Delhi District Court
Sh.Manoj Kumar vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 29 July, 2024
1
DLST010057572022
Presented on : 04-07-2022
Registered on : 14-07-2022
Decided on : 29-07-2024
Duration : 2 years, 0 months, 25 days
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT) (DIGITAL-04),
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer: Sh. SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH
CS (COMM.) NO.411/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
Manoj Kumar
Sole Proprietor of M/s Manoj Kumar
H.No. 148, Village Chandan Haula,
Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030
....... Plaintiff
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Formerly South Delhi Municpal Corporation
Through Its Commissioner
Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002
......Defendant
Digitally signed
SANJEEV by SANJEEV
KUMAR SINGH
KUMAR Date:
SINGH 2024.07.29
16:01:39 +0530
Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly
SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022
2
Date of institution : 14.07.2022
Date of Judgment : 29.07.2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking recovery of Rs.56,88,452 along with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER:-
2. The version of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a Contractor and Sole Proprietor of M/s Manoj Kumar and has been executing various works of the defendant corporation for the last so many years; that plaintiff is duly registered with the defendant corporation; that till date plaintiff had executed works worth lacs of rupees to the satisfaction of the defendant corporation. Earlier there was three wings of the corporation i.e. SDMC, NDMC & EDMC but the same has now been converted into one i.e MCD which was there in existence prior to its bifurcation in three zones.
3. It is further the version of the plaintiff that the work under the name and style "Construction of Central Market Nallah D-IInd Culvert to K-llnd BRT Parking Madangir in Ward No. 182/SZ" was awarded to the plaintiff vide Work Order No. BE (M-SZ-III)/SYS/2018-2019/85 dated 28.5.2018 for the contractual amount of Rs.58,24,330/- by the Executive Engineer of the defendant corporation; that the same was thereafter revised to Rs.60,77,000/-; that at the time of submission of tender an amount of Rs.1,34,093/- was SANJEEV Digitally by SANJEEV signed KUMAR Date: 2024.07.29 KUMAR SINGH Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SINGH 16:01:46 +0530 SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 3 also deposited by the plaintiff as earnest money. Thereafter agreement was also executed between the parties.
4. It is further the version of the plaintiff that the work was required to be completed within 6 months. Keeping in consideration the value of the work to be executed and also the period of completion, the plaintiff geared up the entire resources for execution of the work However before deploying them at the site, the same was inspected by the plaintiff. After inspection it was noticed by the plaintiff that huge quantity of silt, in the nallah up to 3 feet above the ground level was lying accumulated at site, because of the adjoining nallah. The said silt was lying on the entire site.
5. It is further averred that this being the situation the plaintiff requested the Jr. Engineer and Asstt. Engineer of the defendant for visiting the site; that both the concerned engineers visited the site in the 1st week of June 2018. They were shown the entire site with this accumulated silt and the plaintiff made clear to them that in removing the same, the plaintiff had to incur huge expenses. It was further brought to their notice that there is no item in the BOQ for removal of the same; that thereupon the Asstt. Engineer of the defendant told the plaintiff that the item will be prepared for removal of the silt and the entire quantity on measurement will be paid to the plaintiff at the prevailing market rate. In view of said assurance of the concerned engineer, the plaintiff started the work of removal of silt by deploying at the site the JCB, dumper and trucks for disposal of the same. The disposal was done at the approved site which is at the distance of 10 Kms from the site of work. After starting the work of removal of silt SANJEEV Digitally signed by SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH KUMAR Date: 2024.07.29 Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SINGH 16:01:54 +0530 SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 4 from the running nallah, because of heavy rain whatever silt was excavated and taken out from the nallah, again the nallah was filled in with the collected silt.
6. It is further the version of the plaintiff that this was again brought to the notice of the Jr. Engineer and Asstt. Engineer by getting the site inspected by them; that the concerned Executive Engineer was also kind enough to visit the site and ascertain the factual position. The situation being very delicate, he advised the plaintiff to start the work only after 15.8.2018 to avoid any repetition of the situation. In view of the aforesaid situation and the item of removal of silt not being in the BOQ item, the department was requested to prepare the item immediately. Huge amount was required to be incurred in removal of the silt before starting the work; that the period of 6 months of completion also expired in November 2018 but because of the aforesaid situation the plaintiff could not complete the work of construction of nallah; that the plaintiff regularly by way of letters informed the defendant department that until and unless the item for the removal of silt is passed and rate is fixed the work of construction of nallah cannot be started. In this regard letter dated 03.08.2018 was served in the office of the Executive Engineer on 07.08.2018.
7. It is further the version of the plaintiff that there was no delay in execution of the work by the plaintiff but due to the hindrances as mentioned above; that the plaintiff vide his letter dated 01.10.2018 again made the request to the defendant for doing the needful. The said letter was delivered in the office of the Executive Engineer against acknowledgement on the same date i.e. 01.10.2018 SANJEEV followed by letters Digitally signed by SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH KUMAR Date: 2024.07.29 Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SINGH 16:02:10 +0530 SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 5 dated 13.12.2018 duly served on 28.12.2018, letter dated 08.01.2019 duly served on 08.01.2019, letter dated 09.12.2019 duly served on 12.02.2019, letter dated 09.04.2019 duly served on 09.04.2019, letter dated 13.05.2019 duly served on 14.05.2019, letter dated 07.06.2019 duly served on 07.06.2019, letter dated 11.07.2019 duly served on 11.07.2019 & 17.07.2019, letter dated 26.11.2019 duly served on 26.11.2019, letter dated 16.12.2019 duly served on 19.12.2019, letter dated 20.12.2019 duly served on 20.12.2019, letter dated 04.01.2020 duly served on 06.01.2020, letter dated 13.03.2020 duly served on 16.3.2020, letter dated 29.9.2020 duly served on 29.09.2020.
