Delhi District Court
Umesh Tyagi vs Mcd on 5 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT)02, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM.) No. 2131/2022
CNR No. DLCT010127162022
Umesh Tyagi
Sole Proprietor of M/s. Amit Elevator Services
Office at 732, Burari Village,
Delhi110094
......Plaintiff
Versus
1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
(Previously North DMC)
Through its Commissioner
10th Floor, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Center,
JL Nehru Marg, New Delhi - 110002
2. The Executive Engineer (E)/ CLZ
MCD School, Hakikat Nagar,
Delhi110009
......Defendants
Date of filing of suit: 07.09.2022
Arguments concluded on : 16.11.2023
Date of Judgment: 05.12.2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sr. No. Title Page No.
1 Brief facts/ Case of the petitioner 25
2 Case of the Defendant 58
3 Issues 8
4 Evidence & List of Documents 817
5 Findings & Observations 1735
6 Conclusion/ Relief 3536
Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023
Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 1 of 36
Present: Sh. Akhil Rana, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Sh. Sanjeet Malik Advocate for the Defendants.
JUDGMENT:
(1) This is a Civil Suit filed by the plaintiff Umesh Tyagi seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.7,57,503/ only (i.e. Rs.5,91,593/ towards Principal and Rs.1,65,709/ towards interest @ 18% per annum) along with pendentelite and future interest from the defendants.
BRIEF FACTS:
Case of the plaintiff:
(2) The plaintiff Umesh Tyagi is a duly enrolled contractor with the North DMC and has been carrying different works for the MCD (previously known as North DMC). The case of the plaintiff is as under:
➢ That the plaintiff being Government Contractor participated in the Work Order No. EEEII CLZ/SYS 20192020/04 dated 01.05.2019 for the provision of lift operators for 16 Rajpur Road Zonal Office for a period of one year under Civil Lines Zone through tender which was invited by the defendant no.2. ➢ That the defendant no.2 after satisfaction of the completion of the required condition at the stage of pre work order, awarded the above mentioned work order to the plaintiff.
Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 2 of 36 ➢ That the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendants and the plaintiff has provided two lift operators for the lift in Zonal Office/CLZ for 16 Rajpur Road Zonal Office building for the period 06.05.2019 to 05.05.2020.
➢ That the work order was completed to the satisfaction of the EngineerinCharge/ defendant no.2 without any negative remarks.
➢ That after completion of the awarded work order, the plaintiff made several requests for passing of the bills but no heed was paid to his requests. ➢ That the defendant no.2 completed the final measurements of the above work order and passed the first and final bill on 08.03.2021 for Gross Amount of Rs.5,51,988/ after deduction against TDS of Income Tax and Labour Cess (Rs.16,560/). ➢ That as a pre condition of the award of the work order, the plaintiff had also deposited the security/ earnest money of Rs.10,750/ on 27.12.2018 ➢ That as per para no. 15 of the work order the ESI & EPF is not included in work order and the same shall be reimbursed on submission of proof. ➢ That even after submitting the proof of depositing the ESIC & EPF by the plaintiff vide letter dated 03.02.2022, the defendant has not reimbursed sum of Rs.25,092/ towards ESIC & EPF.
Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 3 of 36 ➢ That the plaintiff is also claiming contractual profit @ 15% on the ESIC & EPFO which is Rs.3,763/ in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 14.12.2007 and 08.06.2009 of CPWD and accordingly the total outstanding principal amount including the amount of passed bills, ESIC & EPF and contractual profit @ 15% on ESIC & EPF amount comes to Rs.5,91,593/. ➢ That despite passing of the aforesaid bills and despite repeated requests and demands made by the plaintiff vide letters dated 08.06.2021, 01.07.2021, 26.07.2021, 07.09.2021, 29.12.2021 and 24.01.2022, neither the payments were released to the plaintiff nor he was informed about the reason for withholding the same. ➢ That as per Clause 9 of the General Terms and Conditions of the defendant no.1, they are liable to release the payment of the passed bills within a period of six/ nine months, which they did not do. ➢ That the defendant no.2 vide letter dated 06.01.2022 had given the work completion certificate which contains the actual work done of Rs.5,51,988/ only but the defendant no.2 deliberately did not mention the ESIC & EPF amount of Rs.25,092/; Security amount of Rs.10,750/ and Contractual Profit @ 15% on ESIC & EPF i.e. Rs.3,763/.
