Delhi District Court
Shiv Shankar Gupta vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 27 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA
DISTRICT JUDGE(COMMERCIAL)-07(CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024
CNR No. DLCT010048302024 DLCT010048302024
SH. SHIV SHANKER GUPTA,
Sole Proprietor of M/s Shiv Shanker Gupta,
House No. 27, Pocket F-22, Sector-3,
Rohini, Delhi-110085
......Plaintiff.
Vs
1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .
Through: Its Commissioner,
Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002.
2. The Executive Engineer (PR) C.P. Zone,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Old Hindu College, Kashmiri Gate,
Delhi-110006.
...... Defendants.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 40,79,522/-
Date of institution of suit : 01.04.2024
Date of hearing of final argument : 18.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 27.08.2025
Appearance(s) : Shri Kartik Gupta and Shri Sahil Goel, Advs. Ld. Counsels
for plaintiff.
Shri Ashutosh Gupta and Shri Arman Monga, Advs.
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.27
16:48:22
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 1 of 32
JUDGMENT
(A) PRELUDE:
1. By way of present judgment, I shall conscientiously adjudicate upon suit of the plaintiff for Recovery of Rs. 40,79,522/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum pendentlite and future from the date of filing of the suit till its realisation. The plaintiff has also prayed for costs of the suit against the defendants.
(B) CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF:-
2. Eschewing prolix reference to the pleadings crystallizing the same the plaintiff has averred in the plaint that:-
2.1) The plaintiff is the proprietor of proprietorship firm namely M/s Shiv Shanker Gupta, which is duly enrolled as a Municipal Contractor with the defendant No.1 corporation. The plaintiff firm has been carrying out different works for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Previously known as North DMC) since long and is engaged in the civil nature of work for the defendant No.1 corporation.
2.2) The defendant No.1 is a body corporate of Delhi, established and governed under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi Act, 1957. The suit has been filed against the defendants through its Commissioner defendant no.1 who is in-charge of all the acts and day to day activities of the defendants. The defendant No.1 is engaged in taking care of all the civil amenities, development etc. in Delhi. Defendant No.2, the Digitally signed Executive Engineer of defendant No.1 is responsible for construction MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
2025.08.27 GUPTA 16:48:32 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 2 of 32 activities in the area of erstwhile NDMC and the work order in question was issued by him.
2.3) It is further the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff being a Govt. Contractor has approached the defendant No.1 for the work through tender invited by the defendant No.2. After satisfaction and completion of required conditions at the stage of pre-work order, the work order No. EE(PR)CSPZ/SYS/2018-2019/24 dated 21.02.2019 ( in short "WO-24") for the construction of Community Hall/Banquet Hall at Old Kapda Market, Sadar thana Road, in City, S.P. Zone was awarded by the defendant No.2 on behalf of defendant No.1 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also deposited the security/earnest money and entered into an agreement with the defendant as a pre-condition of the award. The work was completed by the plaintiff within the stipulated period to the satisfaction of Engineer-in-Charge/Defendant No.2.
2.4) The defendant No.2 has completed the final measurement of the aforesaid works which has been recorded in the measurement book and accepted by the plaintiff. Further, the bills pertaining to the aforesaid work have been passed and accepted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also deposited the earnest money/security amount in respect of WO 24 on the basis of formalities completed and measurement book. The details of the same has been shown in the tabulated form as under:Digitally signed by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.27 16:48:39 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 3 of 32 Bills particulars Amount (Rs.) Date of Security/Earnest passing of Bill money amount(Rs.) 1st Running Bill 25,59,671.00 29.05.2020 2,77,694.00 2nd Running Bill 17,84,911.00 29.10.2020 2,09,989.00 3rd Running Bill 13,96,111.00 27.01.2021 1,64,213.00 4th Running Bill 5,06,003.00 26.03.2021 59,530.00 5th Running Bill 6,15,180.00 29.06.2021 1,01,738.00 6th Running Bill 77,434.00 28.07.2022 10,388.00 Total Amount 63,84,684.00 8,23,552.00 Gross Total 72,08,236.00 After passing of aforesaid bills, the defendants have released a sum of Rs.38,64,365/- out of Rs.72,08,236/- leaving an outstanding balance of Rs.33,43,871/-.
2.6) Despite passing of the bill, the defendants have neither released the payment nor apprised the plaintiff of the reasons for withholding the same. The plaintiff has made several requests to the defendants to release the outstanding amount as well as the security amount but to no avail. It has further been averred that according to the clause 9 of the General Terms and conditions of the agreement, the defendants are liable to release the same within a period of six/nine months. The plaintiff considering the transactions being the nature of commercial transaction, has claimed interest of Rs.7,35,651/- @ 12% per annum as simple interest upon the principal outstanding amount of Rs.33,43,871/- from 01.04.2022 to 28.02.2024 which the defendant has Digitally MUKESH signed by MUKESH KUMAR failed to pay the plaintiff.
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.08.27
16:48:50
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 4 of 32
2.7) As per plaintiff, the defendants have tried to evade the payment on one pretext or the other compelling the plaintiff to issue a legal notice dated 26.04.2023 u/S 477/478 of the MCD Act, 1957 calling upon the defendants to pay the suit amount with interest @ 12% per annum within 60 days from the receipt of the notice which was also not replied to by the defendants.