8. It is further the version of the plaintiff that the plaintiff completed the entire work as awarded to him in terms of the Work Order in question; that as per the completion certificates issued in respect of the BOQ items, Rs.27,90,666/-is payable and in respect of removal of silt an amount of Rs.12,90,000/-is payable. Apart from the same the plaintiff also incurred an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- towards labour charges for removing dumped silt from the site of the work. Thus, the total amount qua silt work comes to Rs.14,10,000/- apart from balance amount of Rs.27,90,666/- towards original work; that during the course of execution of work 4 RA bills were prepared by the defendant but despite execution of the work to the satisfaction of the department Rs.10,000/-was withheld for reasons best known to the defendant.
9. It is further stated that during the execution of work the defendant corporation prepared 4 RA bills of the plaintiff and details of Digitally signed SANJEEV by SANJEEV the same are as follows:- KUMAR SINGH KUMAR Date:
SINGH 2024.07.29 16:02:17 +0530 Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 6
(i) 1st RA Bill was prepared for gross amount of Rs. 7,41,174/-. an after making statutory deductions the same was passed for an amount of Rs.6,30,484/- on 13.05.2019. It is submitted that from the said bill an amount of Rs.74,174/-was deducted towards security.
(ii) 2nd RA Bill was prepared for gross amount of Rs.19,22,350/-and after making statutory deductions the same was passed for an amount of Rs.17,78,395/- on 31.01.2020. It is submitted that from the said bill an amount of Rs.58,135/-was deducted towards security.
(iii) 3rd RA Bill was prepared for gross amount of Rs. 14,36,600/- and after making statutory deductions the same was passed for an amount of Rs.12,28,805/- on 26.02.2020. It is submitted that from the said bill an amount of Rs.1,43,660/-was deducted towards security.
(iv) 4th RA Bill was prepared for gross amount of Rs.18,77,767/- and from the same an amount of Rs.10,000/-was illegally withheld by the department and after making statutory deductions the same was passed for an amount of Rs.15,96,160/- on 07.08.2020. It is submitted that from the said bill an amount of Rs.1,87,777/- was deducted towards security.
10. It is further averred that the plaintiff ultimately completed the entire work by August 2020 and completion ceriificate was issued by the Executive Engineer (M-Ill) SZ and Asstt. Engineer-I. With this Completion Certificate the Certificate of the Area MLA was also enclosed; that utilization ce1iificate was also issued by the Executive Engineer (M-Ill), SZ and Asst. Engineer-I. The certificate issued by Sh. Ajay Dutt, MLA, Ambedkar Nagar was also enclosed with the same. SANJEEV Digitally signed by SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2024.07.29 SINGH 16:02:41 +0530 Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 7
11. It is further averred that the plaintiff by his various letters as mentioned hereinabove and last one dated 22.2.2021 requested for payment of his due amount and the said letter was duly served in the office of the Executive engineer against the acknowledgement on 02.03.2021; that the total amount due and payable to the plaintiff is as follows:-
(i) Net payment of Rs.27,90,666/-against the BOQ quantities and work executed and admitted by the defendant.
(ii) Security amount of Rs.4,63,746/-deducted from the RA bills of the plaintiff.
(iii) Earnest money of Rs.1,34,093/-deposited at the time of submission of tender.
(iv) Release of illegal withheld amount of Rs. 10,000/-.
(v) Payment of extra item of removal of silt i.e. Rs.12,90,000/-.
(vi) Labour charges in removing the extra item of silt i.e. Rs. 1,20,000/-.
12. It is further pleaded that when despite repeated personal visits and requests when the defendant failed to make the payment, the Plaintiff thus got served the Legal Notice dated 7.7.2021 under Section 478 of Delhi Municipal Defendant Act on the commissioner of the defendant demanding his due payment with interest. The said notice was sent through speed post on 9.7.2021. Despite the service of the said notice on the defendant, payment of the Plaintiff has not been made. The payment is the consideration for the work done.
Digitally signedSANJEEV by SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH KUMAR Date:
SINGH 2024.07.29 16:02:48 +0530 Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 8
13. It is further averred that the defendant is also liable for payment of interest @ 12% p.a. on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 48,08,505/-and details are as under:
i. Interest on amount of Rs. 42,10,666/-
i.e. amount as mentioned in para 12(i)
(iv), (v) & (vi) from 7.8.20 till 31.3.22 (602 days) Rs.8,33,365/-
ii. Interest on amount of Rs. 5,97,839/- i.e. amount as mentioned in Para 12 (ii) & (iii) from 7.8.21 till 31.3.22 (237 days) Rs. 46,582/-
TOTAL Rs.8,79,947/-
14. It is further averred that this is a commercial transaction and thus is a commercial dispute as defined under section 2(1)(c)(vi) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015; that the plaintiff also filed pre-litigation mediation but the defendant department did not participate in the same and thus resulting into non-starter report dated 17.1.2022.