➢ That being aggrieved from the callous and irresponsible attitude of the defendants, the plaintiff Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 4 of 36 got issued a legal notice dated 14.02.2022 under Sections 477/478 of MCD Act read with Section 80 CPC upon the defendants thereby calling upon to release the amount of Rs.5,91,593/ along with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 08.02.2021 till the date of payment and Rs.11,000/ as charge for service of legal notice within a period of 60 days from the receipt of notice.
➢ That the defendant no.2 sent a reply to the said legal notice vide his reply dated 11.07.2022 but the payment has not been released to the plaintiff and hence, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs.5,91,593/ with interest @ 18% per annum from 08.02.2021 which comes to Rs.1,65,709/ and accordingly the total suit amount comes to Rs.7,57,303/.
Case of the defendants:
(3) The defendants have filed a joint written statement wherein it is submitted that the present suit is premature & without any cause of action. The case of the defendants is as under:
➢ That the plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and has concealed that he is in material breach of the agreement which disentitles him from any relief as sought.
Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 5 of 36 ➢ That the Work Order and General Conditions of Contract make it fundamentally clear that a contractor is required to submit and present the bills (both interim and final) to the defendants for payment but the plaintiff has not submitted any bill (either interim or final) as required under Clause 7 & 9 of the General Conditions of Contract and Clause 4 of the Work Orders.
➢ That the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief for being in breach of the agreement between the parties and has not submitted any bill (either interim or final) that he was contractually required to and in the absence of any bill, no amount can be said to be due or payable to the plaintiff.
➢ That the purported bills which the plaintiff seeks to rely upon are only internal notings of the defendants and they do not constitute bills for purposes of payment.
➢ That Clause 17 of the General Conditions of Contract makes it clear that a Contractor 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.
➢ That since the plaintiff has failed to submit the final bill, the stage for refund of the Security Deposit has not arisen.
Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 6 of 36 ➢ That Clause 45 of the General Conditions of Contract requires a Contractor to submit a Labour Clearance Certificate in order to seek refund of the security deposit and the plaintiff has failed to comply with the same.
➢ That the plaintiff neither applied for nor obtained the necessary Labour Clearance Certificate as required under Clause 45 of the GCC and has not even applied for a No Objection Certificate from the Legal department of the defendants.
➢ That the plaintiff was under a contractual obligation to submit bills to the defendants which he failed to do. ➢ That the present suit is misconceived, premature and lacks any cause of action.
➢ That in terms of Para 1 of GCC and Additional Terms and Conditions of the GCC, the plaintiff should have informed in written for changing of operators atleast five days before with full details of proposed staff and the plaintiff has to prove whether the staff changed during the said period of Work order with the approval of the EngineerinCharge for the purpose of ESI/ EPF reimbursement.
(4) On merits, the defendants have denied all the allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint. According to the defendants, there is no obligation upon them to release any payment unless bills are submitted by the plaintiff and in the Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 7 of 36 absence of any bills submitted by the plaintiff, there can be no question of payment of any interest.
ISSUES:
(5) The plaintiff has filed his Replication to the written statement filed by the defendant wherein he has reaffirmed what he has earlier stated in the main plaint. (6) On the basis of pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 25.07.2023 this Court settled the following issues:
i. Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff for filing the present suit? (Ref. Para 1 of Written Statement) (OPD) ii. Whether there is breach of agreement between the parties? (Ref. Para 3.1 of the Written Statement?
(OPD) iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of principal amount, as asked for in the plaint? (OPP) iv. In case if issue no.3 is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest, as asked for in the plaint? (OPP) v. Relief.