2.8) The plaintiff has claimed that the cause of action arose on the date when the defendants awarded the work order to the plaintiff on 21.02.2019, when various bills in respect of WO No.24 dated 21.02.2019 was passed and when the last bill passed on 28.07.2022, on issuance of legal notice which was not responded to and finally when steps for pre-institution mediation were taken under Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
2.9) Hence the present suit for recovery of Rs.40,79,522/-
alongwith interests and costs.
(C) CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS:-
3. On receipt of summons for settlement of issues, the defendants contested the suit by filing a detailed Written Statement thereby taking various preliminary objections as averred and mentioned herein under:-
3.1) The suit filed by the plaintiff is without any cause of action and therefore deserves to be rejected at the threshold. The plaintiff has failed Digitally signed by to comply with the conditions of WO No.24 besides breaching the MUKESH MUKESH General Conditions of Contract (GCC). It has further been contended KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.27 16:48:58 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 5 of 32 that the plaintiff has not submitted any bill either interim or final which he was contractually required to and as such in absence of any bill, no amount can be said to be due or payable to the plaintiff. It is further contended that the plaintiff has failed to disclose a cause of action to maintain the present suit and the plaintiff has failed to comply with and adhere to the contractual obligation as set out in the Work order and the General Conditions of Contract (GCC). The defendants have also reproduced clause 4 of th Work Order as well as the clauses 7, 9, 17 and 45 of the GCC to support its defence besides also raising the aspect of interest and limitation.
3.2) the defendant has already released the amount of Rs.40,72,805/- qua the work Order No. EE(PR)CSPZ/SYS/2018-2019/24 which was received by the plaintiff and has shown the same in the following tabulated form:-
Sl. No. Mode of Payment Amount Dated
1. RTGS 36,65,065/- 12.03.2021
2. RTGS 1,99,300/- 25.10.2022
3. RTGS 2,08,440/- 07.11.2022
Total 40,72,805/-
3.3) On merits, all the allegations made in the plaint have been denied as incorrect. It has been contended that the plaintiff himself admits being bound by the terms of the NIT, the Work Order and the Digitally signed by GCC, however, the plaintiff has failed to abide by the same and do what MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.27 16:49:10 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 6 of 32 was necessary thereunder. It has also been contended that once the plaintiff is aware of his obligations under the GCC and the law, issuance of legal notice would not absolve him of his legal and contractual duty to furnish the bills. It has also been contended that the amounts given as security deposit cannot be refunded unless the plaintiff complies with provisions 17 and 45 of the GCC. It has also been denied that defendants are liable to pay interest as claimed by the plaintiff as no amounts have become due on date. The entire claim of the plaintiff including the claim of the interest is stated to be false and liable to be dismissed.
4. Replication to the Written Statement was also filed by the plaintiff refuting the contentions raised by defendants and reiterating the contents of the plaint. It has been averred that the defendants have prepared the bills of the Work Order and he same have been duly accepted by the plaintiff. Plaintiff has also been admitted the receiving of amount of Rs.40,79,522/- in respect of Work Order No.EE(PR)CSPZ/2018-19/24 dated 21.02.2019. It has been stated that since the defendants have already passed the bills, no question arises for non-filing of bills by plaintiff and the defendants are trying to shy away from its responsibility and liability to pay the legitimate amount to the plaintiff.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant No.1 corporation has released the total payment of Rs.31,96,511/- on 18.06.2025 in four tranches i.e. Rs.6,79,617/-, Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA Rs.13,95,811/-, Rs.5,06,003/- and Rs.6,15,180/- leaving the balance of GUPTA Date:
2025.08.27 16:49:18 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 7 of 32 Rs.1,47,360/-. However, the plaintiff has committed a calculation mistake in totaling the passed bill amount as the correct total is Rs.77,61,862/- instead of Rs.72,08,236/-.
(D) CRYSTALISING THE DISPUTE :-
6. On the pleadings of the parties and documents placed on record the following issues were framed for adjudication vide order dated 22.01.2025.
ISSUES.
(i) Whether the plaintiff has not submitted the bills for payment as alleged in the preliminary objection of the Written Statement ? OPD.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.6,76,208/-from the defendant ?OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest ? if so, at what rate and for what period ?OPP
(iv) Relief.
(E) EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF.
7. Plaintiff, in support of his case, got examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the contents of the plaint on oath in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He got exhibited the following documents:-Digitally signed by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.27 16:49:25 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 8 of 32
1. Work Order bearing No. 24 dated Ex.PW1/1 21.02.2019:
2. Copy of 1st Running Bill Ex.PW1/2 (containing 3 pages)
3. Copy of 2nd Running Bill Ex.PW1/3 (containing 3 pages)
4. Copy of 3rd Running Bill Ex.PW1/4 (containing 3 pages)
5. Copy of 4th Running Bill Ex.PW1/5 (containing 3 pages)
6. Copy of 5th Running Bill Ex.PW1/6 (containing 3 pages)
7. Copy of 6th Running Bill & Final Bill Ex.PW1/7 (containing 3 pages)
8. Copy of Legal Notice dated 26.04.2023 Ex.PW1/8 (colly) alongwith Postal Receipt
9. Copy of Relevant Pages of General Terms Ex.PW1/9 and Conditions of MCD He has deposed that despite passing of the bills and legal notice dated 26.04.2023, the defendant has failed to release the payments to the plaintiff. It has further been deposed that the suit is correct and the defendants are liable to pay the outstanding amount alongwith interest and costs.