15. The defendant filed its written statement contending inter alia that the captioned suit is liable to be dismissed as the same is premature, without any cause of action and on account of delay in completion; that the plaintiff has approached this court with unclean hands and concealed that it is a material breach of the agreement between the parties that disentitle him from any relief as sought. It is further pleaded that as per the said Work Orders the relevant terms and conditions make it clear that General Conditions of Contract and Digitally signed by SANJEEV SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2024.07.29 Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SINGH 16:02:56 +0530 SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 9 Special Conditions of Contract shall be applicable and referred clause 7 and 9 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) as well as Clause 14 of the Work Order; that removal of accumulated silt was the part of the contract.
16. It is further contended that the execution of the work in question was delayed by the plaintiff as per the Section 29.4 of the CPWD Works Manual 2014, the Engineer-in-Charge granted provisional extension of time in the absence of application from the contractor under clause 5; that the plaintiff was given a liberty to apply the extension of time with satisfactory explanation to the defendant. However, till date the plaintiff never applied for the extension of time nor submitted any document of completion or labour clearance certificate.
17. It is further pleaded that aforesaid Work Orders, the aforesaid Agreements and the General Conditions of Contract make it clear that a Contractor (such as the plaintiff) is required to submit bills (both interim and final) to the defendant for payment, however, in the present matter, plaintiff has not submitted any bill (either interim or final), which he was contractually required to do; that in the absence of any bill, no amount can be said to be due or payable to the plaintiff. The purported bills that the plaintiff seeks to rely upon are only internal notings of the defendant and they do not constitute bills for the purpose of payment.
18. It is further pleaded that the issue regarding failure of Contractors to submit bills has been dealt with by the Hon'ble High Digitally signed by SANJEEV SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SINGH Date: 2024.07.29 16:03:04 +0530 SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 10 Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 22.03.2018, titled as North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Sanjeev Kumar (RFA 430/2017) and it was held that all Contractors are mandatorily bound by the GCC, whereby they are required to submit the bills (both interim and final) in order to claim payment for the work done.
19. It is further pleaded that Clause 17 of the GCC makes it clear that a contractor (such as the plaintiff) is required to wait for a period of 12 months from the submission of the final bills to reclaim the security amount deposited by him and in view of the fact that the plaintiff has failed to submit the final bill, the stage for refund of the security deposit has not arisen; that as per Clause 45 of the GCC, a contractor (such as the plaintiff) has to submit a labour certificate in order to seek refund of the security deposit; that admittedly till date plaintiff has not complied with requirements of labour clearance and has neither applied nor obtained the necessary labour clearance certificate; that plaintiff has not even applied for a "No objection Certificate" from the Legal Department of the defendants and unless the procedure prescribed under the GCC is complied with, the stage for return of the Security Deposit does not even arise.
20. In reply/response to para no.1 of the plaint, it is submitted that the present suit has not been filed, signed and verified by a duly competent/authorized person, as nothing has been placed on record to contend that the plaintiff is the proprietor of M/s. Manoj Kumar, so as to empower him to file, sign, verify and contest the present suit. Further, no authorization or authority letter has been filed by the plaintiff of his authorization to file the present suit.
Digitally signed bySANJEEV SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH KUMAR SINGH Date: 2024.07.29 Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly 16:03:10 +0530 SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 11
21. In reply/response to para no.3 of the plaint, it is submitted that it is the duty of the plaintiff to remove the quantity of silt accumulated at site so that the plaintiff can start the construction.
22. In reply/ response to para no.4 of the plaint, the defendant has denied that plaintiff requested the Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer of the defendant for visiting the site and both concerned Engineers visited the site in the 1st week of June, 2018. It is also denied that after handing over complete site, the plaintiff made clear to the defendant that in removing accumulated site, the plaintiff had to incur huge expense. It is further denied that it is brought to the notice of the defendant that there is no item in BOQ for removal of the same. Since, it is the duty of the plaintiff to remove the accumulation of silt at site as per agreement and expense incurred for the same also bear by the plaintiff only.
23. In reply/response to para no.5 of the plaint, it is denied that the Assistant Engineer of the defendant told the plaintiff that the item will be prepared for the removal of the silt and the entire quantity on measurement will paid to the plaintiff at the prevailing rate. It is further denied that as per the whims of the plaintiff, said assurance of the concerned Engineer, the plaintiff started the work of removal of silt by deploying at the site the JCB, Dumper and Trucks for disposal of the same.
24. In reply/response to para no. 7 of the plaint, it is denied that in view of aforesaid situation and item of removal of silt not being in the BOQ item, the department was requested to prepare the item SANJEEV Digitally signed by SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH KUMAR Date: 2024.07.29 SINGH 16:03:15 +0530 Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 12 immediately. Since it is part of agreement and duty of the plaintiff to remove the silt before starting the work as per GCC with in the contractual amount; that the period of 6 months of completion also expired in November, 2018, but because of the aforesaid situation the plaintiff could not complete the work of construction of nallah and the defendant requested the plaintiff to apply extension of time which the plaintiff failed to apply till apply since delay is on his part. It is further denied that the plaintiff regularly by way of letters informed the defendant department that until and unless the item for the removal of silt is passed and rate is fixed the work of construction of nallah cannot be started.
25. In reply/response to para no.8 of the plaint, it is denied that there was no delay in execution of the work by the plaintiff.