EVIDENCE & LIST OF DOCUMENTS:
(7) Here, I may note that vide order dated 29.08.2023 this Court had appointed a Court Commissioner for recording the evidence of the parties, pursuant to which the plaintiff Umesh Tyagi has examined himself as his sole witness as PW1 whereas Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 8 of 36 the Assistant Engineer (Electrical)II Sh. Atul Kumar Sharma has examined himself as DW1.
(8) Before coming to the testimonies of the witnesses examined by both the parties, the documents relied upon by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
List of documents:
Sr. Exhibit No. Details of document Proved by No.
1. Ex.PW1/1 Registration certificate of the firm of Umesh the plaintiff Tyagi (PW1)
2. Ex.PW1/2 Copy of Work Order
3. Ex.PW1/3 Copy of the bills passed and first page of agreement for the work order
4. Ex.PW1/4 Copy of Letter No. AES/202122/298 dated 03.02.2022
5. Ex.PW1/5 Copy of the Office Memorandums (colly)
6. Ex.PW1/6 Copy of demand made by the plaintiff (colly) vide letters of different dates
7. Ex.PW1/7 Completion Certificate dated 06.01.2022
8. Ex.PW1/8 Copy of the legal notice dated (colly) 14.02.2022
9. Ex.PW1/9 Relevant clauses of GCC (colly)
10. Ex.PW1/10 Contingent bill of ESIC & EPFO
11. Ex.PW1/11 Details of ESIC Contribution paid by (colly) the plaintiff from May 2019 to May 2020
12. Ex.PW1/12 Challan of EPF deposit made by the (colly) plaintiff from May 2019 to May 2020
13. Ex.PW1/13 ESIC receipts of monthly contribution (colly) by plaintiff from May 2019 to May 2020 Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 9 of 36
14. Ex.PW1/14 Payment details of EPF contribution by (colly) plaintiff from May 2019 to May 2020
15. Ex.PW1/15 Non Starter Report dated 12.07.2022
16. Ex.PW1/16 Notice dated 10th March 2023 under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC
17. Ex.PW1/17 Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act In so far as the defendants are concerned, they have not relied upon any document nor the witness of the defendant has relied upon any document in his examination in chief.
(9) Now coming to the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the parties, for the sake of convenience their testimonies are put in a tabulated form as under:
S. Details of the Deposition
No. Witness
1 Umesh Tyagi PW1 Umesh Tyagi is the plaintiff himself who in his
(PW1) examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A
has corroborated what has been earlier stated in the main plaint. He has placed his reliance upon the following documents:
1. Registration certificate of the firm of the plaintiff which is Ex.PW1/1.
2. Copy of Work Order which is Ex.PW1/2.
3. Copy of the bills passed which is Ex.PW1/3.
4. Copy of Letter No. AES/202122/298 dated 03.02.2022 which is Ex.PW1/4.
5. Copy of the Office Memorandums which is Ex.PW1/5 (colly).
6. Copy of demand made by the plaintiff vide letters of different dates which are Ex.PW1/6 (colly).
7. Completion Certificate dated 06.01.2022 which is Ex.PW1/7.
8. Copy of the Legal Notice dated 14.02.2022 which is Ex.PW1/8 (colly).
9. Relevant pages of General Conditions of Contract which is Ex.PW1/9 (colly).
Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 10 of 36
10. Contingent bill of ESIC & EPFO which is Ex.PW1/10.
11. Details of ESIC Contribution paid by the plaintiff from May 2019 to May 2020 which are Ex.PW1/11 (colly).
12. Challan of EPF deposit made by the plaintiff from May 2019 to May 2020 which is Ex.PW1/12 (colly).
13. ESIC receipts of monthly contribution by plaintiff from May 2019 to May 2020 which are Ex.PW1/13 (colly).
14. Payment details of EPF contribution by plaintiff from May 2019 to May 2020 which is Ex.PW1/14.
15. Non Starter Report dated 12.07.2022 which is Ex.PW1/15.
16. Notice dated 10th March 2023 under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC which is Ex.PW1/16.
17. Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW1/17.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the defendants, the witness has deposed under under:
➢ That he has been doing the business with the MCD from 2000.
