendant, as per clause 3 vide letter dated 25.06.93, which was also replied by the defendant vide reply dated 11.08.93 and thereafter the work of the defendant was rescinded by the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 28.10.93. Since the defendant failed to bring to the notice of this court any bar under clause(s) 2 & 3 mentioned above that the compensation cannot be imposed 2 days prior to the rescission of contact and as discussed in issue No. 2 that it was the Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
29administrative discretion or the internal affair of the DDA whom to transfer the supervision of the work contract in the present case, therefore it cannot be said that the levy of compensation 2 days as per clause 2 and thereafter rescission of contract 2 days thereafter was barred under the terms of the contract more specifically clause 2 and 3 and it could have only been done by the Executive Engineer RPD1 who had executed the work contract on behalf of DDA with the defendant at the original instance, therefore this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUES No. 5, 7 & 10These issues are taken up together as they are interconnected with each other.
In the cross examination of DW1 carried out on 08.10.07, DW1 has admitted as under:
It is correct that on 10th December, 1992, there was material of other agencies lying in the alignment of some of the water supply lines due to which the work was obstructed or hindered. It is correct that as from 02.01.1993, the work to be executed by the plaintiff was ordered to be suspended as per the verbal order of the Executive Engineer RPD1 because at this stage, there was apprehension of falling down of CI pipes and the work was to be taken up Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.30
after completion of storm water drains."
"It is correct that as per this page between 19.02.1993 to 28.10.1993, the contractor was never informed that the storm waster drains work had been completed and the contractor could proceed to lay the CI pipes as per the agreement. It is correct that in this page in the case of other hindrances, the date of clearance of the said hindrances has been mentioned but no date of clearance with regard to the hindrances due to execution of storm water drains has been mentioned." DW1 stated "I do not know if there were unauthorized colonies or labour camps existing in Sector 20, which prevented the DDA from handing over the site to the plaintiff in sector 20".
Further this witness in his cross examination on 20.11.07 has stated as under
"I have seen Ex.DW1/PX1. He further stated that "At item no. 2, the signatures are those of Jasbir Singh, JE. I do not dispute the contents of Ex.DW1/PX1 as the same was filed by us. I cannot say if the contractor executed the work till 18th May, Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.31
1993. I cannot say if beyond 18.05.1993 the work could not be executed because the storm water drains were coming in the alignment of the work or were proposed to be constructed". "I have no idea if the instructions to stop the work given on 19.02.1993 were subsequently withdrawn at any stage."
Further in the cross examination of DW1 carried out on 13.04.09 it is stated as under:
According to me, the endorsement regarding nonlifting the material and its revalidation is to be found on the face of the indent itself Ex.PW1/1. I have seen the EX.PW1/1 but here no endorsement to say that the material was not lifted by the contractor. The perusal of Ex.PW1/1 shows that it was issued on 10th May, 1993. The date of revalidation appearing on the Ex.PW1/1 are 28.05.1993, 26.06.1993 and 25.08.1993. I do not know, if, after the revalidation the said indent was given back to the defendant. There is no acknowledgment on the face of Ex.PW1/1 to show if the same was given to the defendant prior to 28.05.1993. I cannot say Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.32
if the defendant had written letter dated 11.08.1993 to the then Executive Engineer.
The copy of the said letter is Ex.PW1/D1. I cannot say whether indent no. 102839 and 102840 were returned by the store division on 04.06.1993 with the objections that the stipulated quantity in the agreement, quantity received so far, percentage of progress of work, likely date of completion and quantity balanced at side should be stated in the said indents". I say that the contents of Ex.P10 (the document in suit no. 70 of 2008) and those of my affidavit Ex.PW1/A (Para 8) talk of 40% work having been executed by the defendant in sector 2021.
It is settled law that the admissions are the best evidence against the person who makes those admissions unless successfully explained or withdrawn. DW1 who is the star witness of the DDA has himself admitted that in December 1992, there was material of other agencies lying in the alignment of some of the water supply lines due to which the work was obstructed or hindered and that on 02.01.1993, the work to be executed by the plaintiff was ordered to be suspended as per the verbal order of the Executive Engineer RPD1 because at this stage, there was apprehension of falling down of CI pipes and the work was to be taken up after the Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
33completion of storm water drains. He also admitted that the contractor was never informed that the storm water drain work had been completed and the contractor could proceed to lay the CI pipes as per the agreement.