26. In reply/response to para no.9 of the plaint, it is denied that the plaintiff completed the entire work as awarded to him in terms of the work order in question as per the GCC. It is denied that the defendant has issued any kind of completion certificates in respect of BOQ items, Rs.27,90,666/- is payable and in respect of removal of silt an amount of Rs.12,90,000/- is payable. It is further denied that apart from the same the plaintiff also incurred an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- towards labour charges for removing dumped silt from the site of the work. Therefore, no amount is due and payable to the plaintiff apart from the balance amount of Rs.27,90,666/- towards original work. It is further denied that during the course of execution of work 4th RA bill was. prepared by the defendant but despite execution of work to the satisfaction of the Digitally signed by SANJEEV SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2024.07.29 Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SINGH 16:03:20 +0530 SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 13 department Rs.10,000/- was withheld for, reasons best known to the defendant.
27. In reply/response to para no.10 of the plaint, it is denied that during the execution of work the defendant corporation prepared 4 RA Bills of the plaintiff for the purpose of payment.
28. In reply/response to para no.11 of the plaint, the defendant has denied the same.
29. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant, wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint and denied the averment of the written statement.
ISSUES:-
30. The following issues were framed on the basis of pleadings of the parties vide order dated 10.01.2024:-
(i) Whether the Plaintiff is not entitled to refund of security deposit ? OPD.
(ii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed? OPP.
(iii). Relief, if any.
EVIDENCE & LIST OF DOCUMENTS:-
31. Sh. Manoj Kumar stepped into witness box as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit. He relied upon following documents:- Digitally signed by SANJEEV SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2024.07.29 SINGH 16:03:26 +0530 Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 14 S.No. Documents Exhibits
1. Copy of the Work Order no.85 dated Ex.PW-1/1 28.05.2018
2. Copy of agreement between theEx.PW-1/2 parties (OSR
3. Letter dated 03.08.2018 Ex.PW-1/3
4. Letter dated 01.10.2018 Ex.PW-1/4
5. Letter dated 13.12.2018 Ex.PW-1/5
6. Letter dated 08.01.2019 Ex.PW-1/6
7. Letter dated 09.12.2019 Ex.PW-1/7
8. Letter dated 09.04.2019 Ex.PW-1/8
9. Letter dated 13.05.2019 Ex.PW-1/9
10. Letter dated 07.06.2019 Ex.PW-1/10
11. Letter dated 11.07.2019 Ex.PW-1/11
12. Letter dated 26.11.2019 Ex.PW-1/12
13. Letter dated 16.12.2019 Ex.PW-1/13
14. Letter dated 20.12.2019 Ex.PW-1/14
15. Letter dated 04.01.2020 Ex.PW-1/15
16. Letter dated 13.03.2020 Ex.PW-1/16
17. Letter dated 29.09.2020 Ex.PW-1/17
18. Copy of 1st RA Bill (OSR) Ex.PW-1/18 nd
19. Copy of 2 RA Bill (OSR) Ex.PW-1/19
20. Copy of 3rd RA Bill (OSR) Ex.PW-1/20 th
21. Copy of 4 RA Bill (OSR) Ex.PW-1/21
22. Completion of Certificate issued byMark A Executive Engineer SZ and Asstt.
Engineer-I
23. Copy of Certificate of the area MLA Ex.PW-1/23 (OSR)
24. Copy of Utilization certificate issued Mark B by Executive Engineer SZ and Asst.
Engineer-I
25. Copy of letters written to Asstt.Mark C Director (MLALAD), Department of Urban Development
26. Copy of letters written to JointMark D Director, Urban Development
27. Letter dated 22.02.2021 Ex.PW-1/27
28. Notice dated 07.07.2021 and originalEx.PW-1/28 postal receipt dated 09.07.2021
29. Non-Starter Report datedEx.PW-1/29 17.01.2022, issued by DLSA South
32. In his evidence affidavit, plaintiff reiterated the contents of the plaint. Digitally signed SANJEEV by SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH KUMAR Date:
SINGH 2024.07.29 16:03:51 +0530 Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 15
33. In his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he has not submitted any Bill with regard to the present Work Order to MCD. He voluntarily stated that as a general practice, the J.E. goes to the site and makes entry in the MB and thereafter, he prepares and submits the Bill which is signed by him. Ex.PW-1/18 to Ex.PW-1/21 has been shown to witness and he admitted there is a watermark "For Office Record Only" on all these exhibits. He deposed that site was not inspected before bidding as no site was shown to the contractors before bidding; that he found silt at the site after 4-5 months of the start of the work. He voluntarily stated that the MLA did not give time to him to see the site and monsoon season had also started by that time. He further depose that after making oral complaints in this regard, he also gave a letter dated 03.08.2018 Ex. PW1/13. The oral complaints were made to JE, AE and other officers of MCD in the month of July 2018. He admitted that he has not annexed any photograph of the site having silt with his letter Ex. PW1/13. The JE had accompanied him to the site in July 2018 before onset of monsoon season. He did not know if any report was prepared by JE at that time or not. He further deposed that AE also visited the site after 3-4 days, that Executive Engineer also visited the site after rainy season. PW-1 further deposed that he did not obtain any prior written permission for carrying out the de-silting work. He voluntarily stated that a meeting was held by SE which was attended by Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Junior Engineer and the MLA concerned and himself and he was orally asked to do the de-silting work at the site and he was assured payment for the same.
34. PW-1 further deposed that he outsourced the work of the de- silting. The de-silting work was done by truck walas, JCB Drivers and SANJEEV Digitally signed by SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2024.07.29 Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SINGH 16:04:00 +0530 SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 16 labour. He paid to these people. PW-1 admitted that he has not placed on record any proof of payments to these people. The labour was hired from the market. PW-1 further deposed that he did not remember as to how many labourers were engaged to carry out de-silting work. There is no other nala adjoining the work order site. He did not receive any letter or written communication from MCD regarding assurance of payment to be made by MCD to him for de-silting work. He has not given any details of the claimed amount or any invoices before this Court towards the de-silting work.