➢ That he cannot tell the exact number of completed projects with the MCD but it could be 400500 work orders approximately.
➢ That the present suit is filed qua the Work Order No. 4 dated 01.05.2019.
➢ That he does not remember the exact date of commencing the work of this work order [after seeing the Ex.PW1/7 the witness stated that the date of commencement against the work order is 06.05.2019 and the date of completion is 05.05.2020]. ➢ That he had hired two labours for completion of the work order in question. ➢ That he has not filed any document regarding the said labours before commencement of work to the department of MCD.
Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 11 of 36 ➢ That he has maintained the Attendance Register of the said labour which register he had submitted to the department but he has not taken any acknowledgement from MCD in respect of the same and has voluntarily explained that MCD used to keep the said register and log book with itself stating that it is now their property.
➢ That he has not written any letter to MCD for providing the copy of acknowledgement of attendance register of the labours for completion of the work order.
➢ That he had purchased the said register from some kiosk stall near ITO building opposite Y shaped building but did not obtain any receipt for purchasing of the said register. ➢ That the labour which he had hired was his regular labours.
➢ That he had paid salary/ wages as per the then prevailing minimum wages but he cannot tell the exact figure without seeing the Judicial File [After seeing the case file, the witness referred to Ex.PW1/11 wherein the wages of labours are mentioned at points A and B showing that minimum wages were paid to the labour].
➢ That he has maintained the record regarding payment of wages paid to his labours which he can produce before the Court. ➢ That he has not deposited the TDS against payment of the wages paid to the labour since the labour hired was for more than one year and the wages of the labour was more than Rs.14,000/ per month but has explained that the department deduct the TDS and deposit the same to the respective department.
➢ That the sole responsibility of hiring and payments of the labours is upon him (plaintiff).
➢ That the payments made to the labour was not made after deducting the TDS and has voluntarily explained that he had made the payment as per the Minimum Wages Act along with contribution of ESIC and EPFO.
Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 12 of 36 ➢ That he has submitted the bills to the MCD for payment regarding work work against the work order.
➢ That there is no requirement of obtaining any clearance certificate from the concerned department after the completion of the work order.
➢ That he is not aware if there was any interest clause in the agreement.
➢ That it is wrong that he is not entitled to the principal amount from the department since he has not submitted any bills to the department.
➢ That it is wrong that he is not entitled for the interest amount since it is not mentioned in the agreement.
Defendant's Evidence
2. Sh. Atul DW1 Sh. Atul Kumar Sharma is the Assistant Kumar Engineer (Elect)II who in his affidavit of evidence Sharma Ex.DW1/A has corroborated what has been earlier (DW1) stated in the written statement.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel of the plaintiff, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
➢ That he is fully aware about the contents of affidavit Ex.DW1/A. ➢ That he is fully aware of the facts of the present case.
➢ That he work upon the directions of the Commissioner MCD.
➢ That he did not file any authorization letter in his favour from the MCD.
➢ That demand letters were submitted by the plaintiff to the department for payment of work order in question.
➢ That he did not take any steps after receiving the document Ex.PW1/6. ➢ That Ex.PW1/9 is based upon CPWD manual.
➢ That circulars, memorandums regarding contractual/ overhead profit, ESIC & EPF payment issued by the MCD from time to Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 13 of 36 time but no such document has been placed on record by the defendants.
➢ That the department complies with the CPWD works circular/ Memorandums, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Minimum Wages Act.
➢ That the department do not comply with the memorandums which are Ex.PW1/5. ➢ That ESIC & EPF and contractual/ Overhead Profit @ 15% on ESIC & EPF amount is not included in the work order in question.
➢ That as per Ex.PW1/5 & Ex.PW1/9 the defendants are liable to pay the contractual/ overhead profit to the plaintiff. ➢ That he is not aware in how many days the department shall reimburse the amount of ESIC & EPF to the contractor which was paid by the Contractor to its engaged employees of the work order.