8. During cross-examination, Ld. Counsel for defendants has tried to puncture the testimony of PW1 on the point of compliance of terms & conditions of the GCC, non-submitting the bills in question and other aspects including labour clearance. The witness/plaintiff has admitted Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA that he has not submitted any running bills or final bills in the Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.27
16:49:39
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 9 of 32 Department MCD/defendant as per the GCC. He has also admitted that he has received gross amount of Rs.40,72,805/- approximately during the pendency of the suit. He has further admitted that there was a delay in the completion of the Work Order Ex.PW1/1, however voluntarily stated that the clear site was not handed over to him and he has submitted an application for extension of time in the department. He has further deposed that he has not submitted any Labour Clearance Certificate in the department. He has further admitted that he has paid the GST on the gross amount of Rs.40,72,805/-, however, he cannot say that how much GST amount has been paid by him. He has denied the suggestion that the department is not liable to pay any interest or that he has deposed falsely.
9. No other witness has been examined by the plaintiff and the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by his statement on 29.04.2025 (F) DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE :-
10. The defendants in their defence got examined one Shri Jitender Pandey, Assistant Engineer (Project), City S.P. Zone, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, S.P. Zone, Old Hindu College, Kashmere Gate, Delhi on behalf of defendants as DW1 who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A. He reiterated the contents of the Written Statement on oath. DW1 also deposed in his evidence that the suit of the plaintiff is pre-mature, without any cause of action since plaintiff has failed to submit any bill which was a pre-requisite as per the GCC, Digitally however, he was contractually required to and in the absence thereof ,no signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR amount can be said to be due or payable to the plaintiff. In this regard, he KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.27 16:49:48 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 10 of 32 has relied upon the clause 7 of the GCC, Clause 9 of the GCC and clause 4 of the Work Order for the purpose of payment of the work completed/done. He has also deposed that the plaintiff has failed to comply with clause 17 and clause 45 of the GCC and unless the conditions therein are fulfilled, there can be no refund of security deposit to the plaintiff. When the court raised question regarding any payment made during the pendency of the suit, the witness has replied that during the pendency of the suit, corporation has made payments of Rs.6,79,617/-, Rs.13,95,811/-, Rs.5,06,003/- and Rs.6,15,180/- on 18.06.2025 towards the suit amount. He has finally deposed that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as misconceived and bereft of cause of action with exemplary costs.
11. During detailed cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, the witness has admitted that the defendants haves released the payment on the basis of bill passed and the same has been accepted by the plaintiff. He has also deposed that the defendants have passed the bills on the basis of measurement book. It has also admitted that the defendants have not released the 6th and final bill amount of Rs.76,434/-
and the remaining security amount of Rs.4,15,812/- till date & no other amount apart from the above are pending as on today. He has also admitted that no labour complaint is pending against the plaintiff/contractor as per the Measurement Book till today. He has denied the suggest that the plaintiff is entitled for the interest payment on Digitally signed by account of delayed payment on account of delayed payment by the MUKESH MUKESH defendant.
KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.08.27
16:49:57
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 11 of 32
12. No other witness has been examined by the defendants and the evidence of the defendants was closed vide statement dated 14.07.2025.
(G) ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED:-
ARGUMENTS OF PLAINTIFF.
13. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff Shri Kartik Gupta has vehemently argued that the plaintiff has successfully executed the awarded Work Order No.24 dated 21.02.2019 to the satisfaction of the defendants within time and as per the guidelines of the GCC. It has been argued that the defendant has already paid the entire outstanding amount of the bill in respect of the Work Order No.24 except the 6 th and Final Bill of Rs.76,434/- as well as the security deposit to the tune of Rs.4,15,812/- which have not been released till date. Ld. Counsel has further argued thatLd. Counsel has again referred to clause 17 and 45 of GCC to state that it was on account of plaintiff failure to complete the formalities, the same was not released as no occasion has arisen for the defendants to release the same. there is a miscalculation in the amount claimed in the plaint and since the trial has already commenced, he could not move an appropriate application for amendment of the plaint. Ld. Counsel has submitted that the pleadings and evidence should be read together for fair, effective and complete adjudication of a matter. Though, the plaint may be restrictive, however, a combined reading of plaint and DW1 evidence shows the plaintiff is entitled to the security deposit and interest thereon. He has fervently prayed that the court should also consider the evidence of DW1 Shri Jitander Pandey and the plaint as well as evidence Digitally signed by must be read together. Ld. Counsel has finally argued that though, he has MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.27
16:50:05
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 12 of 32 failed to move an appropriate application, the miscalculation in the plaint is a minor curable defect to be duly considered by the court in the interest of justice. He has prayed that the suit be decreed with remaining suit amount, interest as well as costs.