35. On the other hand, the defendant examined Sh. Hukum Singh as DW-1. Vide his affidavit Ex.DW-1/A, he deposed on the lines of written statement and exhibited the following documents:-
(i) Copy of Notice inviting Tender (NIT) 28.05.2018, Ex.DW-1/1 (OSR)
(ii) Copy of GCC (General Conditions of Contract for MCD, Ex. DW- 1/2 (OSR)
(iii) Copy of Hindrance Book, Ex.DW-1/3(OSR)
36. In his cross-examination done by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, DW-1 deposed that he did not know anything about the circular dated 15.07.2022 as mentioned in para 1 of his affidavit of evidence. He admitted that he did not have any interaction during the execution of work with the plaintiff. He further admitted that the Bills Ex.PW-1/8 to Ex.PW-1/21 were prepared and passed by the department. He admitted that against the bills in question, part payment of Rs.30,30,000/- was made and the balance payment of Rs.27,90,666/- is outstanding against the said bills. He further deposed SANJEEV Digitally signed by SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH KUMAR Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly Date: 2024.07.29 SINGH 16:04:10 +0530 SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 17 that he does not have any knowledge whether any labour complaint has been filed or pending against the plaintiff. He further admitted that no labour complaint has been filed along with the written statement. He further admitted that as per the certificate on record, plaintiff has completed the entire work as per the Work Order issued to him. He deposed that he did not know whether any defect was there in the work executed by the plaintiff. He admitted that no letter was ever written by the department alleging any defect in the work executed by the plaintiff. He further stated that he could not say whether during the monsoon season, silt comes into the Nallah from sideways where the work was to be executed by the plaintiff. He did not know whether any letter was written by the defendant to the plaintiff asking him to submit the bills as mentioned in para 5 of his affidavit of evidence.
ARGUMENTS, ANALYSIS & FINDINGS:-
37. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and also gone through the written arguments filed by learned respective counsels.
38. Learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon following citations/judgments:-
(i) RFA (Comm) 6/2021, titled as North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. M/s Barahi Construction decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 15.03.2021;
(ii) 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 122, OMP No. 233 of 2205 titled as MCD Vs. M/s S. N. Malhotra & Sons;
(iii) RFA (OS) (COMM) 1/2021 titled as Mr. Rajnish Yadav, Proprietor of M/s Bharat Construction Col. Vs. The North Delhi Municipal Digitally signed by SANJEEV SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SINGH Date: 2024.07.29 16:04:22 +0530 SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 18 Corporation decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 10.01.2023.
39. My issue-wise findings are as follows:-
ISSUE No.1 Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to refund of Security deposit? OPD
40. The onus of proving this issue was upon the defendant.
41. At the outset, it would be appropriate to reproduce guidelines passed by Hon'ble Justice Ms. Pratibha M. Singh in RFA No. 430/2017 in case titled as NDMC Vs. Sanjeev Kumar, dated 22.03.2018:-
"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; Digitally signed SANJEEV by SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH KUMAR Date:
2024.07.29 SINGH 16:04:51 +0530 Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 19
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 awaited. Once the conditions of Clauses 17 and 45 are complied with and the final bill is passed, refunds ought to be made;
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. 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. Adherence to the above shall ensure that the works are duly carried out as per the quality standards prescribed and there is proper record of work being done. Once the work is carried out payments ought not to be delayed, inasmuch as delay in payments compromises on availability of quality civil work for the Corporations, who take care of basic amenities for citizens such as roads, pavements, civil works, sewerage lines etc. These guidelines shall be read along with the judgments pronounced today in these appeals." SANJEEV Digitally signed by SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2024.07.29 SINGH 16:04:56 +0530 Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 20
42. Learned counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiff has failed to comply with Clause 17 and 45 of GCC, which inter alia requires submission of final bill and clearance from labor department; that the plaintiff has till date not submitted the final bill or applied for clearance from the Labor Department. Therefore, the question of refund of security deposit does not arise and relied upon North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Sanjeev Kumar (RFA No. 430/2017 dated 22.03.2018).
43. Learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that during cross- examination DW-1 has categorically deposed that no labour complaint has been filed or pending against the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant cannot take the stand that plaintiff is not entitled to refund of Security Deposit.
44. Clause 17 and Clause 45 of The General Conditions of Contracts are relating to refund of security deposit which are reads as under:
"CLAUSE 17 Contractor liable for damages, defects during maintenance period:
If the contractor or his working people or servants shall break, deface, injure or destroy any part of building in which they may be working, or any building, road, road kerb, fence, enclosure, water pipe, cables, drains, electric or telephone post or wires, trees, grass or grassland, or cultivated ground contiguous to the premises on which the work or any part is being executed, or if any damage shall happen to the work while in progress, from any cause whatever or if any defect, shrinkage or other faults appears in the work within twelve months (six months in the case of work costing Rs.5.00 lacs and below except road work) after a certificate final or otherwise of its completion shall have been given by the Engineer-in- Charge as aforesaid arising out of defect or improper materials or workmanship the Digitally signed by SANJEEV SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SINGH Date: 2024.07.29 16:05:07 +0530 SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 21 contract shall upon receipt of a notice in writing on that behalf make the same good at his own expense or in default the Engineer-in-Charge cause the same to be made good by other workmen and deduct the expense from any sums that may be due or at any time thereafter may become due to the contractor, or from his security deposit or the proceeds of sale thereof or of a sufficient portion thereof. The security deposit of the contractor shall not be refunded before the expiry of twelve months (six months in the case of work costing Rs.5.00 lacs except dense carpet works) after the issue of the certificate final or otherwise, of completion of work or till the final bill has been prepared and passed whichever is later. In case of dense carpet works the Security Deposit of the contractor shall not be refunded before the expiry of 5 & 7 years of maintenance from last day of the month in which a particular road is completed in case of binder of penetration 60/70 grade & CRMB 60 binders respectively."