➢ That the defect liability period of the work in question was one year which period had already expired on 06.05.2021. ➢ That the defendants did not receive any complaint regarding the defects in the work performed by the plaintiff.
➢ That the department/ MCD has not issued any completion certificate to the plaintiff qua the work order (after seeking the completion certificate Ex.PW1/7 the witness admitted that it was issued by the department). ➢ That the plaintiff has not started the work before the actual date of work order. ➢ That as per Ex.PW1/7 the date of start of work is 10.05.2019 and the actual date is mentioned as 06.05.2019.
➢ That as per the Work Order Ex.PW1/2 the work has commended on 06.05.2019. ➢ That it is wrong that as per the work order the plaintiff was supposed to start work on 10.05.2019 and has voluntarily explained that the work was supposed to start on 01.05.2019.
Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 14 of 36 ➢ That the plaintiff has completed the work for a sum of Rs.5,51,988/ which amount has been passed by the department.
➢ That the department has not received any complaint against any of the engaged employees of the plaintiff till date.
➢ That by the words "Internal Noting"
mentioned in para 9 of Ex.DW1/A, he meant Internal Bill.
➢ That any person apart from the department is allowed to sign on internal noting but there is no such circular in this regard. ➢ That the plaintiff has given proof of payment ESIC & EPF for his engaged employees for the work order in question. ➢ That the defendants/ MCD has not reimbursed the payment of Rs.25,092.34 to the plaintiff.
➢ That the aforesaid payment could not be reimbursed because contractor has not submitted the bills in respect of work order. ➢ That it is wrong that the plaintiff has submitted the bills in respect of the work order to the department.
➢ That Ex.PW1/16 is received in the department on 20.03.2023 vide DD No. 1993.
➢ That the earnest money has not been released to the plaintiff.
➢ That as per the official record no letter or memo has been issued for forfeiting the EMD amount.
➢ That a notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC dated 20.03.2023 which is Ex.PW1/16 was received by the department and he has brought all the documents mentioned in the said notice which are as under:
➢ Ex.DW1/P1 is the measurement book (three pages).
➢ Ex.DW1/P2 is the Completion Report. ➢ Ex.DW1/P3 is the Test check Statement of the Work Order in question.
Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 15 of 36 ➢ Ex.DW1/P4 is the 3rd party Quality Control Report.
➢ Ex.DW1/P5 is the 1st RA Bill dated 08.02.2021.
➢ Mark A is the Demand Letter sent to HQ.
➢ Ex.DW1/P6 is the Agreement.
➢ Ex.DW1/P7 is the Attendance Register (16 pages).
➢ That he is unable to tell who has signed Ex.Dw1/P5 at Point A and B and has voluntarily stated that since he was not in service at the relevant time, therefore, he is not able to identify the signatures.
➢ That AAO stands for Assistant Account Officer.
➢ That the Agreement is signed by the Contractor and Executive Engineer.
➢ That Executive Engineer is the competent officer who has signed Ex.DW1/P6 on behalf of the MCD.
➢ That he is unable to tell that after passing of the bill, a noting by the Executive Engineer and Assistant Account Officer on the first page of the agreement is made to the effect that the department has processed the bill for the payment.
➢ That Ex.DW1/P6 is a matter of record.
➢ That the bills are signed by the Executive Engineer, Assistant Account Officer and the Contractor.
➢ That the defendant no.2 had sent the demand vide document Mark A for the sum of Rs.5,51,988/ for the payment and he has not followed up for the release of the payment.
➢ That a bill is signed by the Executive Engineer, Assistant Account Officer on behalf of MCD and Contractor.
➢ That by the word "Premature" as mentioned in para 3 of his affidavit, he meant incomplete.
➢ That the meaning of "Without any cause of action" as mentioned in para 3 of his Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 16 of 36 affidavit, it means Non Compliance (Nahi Hua).
