Delhi District Court
Apex Security And Surveillance System ... vs Habitat India on 14 December, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA, CIVIL JUDGE03(SOUTH),
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Suit no. 794/10
Unique ID no. 02406C0157282011
IN THE MATTER OF:
Apex Security and Surveillance System Pvt. Ltd.
M35 Palika Bhawan,
R.K. Puram, Sector13, New Delhi. ......Plaintiff
Versus
1. Habitat India
C3, Qutab Institutional Area,
Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi.
2. Anant Raj Industries (Pvt) Ltd.
E2, A.R.A. Centre
Jhandewalan Centre, New Delhi. ......Defendant
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 04.06.2009
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 29.11.2011
DATE OF DECISION : 14.12.2011
ORDER
(On application under Order 12 rule 6 CPC) This order shall dispose of application of the plaintiff C.S. No.794/10 1 of 6 under Order 12 rule 6 CPC.
It is submitted by the plaintiff that in the WS in para (a) and (b) the defendants have admitted the outstanding amount. In the WS, defendant no. 2 has admitted that plaintiff has installed control Access system in the premises as directed by the defendants. Relevant para reads as follows: "It is admitted positions of the plaintiff that the Access Control System was installed and commissioned at premises of defendant no.1"
Plaintiff further submits that MCD sealed the premises of defendants for violating the sanctioned building plan, hence the Time Attendance Software was not inoculated in the said premises. The defendants can not complain that maintenance services was not provided by the plaintiff as and when required by defendant no.1. Bills were raised when all the hardware was installed and work checked and the plaintiff were to install software finally. The plaintiff has further contended that the defendants have admitted the said amount as per the legal notice.
The defendant no. 1 and 2 have filed reply to this application separately. Defendant no.1 has submitted that there is no C.S. No.794/10 2 of 6 clear and unambiguous admissions submitted by the plaintiff. The defendant no.1 admits that plaintiff was assigned the work for commissioning of the access control system at the premises of defendant no.1. However the plaintiff could complete 25% of the work assignment when the premises was sealed by MCD and the premises is still sealed. The defendant has also admitted that letter dated 10.06.2006 was issued to the plaintiff by defendant no.1. The plaintiff sent quotation dated 04.04.2006 and letter dated 10.06.2006 was sent in reply to that quotation. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.39,324/ was paid to the plaintiff towards 25% advance payment. The defendant has denied that he has received any letter dated 30.12.2009. Further the defendant has denied all allegations/contentions of the plaintiff in the aforesaid application. The defendant no.2 in its reply has submitted that there was no transaction between the plaintiff and defendant no.2. Further defendant has denied the contentions of the plaintiff in the application under Order 12 rule 6 CPC.
The plaintiff has filed the present suit, on the premise that the defendant no.1 and 2 met plaintiff and stated to the plaintiff that defendant no. 1 is subsidiary of defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 1 is a Pvt. Limited company. Both the defendants are interested in C.S. No.794/10 3 of 6 installation of security system in building at C3 Qutub Institutional Area , New Delhi.
The defendant no. 1 and 2 after being satisfied with the product of plaintiff and also about cost of the product, the defendants held meeting with the plaintiff for certain changes and finally placed an order to the plaintiff for installment of Control Access System at the premises of defendant no. 1 and 2 building. The plaintiff carried out the work of Control Access System at the site of Defendant no. 1 and 2. The defendant no. 1 and 2 gave a cheque of Rs.39,324/ dated 07.06.2006 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff finally gave bill of security system that was installed by the plaintiff at the premises of defendant no. 1 and 2. Plaintiff requested for payment, the defendant no. 1 and 2 did not adhere to its commitment regarding payment. The said building of the defendant no. 1 and 2 got sealed where the plaintiff had installed the security system for violation of Building Bye Laws of MCD. The defendant no. 1 and 2 requested the plaintiff for giving some time as defendant no. 1 and 2 had to face financial crises as defendants could not sell the premises due to sealing done by the local authorities. The plaintiff sent letter dated 30.10.2008 which was delivered to the defendant no. 1 and 2. The plaintiff also sent letter C.S. No.794/10 4 of 6 dated 18.04.2007 requesting for balance payment. Despite that defendant has failed to make the payment. Hence the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
The defendant no.1 has filed WS taking objection that the suit has not been filed by duly authorized person and defendant has also taken objection that plaintiff suppressed material fact of completion of work. It is alleged by the defendant that the plaintiff did not provide training to the designated officials of the defendant for operating system nor has provided any service during the warranty period after commissioning of access control system. It is submitted by defendant no. 1 as per work order 25 % was to be paid in advance and balance of 70 % was to be made within one month after completion of work and balance of 5% was to be retained by the defendant as security deposit till the expiry of warranty period. It is also submitted that the property under reference was sealed by MCD in the year 2006 and the defendant has made payment of 25% of the contract amount. The plaintiff has failed to complete the work due to sealing of premises. Due to sealing defendant has not been able to measure the incomplete work and has not been able to measure or quantify the damages. However the defendant has denied all the C.S. No.794/10 5 of 6 allegations of th plaintiff in the plaint.
Defendant no. 2 has also filed WS and has taken same preliminary objections as taken by defendant no.l. It is also submitted by defendant no.2 that defendant no.1 is a cultural society and defendant no. 2 is a limited company. Both defendants are separate legal bodies and there is no dealing between the plaintiff and defendant no. 2.
In Jeevan Diesels and Electronicals Ltd. Vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) and Ors IV (2010) SLT 306, Hon'ble Court has held that judgment out not to be signed upon admissions in a pleading or an affidavit, unless the admissions are clear and unequivocal.
In the present suit, it is the contention of defendant no. 1 that only 25% work was completed and not 90% as argued by the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff. Pleadings show that there is no express or constructive admissions on the part of the defendants so as to entitle the plaintiff for a judgment and decree. Hence the application under Order 12 rule 6 CPC is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court
on 14.12.2011 (NEHA)
Civil Judge03(South)
New Delhi.
C.S. No.794/10 6 of 6