"Clause 45 provides that security amount is to be released after labour clearance which is reproduced as below:
CLAUSE 45 Release of Security deposit after labour clearance :
Security Deposit of the work shall not be refunded till the contractor produces a clearance certificate from the Labour Officer. As soon as the work is virtually complete the contractor shall apply for the clearance certificate to the Labour Officer under intimate on to the Engineer-in-Charge.
The Engineer- in-Charge on receipt of the said communication, shall write to the Labour Officer to intimate if any complaint is pending against the contractor in respect of the work. If complaint is pending on record till after 3 months after completion of the work and/or no communication is received from the Labour Officer to this effect till six months after the date of completion it will be deemed to have received the clearance certificate and the security Deposit will be released if otherwise due."
59. Clauses 17 and 45 relating to security deposits have also been interpreted in the Circular dated 10th June 2014, as under:
"Clause 17:- The security deposit shall not be refunded before expiry of one year from the date of completion of work. Clause 45:- Security deposit shall not be refunded till the contractor produces clearance certificate from the Labour Officer."Digitally signed by
SANJEEV SANJEEV KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2024.07.29
SINGH 16:05:13 +0530
Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 22
46. Here, it will be useful to refer MCD Vs. M/s S.N. Malhotra & Sons (Supra) in which the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed vide para no.4 as under:-
"4. No doubt, according to this clause, security amount can be withheld till the clearance certificate is produced by the contractor from the labour officer. However, the same clause also stipulates that if no complaint is pending on record till after three months after the completion of the work and no communication is received from the Labour Officer till six months after the date of completion, it will be deemed to have received the clearance certificate and the security will be released if otherwise due. It is not the case of the petitioner herein that any complaint was pending or any communication was received from the Labour Office in this behalf. Thus, after the expiry of six months, it would be deemed that clearance certificate is given and, therefore, at the point of time security deposit became refundable and it was not refunded, even thereafter, the contractor could claim interest. It may be noted that while discussing the claim on refund of the security deposit, it is observed by the learned Arbitrator that at the fag end of the arbitration proceedings on 20 th January 2005 the petitioner- MCD certified that an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- is payable to the contractor. Thus, it is not the case of the petitioner that the Security was otherwise not payable. Perusal of award shows that interest is awarded with effect from 1st October 2002 i.e. after the expiry of six months. Thereafter, the approach of the learned Arbitrator in this behalf cannot be faulted with."
47. In the present case, DW-1 has admitted that no labour complaint has been filed or pending against the plaintiff. It is clear from the record that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant followed the guidelines. The defendant passed the final bills without the contractor submitting interim and final bills. Fairness, justness and equity Digitally signed by SANJEEV SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH KUMAR SINGH Date: 2024.07.29 Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly 16:05:19 +0530 SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 23 demand that only one party cannot be penalized for not adhering to the guidelines. It will be appropriate to mention the maxim "one who seeks equity must do equity". In order to contend that the plaintiff is not entitled to refund of security deposit, the defendant should have perform its own obligation. In the light of foregoing discussion, issue no.1 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE No.2
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed? OPP.
48. Onus of proving this issue was upon the plaintiff. Admittedly the work under the name and style "Construction of Central Market Nallah D-IInd Culvert to K-IInd BRT Parking Madangir in Ward No. 182/SZ was awarded to the plaintiff vide Work Order No. EE(M-SZ- III)/SYS/2018-2019/85 dated 28.05.2018 for the contractual amount of Rs.58,24,330/- by the Executive Engineer of the defendant corporation and the same was thereafter revised to Rs.60,77,000/-. During cross- examination DW-1 Hukum Singh admitted that the Bills Ex.PW-1/8 to Ex.PW-1/21 were prepared and passed by the department. He further admitted that against the bills in question, part-payment of Rs.30,30,000/- was made to the plaintiff and balance payment of Rs.27,90,666 is outstanding against the said bills.
49. Learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that despite passing of the said bills, balance amount has not been released to the plaintiff. He further argued that as per Clause 9 of the General Terms and Conditions of Contract, the defendant is liable to release the payment of passed bills within a period of 6/9 months of passing of the Bill. He Digitally signed by SANJEEV SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SINGH Date: 2024.07.29 16:05:26 +0530 SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 24 further contended that the plaintiff has already complied all the terms and conditions of Work Order and GCC of MCD, thereafter defendant passed the bills of the plaintiff and same were accepted by the plaintiff which bear plaintiff's signatures. In this learned counsel for the plaintiff placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble High court of Delhi titled as North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. Vipin Gupta, RFA 160/2017 decided on 22.03.2018, wherein it has been observed as under:-
"....the combined effect of the Clauses and the Circular and amendments, set out above, is that if the Corporation does not procure funds, it is not liable to even pay the Contractor any interest and the Contractor has no remedy. This by itself would mean that such a Clause could be read as leading to a contact without consideration and hence unlawful under Section 23 of the Contract Act. The Corporation being an instrumentality of State, such a contract would also be opposed to public policy under Section 23 of the Contract Act. Section 46 of the Contract Act is also clear that if no time for performance of a contract is specified, it has to be performed within a reasonable time. Reading these provisions together, it is clear that an open ended Clause which in effect says that the payment shall be made at an undetermined time in the future, subject to availability of funds, in a particular head of accounts is wholly unreasonable and such a term would also be unfair. ...... The Clauses being relied upon by the defendants in effect say that it would make the payment in 1 year, 5 years, 10 years or not pay at all. Such a condition in any contract would be illegal, unconscionable and unreasonable. Here it is a standard form contract which is to be accepted without much choice. The only choice before a Contractor is simply to not to apply for or accept the work order itself.
.....A Corporation which gets works executed cannot therefore include terms in the contract which are per se unconscionable and unreasonable as -
a) There is no fixed time period as to when the funds would be available;
b) There is also no fixed mechanism to determine as to when and in what manner the head of account is to be Digitally signed SANJEEV by SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2024.07.29 SINGH 16:05:35 +0530 Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 25 determined and as to how the Contractor would acquire knowledge of these two facts;
c) There is also no certainty as to how many persons are in the queue prior to the Contractor and for what amounts;
d) There is enormous ambiguity in the receipt under the particular heads of accounts.
57. These clauses in effect say that the Contractor is left with no remedy if the Corporation does not pay for the work that has been executed. Such a Clause would be illegal and contrary to law. Such clauses, even in commercial contracts, would be contrary to Section 25 read with Section 46 of the Contract Act.
58. The clauses do not specify an outer time limit for payment. The expression reasonable time has to be 'a time'. The concept of time itself is ensconced with specificity and precision. Clause 9 is the opposite of being precise. It is as vague and ambiguous as it could be because it depends on factors which are totally extraneous to the contract, namely -
● Allotment of funds to the Corporation by the Government;
● Allotment of funds in a particular head;
● Allotment of funds for payment who are in queue
prior to the contractor;
59. Thus, these factors, which are beyond the control of the Contractor and which would govern the payment of consideration, make the said clauses of the contract completely unreasonable. The clauses have to thus, be read or interpreted in a manner so as to instill reasonableness in them.
.... By applying the above said principles, in respect of final bills raised by Contractors for works executed, that have been approved by the Engineer-in-Charge, the Clauses have to be read in the following manner;
a) Reasonable time for making of payments of final bills in respect of work orders up to Rs.5 lakhs shall be 6 months and work orders exceeding Rs.5 lakhs shall be 9 months from the date when the bill is passed by the Engineer-in-Charge.
b) The queue basis can be applicable for the payments to be made in chronology. However, the outer limit of 6 months and 9 months cannot be exceeded, while applying the queue system.
c) The payments are held to become due and payable immediately upon the expiry of 6 months and 9 months and any non-payment would attract payment of interest for the delayed periods. SANJEEV Digitally signed by SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2024.07.29 Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SINGH 16:05:41 +0530 SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 26
d) A conjoint reading of Clauses 7 & 9 along with the amendment dated 19th May, 2006, clearly shows that for the payment of bills, the contractors have to follow the queue basis and as and when the amount is available under the particular head of account, the amount would be payable. The amendment does not, however, have a condition that no interest is payable for delayed payment. Such a condition exists only in Clause 7. Clause 9, therefore, when read with the amendment has to mean that the Corporation itself considers 6 months and 9 months to be the reasonable periods for which the payments of the final bills can be held back.
e) To the extent that queue basis is applied only for clearing of payments which do not extend beyond the period of 6 months and 9 months period, it is reasonable. However, if the queue basis is applied in order to make Contractors wait for indefinite periods for receiving payments, then the same would be unreasonable and would have to be therefore be read down."
50. Plaintiff has averred vide para no.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 that after inspection of the site, it was noticed that huge quantity of silt was lying accumulated at site and it brought to the notice of Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer of the defendant. They visited the site and the plaintiff made clear to them that in removing the same, the plaintiff had to incur huge expenses and there is no item in BOQ for removal of the same. Thereafter, the Assistant Engineer told that item will be prepared for removal of silt and the entire quantity will be paid to the plaintiff at the prevailing market rate. The plaintiff vide several letters requested the defendant for doing the needful. On the other hand, it is the contention of the defendant removal of silt was the part of the contract and it was the duty of the plaintiff to remove the quantity of silt accumulated at the site so that plaintiff could start the construction.
51. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the defendant contended that plaintiff has failed to prove that the purported SANJEEV Digitally signed by SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.07.29 SINGH Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SINGH 16:05:46 +0530 SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 27 extra item of work for removal of silt was carried out by him; that he also failed to prove that the MCD had authorised or permitted any such extra item of work; that there is no communication or document placed on record by the plaintiff that proves that the purported extra item of work was approved or authorised by the MCD. He further argued that the plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove that he incurred any amount towards removal of silt and for engagement of labour for the said purpose; that PW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that there is no proof of any items of the expenditure incurred by him on this account; that infact the plaintiff's witness did not lead any evidence on the contractors/JCBs/labour purportedly engaged for this purpose; that the plaintiff has failed to lead any such evidence including cash receipts or bank statements to show that he incurred the abovesaid expenses as claimed.