He also admitted that on the page between between 19.02.1993 to 28.10.1993, in the case of other hindrances, the date of clearance of the said hindrances has been mentioned but no date of clearance with regard to the hindrances due to the execution of storm water drains has been mentioned and he also stated that he had no idea if the instructions to stop the work given on 19.02.1993 were subsequently withdrawn at any stage. In view of the aforesaid unequivocal admissions made by the very witness of the DDA, it is clear that the concerned executive engineer had asked the contractor not to proceed with the work and due to this the contractor had suspended the work and thereafter he was never intimated that the hindrances/obstructions had been removed, so that he could go ahead with the work as per stipulated schedule of the work contract. From the cross examination of DW1 it is also clear that since the C.I.Pipes were to be supplied by the DDA by issuing different indents from time to time but the same was never done, as DW1 has himself admitted in his cross examination that there was no endorsement regarding the non lifting of material on the indent ExPW1/1, nor there is any endorsement to this effect that the material was not lifted by the contractor and there was no acknowledgment on ExPW1/1 to show if the same was given to the contractor prior to 28.05.1993. He also gave a evasive reply when Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
34asked about certain letters purportedly written by the defendant to the DDA in this regard that he cannot say if the defendant had written letter dated 11.08.93 which is ExPW1/D1, nor he can say whether the indent No. 102839 and 102840 were returned by the store division on 04.06.1993 with the objection that the stipulated quantity in the agreement and other formalities were not mentioned in the indent. He also admitted the contents of ExP10 i.e document filed in suit No. 70/08 and those of his affidavit Ex PW1/A more specifically para 8 talk of 40% work having been executed by the defendant in sector 2021.
Therefore it appears that the defendant was firstly told not to proceed with the work due to certain hindrances/obstructions in laying down C.I.Pipes, as there was apprehension expressed by the concerned Executive Engineer that the said C.I.Pipes may fall down due to storm water drain work and other hindrances which after removal were never communicated to the contractor, thereafter since the requisite material as per the contract between the parties i.e C.I.Pipes were to be supplied by the DDA from its own stores on issuance of different indents from time to time which had to be laid down by the contractor by excavation and the same were never supplied and there is no endorsement on the indent that it was the fault of the contractor having not received those indents,despite repeated requests of the DDA to take material from its own stores to lay down the C.I.Pipes as per the excavation rather the letters written by the defendant from time to time shows that the indents were either issued to the defendant on a very late date i.e not prior Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
35to 28.05.93 and even after that there were various objections made on those indents for one reason or the other, thereby denying the issuance of stipulated material to the contractor thereby resulting in non execution of the work contract on the part of the defendant, as per the stipulated schedule, which appears solely to be the fault of the DDA plaintiff and not the contractor.
On the other hand, no positive evidence has been lead by the plaintiff on the record or any admissions made by PW1 which shows that the contractor also contributed to the aforesaid delays or that said delays took place due to his fault. No such evidence has been placed on the record by the DDA plaintiff to show that the contractor was equally negligent in executing the work contract and it was due to his negligence and fault works contract could not be executed within the stipulated schedule time. In these circumstances, the defendant has been able to prove that the plaintiff failed to supply the stipulated material in the form of C.I.Pipes and the defendant has also been able to prove that he was told not to execute the work as per the objections taken by him in para 11 of his preliminary objections i.e due to apprehension of falling down the C.I.Pipes due to the work of storm water drains etc., as discussed above, which was duly communicated to him as per hindrance register, therefore it appears from afore evidence that the plaintiff DDA had acted in utmost haste in terminating the contract of the defendant without any legal justification, when the DDA itself was at fault firstly asking him not to proceed with the work due to obstructions/hindrances and thereafter they had not Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
36issued the requisite material i.e C.I.Pipes which were to be laid down by the contractor as per the work contract. Since neither of these took place due to the fault of the contractor, therefore the unilateral termination of the contract on the part of the DDA was illegal and void. Consequently, this issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 6With regard to issue No. 6, DW1 in his cross examination on 29.09.08 has admitted that the Parmar Construction Company to whom the work after rescission of the contract with the defendant was handed over to complete the same had actually completed the work on 21.05.97 and there was a delay of 26 months and in his cross examination he stated as under:
Date of start of work was 18th March 1994, contractual period was 12 months and accordingly the date of completion as per the contract was 17th March, 1995, in the case of Parmar Construction company. From the aforesaid cross examination of DW1 it is apparent that the date of start of work was 18.03.1994 in the case of M/s Parmar Construction Company and the contractual period was 12 months and date of completion as per the contract was 17.03.1995, but the same was actually completed on 21.05.1997, therefore against the contractual period of 12 months, there was a delay of 26 months which is more than double the stipulated period, therefore the defendant has been able to prove that the work at the risk and Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.37
cost of the defendant had not been completed till 12.02.1997, therefore this shows that the plaintiff DDA had acted in utmost haste in rescinding the contract of the defendant, whereas the plaintiff DDA had granted almost 26 months extra to the other contractor who was contracted to complete the work, which was originally allotted to the defendant for which there is no explanation as to why the second contractor was not subjected to the same strict scrutiny, as was the defendant in the execution of the work contract, which also shows that the rescission/termination of the contract with the defendant was illegal and void and was made in haste without due application of mind. Issue No. 6 is answered accordingly.ISSUE NO. 9
With regard to issue No. 9, DW1 in his cross examination recorded on 04.02.11 has stated as under:
It is matter of record that the defendant (Deepak Electric Trading co.) has executed work to the extent of 42% of the contract value (Rs. 38,46,756.13), which was paid in the 2nd RA Bill. It is a matter of record if at the time of rescinding excavation to the extent of 2287.91 meters had been made by the defendant. It is correct that the DDA provided the CI pipes to defendant he would have laid them in the excavated portion. It is matter of Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.38
record that the after the work was terminated, the defendant requested for being allowed to execute the work. I cannot say if the defendant was allowed to execute the work in terms of his above said request.