ARGUMENTS OF DEFENDANT:
14. Ld. counsel for the defendant Shri Arman Monga on the other hand has admitted that the principal amount qua the Work Order No. 24 has already been paid to the plaintiff. He has vehemently opposed the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on the point of interest and has stated that the plaintiff has not submitted the bills qua the Work Order No. 24 and therefore not complied with the terms and conditions of the GCC which he himself is relying upon and as such the suit of the plaintiff is pre-mature and misconceived. Ld. Counsel for defendants while making specific reference to clause 7 and 9 of GCC has vehemently argued that the submission of the bills is a pre-condition on which a cause of action can arise. On the aspect of refund of security deposit, Ld. Counsel has again referred to clause 17 and 45 of GCC to state that it was on account of plaintiff failure to complete the formalities, the same was not released as no occasion has arisen for the defendants to release the same. Ld. Counsel Shri Monga has also referred to the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court in New Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8053. On the point of consideration of the evidence in the judgment, Ld. Counsel has argued that the court cannot go beyond pleadings and the plaintiff has sufficient Digitally signed opportunity to cure the defect by moving an amendment application to MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
2025.08.27 GUPTA 16:50:12 CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 13 of 32 +0530 amend the plaint. Finally, he has argued that the plaintiff has failed to comply with the provisions of MCD Act in as much as notice u/s 478 of the Act has issued to the defendant corporation was defective and the plaintiff is not entitled to the interest on the outstanding amount and the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
(H) ANALYSIS & DETERMINATION:-
15. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsels for the parties, perused the entire record including the oral and documentary evidence. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the same. My issue-
wise determination is as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1 :
16. The onus of proving this issue is held upon the defendants who have taken a preliminary objection in the written statement that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as plaintiff has breached the terms of the Agreement (GCC) by not submitting the bills for release of payments.
On the other hand, the plaintiff has based its claim on copies of the bills Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/7 prepared and passed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff between the period 29.05.2020 to 28.07.2022.
17. Ld. Counsel for the defendants has vehemently taken only one stand in defence that the plaintiff has neither submitted the bills (interim Digitally or final) nor submitted any labour certificate to seek refund of the signed by Security Deposit, which he was contractually required to submit. It has MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.27 16:50:19 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 14 of 32 been sought to be argued that as per specific clause 7 and 9 of GCC as well as clause 4 of the work order, the contractor shall not be entitled for any payment if he does not submit the certificate of completion. Further, plaintiff was required to submit the final bill within one month of the date of the final certificate of completion furnished by the Engineer-in-charge or within three months of physical completion of the work, whichever is earlier.
18. Per Contra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the defendants have already passed the bills after which have completion of the work as per work order been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/2 to 7 and a copy of each bill has also been provided to the plaintiff which he has accepted the same after counter signing them and thus, clause 7 and 9 of the GCC have been duly complied with, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the amount of the bills as claimed, which the defendant is withholding without any justifiable reason. He has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Barahi Construction RFA (COMM) 6/2021 (Neutral citation:
2021/DHC/958-D) and the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Vipin Gupta RFA 160/2017 to support his point. He has further relied upon the judgment of Mr. Rajnish Yadav proprietor of M/s. Bharat Construction Company Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, RFA (OS) (COMM) 1/2021 (Neutral citation: 2023/DHC/000174) to argue that once the defendant had accepted the execution of the work by Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA the plaintiff as also after submission of the measurement duly entered in GUPTA Date:
2025.08.27 16:50:31 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 15 of 32 the Measurement Book even processed the bills pertaining to the work orders without any dispute whatsoever. The payment thereof cannot be withheld.
19. Before proceeding further, the court deems it appropriate to reproduce Clause 4 of work Order Ex.PW1/1 and Clauses 7 and 9 of the GCC Ex.PW1/9 which have been referred to and relied upon by both the parties:-
Clause 4 of Work order:
"It should be noted - (a) that as and when orders are given for execution of any extra/substitute item prior orders from the competent Authority to be obtained before execution of the same to avoid any further complications; (b) that contractor has to submit his RA/Final bill with measurement otherwise nothing will be consider due on account of work execution".
Clause 7 GCC: The contractor shall not be entitled to be paid any such interim payment if the "No payment shall be made for work estimated to cost Rs. Twenty thousand or less till after the whole of the work shall have been completed and certificate of completion given. For works estimated to cost over Rs. Twenty thousand, the interim or running account bills shall be submitted by the contractor for work executed on the basis of such recorded measurement on the format of the department in the triplicate on or before the date of every month of the fixed for the same by the Engineer-in-Charge. The contractor shall not be entitled to be paid any such interim payment if the gross work done together with the note payment/adjustment of advances of material collected., if any, since the last such payment is less then the amount specified in Schedule 'F' in For works estimated to cost over Rs. Twenty thousand, the interim or running account bills shall be submitted by the contractor for work executed on the basis of such recorded Digitally signed by measurement on the format of the department in the MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA triplicate on or before the date of every month of the fixed GUPTA Date:
2025.08.27 16:50:38 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 16 of 32 for the same by the Engineer-in-Charge.which case the interim bill shall be prepared on the appointed date of month after the requisite progress is achieved. Engineer-in Charge shall arrange to have the bill verified by taking or causing to be taken, where nece The contractor shall not be entitled to be paid any such interim payment if the ssary, the requisite measurement of the work. In the event of the failure of the contractor to s The contractor shall not be entitled to be paid any such interim payment if the ubmit the bills progress is achieved. Eng The contractor shall not be entitled to be paid any such interim payment if the ineer-in-charge shall prepare or cause to be prepared such bills in which event no The contractor shall not be entitled to be paid any such interim payment if the claims whatsoever due to delays on payment including that of interest shall be payable to the contract. Payment on account of admissible shall be made by the Engineer-in-charge certifying the sum to which the contractor is considered entitled by way of interim payment at such rates as decided by the Engineer-in-charge of his Asstt. Engineer together with the account of the material as issued by the department, The contractor shall not be entitled to be paid any such interim payment if the or dismantled materials, if any. The payment of For works estimated to cost over Rs. Twenty thousand, the inte The contractor shall not be entitled to be paid any such interim payment if the rim or running account bills shall be submitted by the contractor for work executed on the basis of such recorded measurement on the format of the department in the triplicate on or before the date of every month of the fixed for the same by the Engineer-in-Charge.passed bills will be subject to availability of funds in particular head of account from time to time in MCD. Payment of bills shall be made strictly on Queue basis i.e. first and past liabilities will be cleared and after that the release of payment for passed bills be in order of the demand received at HQ under particular head of accounts. No interest shall be payable to the contractor in case of delay in For works estimated to cost over Rs. Twenty thousand, the interim or running account bills shall be submitted by the contractor for work executed on the basis of such recorded measurement on the format of the department in the triplicate on or before the date of every Digitally month of the fixed for the same by the Engineer-in- MUKESH signed by MUKESH KUMAR Charge.payment on account of non-availability of fund in the KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date: particular head of account of the MCD." 2025.08.27 16:50:45 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 17 of 32 Section 9 of GCC "The final bill shall be submitted by the contractor in the same manner as specified in interim bills within three months of physical completion of the work or within one month of the date of the final certificate of completion furnished by the Engineer-in-charge whichever is earlier. Nor further claims shall be made by the contractor after submission of the final bill and these shall be deemed to have been waived and extinguished. Payment of those items of the bill in respect of which there is no dispute and of items in dispute, for quantities and rates as approved by Engineer-in-charge, will, as far as possible be made after the period specified here-in-under the period being reckoned from the date of receipt of bill by the Engineer-in-charge or his authorized Asstt. Engineer, complete with account of material issued by the department and dismantled. The payment of passed bills will depend on availability of funds in particular head of account from time to time in MCD. Payment of bills shall be made strictly on Queue basis i.e. first the past liability will be cleared and after that the release of payment for passed bills will be in order of the demand received at the HQ and the particular head of account. No interest shall be payable to the contractor in case of delay in payment on account of non-availability of fund in the particular head of account of MCD.
(i) If the tendered value of work is upto Rs.5 lacs : 6 months.
(ii) If the tendered value of work exceeds Rs.5 lacs :
9 months." (emphasis supplied)
20. A bare perusal of the aforementioned clauses, inter alia, shows that submission of bills alongwith the measurements is an essential pre requisite to claim the payment for the executed work. Further, if the bills have not been submitted by the contractor, the Engineer-in-charge can prepare the bills and in that event no interest shall be payable for delayed payment by the defendant no. 1 corporation. Furthermore, the contractor has to submit the final bill within three months of physical completion of work or within one month from the date of final certificate of completion furnished by the Engineer-in-Charge after submission of the bill, Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA whichever is earlier. Therefore, submission of final bill by the contractor GUPTA Date:
2025.08.27 16:50:55 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 18 of 32 is a sine qua non to claim the payment for the completed work. The Hon'ble Delhi in North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar (supra) has issued various guidelines for payment of bills of contractor including the guidelines to submit the bills by the contractor. The Hon'ble Court in para No.93 has succinctly held that it is necessary and important that all the steps of the contract are followed by the contractors and the corporation. The Hon'ble court has issued the following guidelines: -
"1. Along with the work order, all the Clauses of the General Conditions of Contract should be attached;
2. On the award of the Work order, periodic inspections of the work being carried out should be done by the Engineer-in-Charge;
3. If possible, photographs of the works at different stages should be taken and maintained on the record;
4. Interim bills should be submitted by the Contractor - duly certifying the work which has been carried out;
5. Final bills should be submitted by the Contractor - duly certifying the work carried out along with photographs;
6. The Bill should be scrutinised by the Engineer-in-Charge, works should be recorded in the measurement book and thereafter, the bill should be passed;
7. Once the Bill is passed, the payment schedule of 6 months and 9 months should be adhered to. Delay in payments would result in Interest being levied;
8. For refunds of Security deposit and Earnest Money deposit, the Contractor should unscrupulously comply with the conditions in Clauses 17 and 45. For refunds to be made, payment of final bill need not be Digitally signed by MUKESH awaited. Once the conditions of Clauses 17 and 45 are complied with and MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
the final bill is passed, refunds ought to be made; GUPTA 2025.08.27 16:51:07 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 19 of 32
9. In suits relating to recovery of Contractor's dues, all the evidence including the NIT, General Conditions of Contract, periodic inspection reports, Final bill as submitted, Final bill as passed, Measurements carried out, Photographs etc., should be produced and duly exhibited.
10. IT infrastructure ought to be created to maintain records of the work orders, inspection reports, final bills, photographs etc., digitally, as it is noticed that the trial court record does not contain all the relevant documents and in several cases, different versions of clauses are relied upon by both sides, bills are not properly understandable and there is no evidence of actual inspections or measurements having been taken. Maintenance of digital records will make it more transparent and easily accessible for the officials and for production in the Court in case of future litigation."