52. The plaintiff has thus failed to lead any evidence that MCD had authorised or permitted any such extra item of work. Further, plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove that he incurred any amount towards removal of silt. Even PW-1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not given any details of claimed amount or any invoices before this court towards the de-silting work as such I hold that plaintiff is not entitled to recover any amount as mentioned in paragraph no.12 under the head (v) and (vi) from the defendant.
53. In view of the above discussion and being guided by above, I am of the considered opinion that plaintiff is entitled to recover the admitted bill amount in the sum of Rs. 27,90,666/- from the defendant.
Digitally signed by SANJEEV SANJEEV KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2024.07.29
SINGH 16:06:00 +0530
Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 28
54. The plaintiff has claimed pendente lite and future interest @ 12 per annum.
55. Learned counsel for defendant argued that as per Clause 9 of the GCC, there is no such provision for interest and as such claim of interest is unwarranted. He further argued that on account of non- adherence by the plaintiff to the terms and conditions of GCC, the plaintiff is not entitled to any interest on the principal amount.
56. I do not find much force in the submissions made by the ld counsel for the defendant. Here, I place reliance upon the case of Virender Jeet Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr, 2013(134) DRJ 284, wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:-
"15. It is settled law that if a person is deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled, he has a right to be monetarily compensated for the said deprivation. [Ref: (1992) 1 SCC 508: Secretary, Irrigation Deptt. Govt. of Orissa v. G.C. Roy; (2004) 5 SCC 65: Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, and (2009) 8 SCC 507: Sri Venkateswara Syndicate Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.] The object behind awarding interest to a party, who has suffered loss, due to a legitimate deprivation of the enjoyment of the use of money that he was entitled to rightfully, is to balance the equities and while doing so, the facts involved in each case must be examined by the Court. 16. The statutory provisions with regard to payment of interest are laid down in Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978, that provides that in any proceedings for the recovery of any debt or damages or in any proceedings in which a claim for interest in respect of any debt or damages already paid is made, the court may, if it thinks fit, allow interest to the person entitled to the debt or damages or to the person making such claim, as the case may be, at a rate not exceeding the current rate of interest, if the proceedings do not relate to a debt payable by virtue of a written instrument at a certain time, from the date mentioned in this regard in a written notice given by the person entitled or the person making the claim to the person liable, then interest will be claimed, till the date of institution of the proceedings." Digitally signed by SANJEEV SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SINGH Date: 2024.07.29 16:06:06 +0530 SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 29
57. Reliance can also be placed upon the case of NDMC & Others Vs. Shish Pal MANU/DE/1200/2018, wherein it was observed that:-
"45. In the present case, the combined effect of the Clauses and 18 the Circular and amendments, set out above, is that if the Corporation does not procure funds, it is not liable to even pay the Contractor any interest and the Contractor has no remedy. This by itself would mean that such a Clause could be read as leading to a contract without consideration and hence unlawful under Section 23 of the Contract Act. The Corporation being an instrumentality of State, such a contract would also be opposed to public policy under Section 23 of the Contract Act. Section 46 of the Contract Act is also clear that if no time for performance of a contract is specified, it has to be performed within a reasonable time. Reading these provisions together, it is clear that an open ended Clause which in effect says that the payment shall be made at an undetermined time in the future, subject to availability of funds, in a particular head of accounts is wholly unreasonable and such a term would also be unfair.....
71. A conjoint reading of Clauses 7 & 9 along with the amendment dated 19th May, 2006, clearly shows that for the payment of bills, the Contractors have to follow the queue basis and as and when the amount is available under the particular head of account, the amount would be payable. The amendment does not, however, have a condition that no interest is payable for delayed payment. Such a condition exists only in Clause 7. Clause 9, therefore, when read with the amendment has to mean that the Corporation itself considers 6 months and 9 months to be the reasonable periods for which the payments of the final bills can be held back. Obviously, therefore, if payments are made, whether on a queue basis or otherwise, beyond the period of 6 months and 9 months, interest is payable.
72. In view of the question of interest having been gone into detail and non-payment having been held to be illegal by various Single Judges of this Court, in cases involving the Corporations, it is held that non-payment of interest beyond the period of 6 months and 9 months, as stipulated in Clause 9 of the General Conditions of Contract, would be contrary to Contractors law. Hence, the are entitled for payment of interest after a period of 6 months respectively 9 months".
58. The award of interest is discretionary as the contract says that 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 Digitally signed by SANJEEV SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SINGH Date: 2024.07.29 16:06:13 +0530 SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022 30 account of MCD. Each case has to be decided on its own merit. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is not inclined to grant pre-suit interest.
59. In the present case, I am of the view that interest of justice would be met if plaintiff is awarded interest on the amount of Rs.27,90,666/- from the date of order till realization. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
RELIEF
60. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and a decree in the sum of Rs.27,90,666 /- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization is hereby passed. The security amount of Rs.4,63,746/- may be released to the plaintiff without interest only after compliance of Clause 17 and 45 of the General Terms and Conditions of Contract. Earnest money of Rs.1,34,093/- deposited at the time of submission of tender be also released to the plaintiff without interest by the defendant.
61. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
62. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by
SANJEEV SANJEEV KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2024.07.29
Announced in the open court SINGH 16:06:19 +0530
on 29.07.2024 (Sanjeev Kumar Singh)
District Judge (Commercial Court)(Digital)-04, South/Saket/New Delhi/29.07.2024 Manoj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Formerly SDMC CS (Comm.) No.411/2022