In view of the aforesaid admissions made by DW1 in his cross examination, it is clear that even the witness of DDA DW1 has admitted, had the DDA provided C.I.Pipes to the defendant he would have laid them into the excavated portion and that the defendant had executed the work to the extent of 42% of the contract value which was paid in second RA Bill and it was the matter of record that after the work was terminated the defendant requested for time to be allowed to him to execute the work and he cannot say that the defendant was allowed to execute the work in terms of his above request. As discussed above, in the previous issue the other contractor who was deputed by the plaintiff DDA to complete left over work of the defendant had to complete the work within one year from 18.03.1994, whereas he took 26 months extra in completing the work for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the DDA, why such large enlargement of time was granted to the said contractor from time to time and why the deadlines for completion of the work contract which was applied to the defendant in the present case was not applied in the case of Parmar Construction Company that is to show why the same yardstick for the strict completion of the work contract as per Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.39
schedule mentioned in the same was not applied in case of M/s Parmar Construction Company which went on merrily in completing the work and took almost 26 months extra in completing the work. On the other hand, the defendant had been requesting the plaintiff to allow him to complete the work, therefore the defendant should have been allowed to mitigate the losses as per Section 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, which was never allowed by the DDA, who instead chose to employ another contractor to complete the work, who took almost 26 months extra beyond the schedule time to complete the same, therefore in this case the defendant was definitely entitled to mitigate the losses, but he was not allowed to do so, therefore this issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.ISSUE NO. 8
Clause 2 & 3 of the works contract between the parties which is in the nature of standard form in all works contract executed between DDA and the contractor had been reproduced as above. As per clause 2 of the agreement executed between the parties the compensation could only be imposed by the Superintendent Engineer to ensure good progress of the work contract and in case of delay in the execution of the same, whereas the Engineer Incharge has been defined as per clause 2(e) of the contract as Executive Engineer who has been bestowed with the powers to determine the work in case of any breaches of the contract as enlisted in clause 3 of the contract, therefore it is apparent from the reading of clause 2 and 3 together that the compensation under Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.40
clause 2 can only be imposed by the Superintendent Engineer, whereas the contract can be determined/rescinded by the executive engineer. It is settled law if terms of the contract directs particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it should either be done in that particular way or not at all and DW1 in his cross examination on 04.02.11 has stated as under:
It is correct that the notices under clause 2 as well as under clause 3 of the agreement was issued by Sh. V. K. Panchal.
I cannot say, if notice under clause 3 of the agreement is issued by the executive engineer where as notice under clause 2 of the agreement is issued by the Superintending Engineer.
Though DW1 in his testimonial deposition, as above, has stated that he cannot say whether the notice under clause 3 of the agreement was issued by the Superintending Engineer, however the letter dated 15.07.93 which was issued to the defendant for imposition of compensation as per clause 2 is the admitted document of the parties, as the defendant in the written statement has admitted that reply of the said notice dated 15.07.93 which was issued by one Sh. Som Dev, Superintendent Engineer CC No. 14, Rohini DDA and the notice under clause 3 dated 28.10.93 has been issued by Mr. V.K.Panchal, so is the notice dated 26.03.03 which has also been issued by him.
In these circumstances, no oral evidence contrary to the Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.41
terms of the written document can be lead, as notice dated 15.07.93, invoking clause 2 of the work contract for compensation had been given by the Superintendent Engineer and the show cause notice dated 25.06.93 and the notice 28.10.93, rescinding the contract has been given by the Executive Engineer which is strictly as per the terms of the contract executed between the parties, as by virtue of clause 2 of the works contract the Superintendent Engineer is having necessary authority to impose compensation, whereas the executive engineer has power to determine the contract in view of the breaches enlisted in clause 2, therefore it cannot be said that the work had been rescinded and the compensation under clause 2 of the agreement had been imposed by the same person namely, V.K.Panchal. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.ISSUE NO. 11 and 12
In view of my findings on issues No. 5,6,7, 9 & 10, since the rescission/termination of the contract was illegal, void and arbitrary, therefore plaintiff is not entitled to the suit amount, as prayed for, it follows as a corollary to the same that plaintiff is also not entitled for recovery of any interest, the suit of the plaintiff is consequently dismissed with no order as to cost. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (Sanjeev Aggarwal) COURT ON 25.09.2012 ADJ(Central03) / Delhi 25xx.09.2012 Suit No. 69/08 DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.
42 Suit No. 69/08DDA Vs. M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Co.