21. Applying the aforesaid legal preposition to the instant case, the plaintiff in the plaint has contended that the defendant no.2 has not only completed the final measurement and recorded it into the measurement books but has also prepared and passed the running bills as well as the final bill pertaining to the W.O 24 and the same has been accepted by the plaintiff. Further, the Plaintiff, PW1, during his cross examination, has admitted that he has neither submitted any running bills nor the final bill in the MCD Department/ defendant no.1 as per the GCC. He has also admitted non submission of any Labour Clearance Certificate in the department. A suo motu preparation of bills by the defendant no.2 and acceptance thereof by the plaintiff cannot be considered as bills submitted by the plaintiff in compliance of clause 7 or 9 of GCC Ex.PW1/9. It is the plaintiff who has the legal and the contractual obligation to submit his own running bills as well as the final bill and the failure thereof shall necessarily attract the legal consequences.
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.27
16:51:14
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 20 of 32
22. In view of the above, this court is of considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to submit the running bill as well as the final bill. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
ISSUE NO. 2.
23. The onus of proving this issue was held upon the plaintiff who has examined himself as PW1 and filed his affidavit by way of evidence as Ex.PW1/A. This issue is pivotal to the entire controversy between the parties as the same relates to entitlement of the plaintiff. It is pertinent to note that there is no dispute regarding the award of contract Ex.PW1/1, completion of work within stipulated time, labour complaint or any other issue regarding the satisfactory work being completed except the alleged non-filing of bills and resultant non-compliance of GCC. The defendants have taken only one stand in defence that since the plaintiff has not submitted the bills which he was contractually required to submit, he is not entitled to any payment as per specific clauses 7 and 9 of GCC Ex.PW1/9 as well as clause 4 of the work order Ex.PW1/1. The plaintiff was required to submit the final bill within one month of the date of the final certificate of completion furnished by the Engineer-in-charge or within three months of physical completion of the work whichever is earlier. Ld. Counsel for defendant has further relied upon North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar (supra) to submit that on account of plaintiff's failure to complete the formalities under Digitally signed by MUKESH clause 17 and 45 of GCC, the security deposit could also be not released MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.27 16:51:22 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 21 of 32 in favour of the plaintiff.
24. On the other hand, the plaintiff has pressed upon the fact that the defendants had already passed the requisite bills Ex.PW-1/2 to 7, copies of which were also provided to the plaintiff who had accepted the same after counter signing the same, therefore, the clause 7 and 9 of the GCC were duly complied with and as such, the plaintiff is entitled for the amount of the final bill as claimed as well as the remaining security deposit which the defendants are withholding without any justifiable reason and even passing of the same. It has been contended that since the defendants had duly accepted the execution of the work by the plaintiff and after due satisfaction entered the same in Measurement Book and finally bills pertaining to the work order were processed by the defendants without any dispute whatsoever, imperatively the defendants were under the liability to pay the remaining security deposit and as well as the amount of final bill.
25. If the contentions of the parties are duly considered in the light of evidence led, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff was awarded WO No.24 dated 21.02.2019 (Ex.PW1/1) by the defendant No.2 for and on behalf of Defendant no.1 Corporation, the precondition earnest money was also deposited by the plaintiff and the said works were also duly executed. It is also not in dispute that the defendant No.2 has completed the final measurement of the executed work and recorded the same in measurement book and on the basis of that suo motu prepared and passed Digitally the bills Ex.PW1/2 to 7, a copy of which was also given to the plaintiff signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.27 16:51:30 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 22 of 32 after its due acceptance by the plaintiff. The same contains not only the details of the work done, rates on which the work was done but also the actual amount due, to be paid by the defendant corporation to the plaintiff. The only question which has been raised by the defendants is that since there is non-filing of the interim and final bill by the plaintiff, he is not entitled to the pending amount of the 6 th and final bill as well as the remaining security deposit.
26. According to the plaintiff, bills Ex.PW1/2 to 7 have been passed for Rs.25,59,671/-, 17,84,911/-, 13,96,111/-, Rs.5,06,003/- Rs.6,15,180/- and Rs.76,434/- on 29.05.2020, 29.10.2020, 27.01.2021, 26.03.2021, 29.06.2021 and 28.07.2022 respectively qua WO No. 24 and the earnest amount for the same work of Rs.2,77,694/-, Rs.2,09,989/-, Rs.1,64,213/-, Rs.59,530/-, Rs.1,01,738/- and Rs.10,388/- respectively have also been deposited as precondition and compliance of the tender document. The testimony of PW1 in this regard is not only clear and categoric but has also not been breached during cross-examination.
27. The defendants on the other hand, have objected that no bill was ever submitted by the plaintiff in respect of the Work Order No. 24 for clearance and payment to the defendant corporation. If the cross- examination of DW1 Shri Jitander Pandey, AE (Project) is carefully examined, he has not only admitted the execution of the works as per the NIT specification but has also admitted that the bills regarding the work order No. 24 have been passed on the basis of Measurement Book. He Digitally signed by MUKESH has also admitted that the defendants have even during the pendency of MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.27 CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 23 of 32 16:51:44 +0530 suit released the amount of Rs.6,79,517/- Rs.13,95,811/-, Rs.5,06,003/- and Rs.6,15,180/- on 18.06.2025 and also admitted that the 6 th and final bill amount of Rs.76,434/- and the remaining security amount of Rs.4,15,812/- had not been released. It is to be kept in mind that the aforesaid amounts released during pendency of the suit and admitted by DW1 during his cross-examination was in additional to the bill amount of Rs.40,72,805/- already released and admitted by the plaintiff as being credited in his accounts through RTGS on 12.03.2021, 25.10.2022 and 07.10.2022 in three tranches. As such a whopping amount of Rs.72,69,316/- has already been released by the defendants towards the work order Ex.PW1/1, albeit without submission of any interim or final bills.
28. If the documents purported to be called bills by the plaintiff and internal notings by the defendants Ex.PW1/2 to 7 are carefully scrutinized and as already discussed, they contain not only the details of work, rates on which the work was completed but also the total amounts of each bill against the work order. These bills have been signed by the concerned AE, the Assistant Account Officer and even the Executive Engineer on behalf of the Commissioner MCD which clearly indicates that all the bills have been duly approved by the competent officers of the defendant No.1 corporation, who are duly authorised not only to verify and check the same but also to approve the same. The bills have also been signed by the Contractor, the plaintiff herein as a mark of his acceptance/acknowledgement. These bills are admittedly based on the Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA measurement book which contain the details and particulars of work GUPTA Date:
2025.08.27 16:51:51 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 24 of 32 done which are duly cross-checked by the officers of defendant No.1 corporation after physical verification at the site. Admittedly, these bills have also been given to the plaintiff after taking his signatures thereupon. It is not the case of the defendants that these bills Ex.PW1/2 to 7 has been obtained by the contractor through illegitimate means or through illegal access. It is unfathomable for the court to understand as to how the defendant No.1 corporation will reach this stage of preparation, cross-verification and approval of bills against work order without the necessary formalities including the submission of bills (both interim and final) being submitted/completed by the plaintiff/contractor.
29. It is further not in dispute and rather an admitted fact during cross- examination of DW1 Shri Jitander Pandey that the bills Ex.PW1/2 to 7 were passed by the defendants on the basis of measurement book. It is also an admitted case of the defendants that there is no labour complaint pending or received against the plaintiff in respect of the work orders in question. Thus, taken comprehensively the defendants have though admitted the satisfactory execution of work covered by the work order Ex.PW1/1 by the plaintiff but are denying the claim of the plaintiff on the ground of non-submission of bills taking it to be a pre-condition for payment and breach of contractual obligation under GCC. Interestingly, the same has been done in the wake of the fact that the defendants have not only passed but released a substantial amount of Rs. 40,72,805/- before filing of the suit in 3 tranches and another Rs.31,96,511/- in four tranches after filing of the suit. As such, there is clear admission of Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA completion of work without any complaint or lack of compliance and KUMAR GUPTA Date:
2025.08.27 16:51:57 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 25 of 32 even the liability by the corporation. However, at the same time, the plaintiff has approached the court of law for enforcement of its contractual rights and is required to show compliance of his contractual obligations besides showing his bonafide as one who seeks equity must do equity first. In terms of clause 7 and clause 9 of GCC and clause 4 of the work order and in the teeth of judgment of our Hon'ble High Court laying clear guidelines in Sanjeev Kumar (supra), the plaintiff was mandatorily required to submit the interim/final bill in the prescribed format as a pre-condition for enforcing his claim. The non-submission of bills by the plaintiff in breach of clause 7 and clause 9 of GCC and clause 4 of the work order has its own consequences. It is also a fact that the act of the defendant No.2 in passing the bills suo motu, on the basis of Measurement Book is an act of the defendant No.1 corporation and cannot be considered as bills so as to substitute or obviate the pre-
conditon for submission of the bills by the contractor.
30. Before finally deciding the entitlement of the plaintiff to the amount claimed after adjusting the amount already received prior to filing of the suit and post filing thereof, the court must also deal with the contention of the defendants that for the claimed amount of Rs.72,08,236/- as per pleadings of the plaintiff, the defendants have already paid a sum of Rs.72,69,316/- and though there is admission of liability of outstanding amount of Rs.76,434/- towards the 6 th and final bill and Rs.4,15,812/- towards the remaining earnest money amount, the plaintiff cannot claim any amount beyond what has been pleaded in the MUKESH by Digitally signed MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA pleadings as the parties cannot travel beyond the pleadings by raising KUMAR Date:
2025.08.27 GUPTA 16:52:04 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 26 of 32 evidence beyond pleadings. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has, during the course of arguments, submitted that the amount of calculation mentioned in the pleadings is actually a clerical mistake in totalling of the bills/security amounts which were actually to the tune of Rs.77,61,862/- as per the pleadings in para No.5 of the plaint itself which, however, reflects a wrong calculation to the tune of Rs.72,08,236/- and as sjuch is a curable defect which should not be allowed to defeat the ends of justice. In this regard, though, it is a settled principle of law that the parties to the suit cannot travel beyond the pleadings, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramathal and Ors. Vs. K. Rajamani (Dead) through L.Rs and Ors. MANU/SC/0897/2023 has held that the court may consider a case not specifically pleaded if it is satisfied that the parties were aware of the issue and led evidence thereon. This is contingent upon the parties having a fair opportunity to address the matter during the trial.
31. In the present case, the amount of each bill mentioned in the plaint has been duly corroborated with the bills Ex.PW1/2 to 7 as produced on record. The plaintiff has committed a mathematical error in calculating the gross total amount of the bills in the plaint. Though, the plaintiff has sufficient opportunity to move an appropriate application to amend the plaint yet the error is not of a nature which cannot be cured in the interest of justice. Therefore, in the fairness of things and justice, the court is of the considered opinion that the total amount of the bills Digitally MUKESH signed by MUKESH KUMAR including the security deposit is Rs.77,61,862/-.
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.08.27
16:52:11
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 27 of 32
32. Further, Rs.40,72,805/- has been received by the plaintiff through RTGS before filing of the suit and the same has also been admitted in his cross-examination and also admission denial of documents. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has also received an amount of Rs.31,96,511/- in four tranches of Rs.6,79,617/-, Rs.13,95,811/-, Rs.5,06,003/- and Rs.6,15,180/- on 18.06.2025 through RTGS which has been admitted by the DW1, Shri Jitander Pandey in his cross- examination towards the suit amount. Thus, plaintiff has received total amount of Rs.72,69,316/- out of total outstanding amount was of Rs.77,61,862/-. This amount includes the refund of part security deposit which has been made by the defendants from time to time. Admittedly, there are no labour complaints and the defect liability period has already passed. The Hon'ble High Court in Sanjeev Kumar Case (supra) has also held that for refunds of security deposit and earnest deposit amount, the payment of final bill need not be awaited once the condition of clause 17 and 45 are complied with. As such, the plaintiff shall be entitled to the outstanding security deposit amount as admitted by the defendants during cross-examination of DW1.
33. Accordingly, the plaintiff can only claim the remaining amount of Rs.4,92,546/- (including earnest money and the final bill amount of Rs.76,434/-). However, DW1 Shri Jitander Pandey has admitted in his cross-examination that the defendant No.1 corporation has not released the 6th and Final bill amount of Rs.76,434/- and the remaining security amount of Rs.4,15,812/- till date. On the basis of this admission, the Digitally plaintiff shall be entitled to the amount of Rs. 4,92,246/- despite absence signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.27 CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 28 of 32 16:52:19 +0530 of specific pleadings to this effect.
34. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no.3:
35. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed pendentelite and future interest @ 12% per annum on the claimed amount of Rs.40,79,522/- from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
36. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that defendants have illegally withheld the amount of bills as the plaintiff has successfully executed the awarded work. The defendants have not only passed the bills Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.Pw1/7 but also released the entire outstanding amount of the bills in respect of the W.O. No.24 except the 6 th and final bill. It is further argued that the plaintiff has suffered financial losses as defendants have failed to release the payments within a period of 6/9 months as required under clause 9 of GCC and hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the interest on the delayed payment. Ld. Counsel for the defendants on the other hand, has staunchly refuted the same on the ground of non-compliance of terms and conditions of GCC and has argued that the cause of action to claim the interest does not arise in favour of the plaintiff at all on account of his failure to submit the Digitally signed running as well as the final bills.
by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
2025.08.27
GUPTA 16:52:26
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 29 of 32
37. The clause 7 of the GCC specifically provides that for works estimated to cost over Rs.20,000/-, the interim or running account bills shall be submitted by the contractor for work executed on the basis of such recorded measurement on the format of the department in the triplicate on or before the date of every month of the fixed for the same by the Engineer-in-Charge and if the contractor fails to comply with the same, he shall not be entitled to any claim of interest payable to the contract. As already discussed and in view of judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court in North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar (supra), the contractor/plaintiff is under a mandtory contractual obligation to submit the interim bills as well as the final bill and these bills should be scrutinized by the Engineer-in-Charge, works should be recorded in the measurement book and only thereafter, the bills should be passed. It is clear from the aforesaid that interest shall accrue only when the plaintiff submits the bills to the defendants, however, as already discussed and determined in Issue No1, the plaintiff has admittedly failed to do so. The plaintiff has even admitted in his cross-examination as PW1 that he has not submitted any running bills or the final bill. As discussed earlier, under GCC, the contractor is mandatorily required to submit its own running/final bill and preparation and passing of any bills suo motu by the defendants is an internal act of the defendants that cannot substitute or obviate the contractual need of filing the bills by the contractor/plaintiff even if the same has been accepted by the plaintiff by signing upon it. Therefore, no right to claim Digitally any interest accrues in favour of the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff is signed by not in a position to claim any pre-suit interest on the outstanding amount MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.27
16:52:34
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 30 of 32 as well as any pendentelite and future interest.
38. Thus, on taken on the yardstick of preponderance of probabilities and on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus of proving the issue No.3 casted upon him.
39. In view of the above findings, the issue No.3 is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
(I) CONCLUSION:-
ISSUE No.4: Relief.
40. In view of the aforesaid discussions and finding of the court on the aforesaid issues, the court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has been able to successfully prove its entitlement to the extent of Rs.4,92,246/- against the defendants which the defendants shall pay within 60 days of the date of this judgment, failing which the plaintiff shall also be entitled to an interest @ 7.5% per annum on the aforesaid amount for the period of delay. The suit of the plaintiff is, accordingly partly decreed against the defendants.
41. In the specific facts and circumstances of the case, both parties shall bear their own respective costs.
Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.27
42. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
16:52:41 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 31 of 32
43. File be consigned to record room after due completion.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT . Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH
ON THIS 27th AUGUST, 2025.
KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.27
16:52:48
+0530
(MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA)
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMM. COURT)-07
CENTRAL/DELHI
CS (Comm.) No. 421/2024 Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi & Anr. Page no. 32 of 32