➢ That as per record, there is no internal noticing stating that the plaintiff has not submitted any labour clearance certificate. ➢ That it is wrong that since the plaintiff has furnished the labour clearance certificate to the department that is why there is no internal noting.
➢ That the plaintiff has complied with all the terms and conditions of the GCC qua the work order in question that is why completion report Ex.DW1/P2 was made.
FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS:
(10) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Counsels for the parties and considered the written memorandum of arguments filed by them. My findings on the various issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff for filing the present suit? (Ref. Para 1 of Written Statement) (OPD) (11) Onus of proving the above issue was upon the defendants. In their written statement, the defendants have raised a preliminary objection that the suit is without any cause of action since the plaintiff has not submitted running/ final bills within stipulated time as per the General Conditions of Contract (GCC). In support of their contentions, the defendants have placed their reliance upon Clause 7 and 9 of the General Conditions of Contract and Clause 4 of the Work Order.
Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 17 of 36 (12) In this regard, I may observe that the plaintiff Umesh Tyagi (PW1) has specifically deposed in his crossexamination that he had submitted the bills to the MCD for purposes of payment. Further, the witness of the defendant namely Atul Kumar Sharma (DW1) has specifically admitted that the bills were signed by the Executive Engineer, by Assistant Account Officer and also by the Contractor. He has also admitted that vide document Mark A the defendants have already sent the demand to the tune of Rs.5,51,988/ to the Headquarters. It is apparent from the evidence and material on record that despite having prepared and passed the various bills, the defendants have not released the payments to the plaintiff. Therefore, there exists a valid cause of action for filing the present suit. (13) Issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue No.2: Whether there is breach of agreement between the parties? (Ref. Para 3.1 of the Written Statement) (OPD) (14) Onus of proving this issue was upon the defendants who in their written statements have raised a preliminary objection that the plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands since the plaintiff is in material breach of the agreement between the parties which entitles him from any relief. (15) I may observe that only a vague averment has been raised by the defendants. The defendants have not specified as to what kind of breach the plaintiff has committed. Further, there is Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 18 of 36 nothing on record to show that the defendants have made some kind of deductions on account of the alleged breach of agreement. I hereby hold that the defendants have not been able to discharge the onus upon them.
(16) Issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue No.3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of principal amount, as asked for in plaint? (OPP) Issue No.4: In case if issue no.3 is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest, as asked for in the plaint? (OPP) (17) Both the issues are clubbed together for the sake of convenience involving common discussion. Onus of proving both the issues was upon the plaintiff.
(18) The case of the plaintiff Umesh Tyagi is that he is a duly enrolled contractor with the North DMC and has been carrying different works for the MCD (previously known as North DMC). According to the plaintiff, he participated in the Work Order No. EE (E)IICLZ/SYS/20192020/04 dated 01.05.2019 for the provision of lift operators for 16 Rajpur Road Zonal Office for a period of one year under Civil Lines Zone through tender which was invited by the defendant no.2 who after satisfaction of the completion of required condition at the stage of prework order. The case of the plaintiff is that he entered into an agreement with the defendants and completed the work order to the satisfaction of the defendant no.2 without any Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 19 of 36 negative remarks and after completion of the awarded work order, he made several requests to the defendant no.2 for passing of the bill but no heed was paid to his requests. According to the plaintiff, the total outstanding principal amount including the amount of passed bills, ESIC & EPF and contractual profit @ 15% on ESIC & EPF amount comes to Rs.5,91,593/ which the defendants have not released despite passing of the bills and despite repeated requests and demands made by the plaintiff vide letters dated 08.06.2021, 01.07.2021, 26.07.2021, 07.09.2021, 29.12.2021 and 24.01.2022. The case of the plaintiff is that he had sent a legal notice to the defendants on 14.02.2022 pursuant to which the defendants have sent a reply but did not make the payments to the plaintiff and hence, the present suit has been filed.
(19) On the other hand, the case of the defendants is that there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants since the plaintiff had failed to submit the requisite bills and Labour Clearance Certificate in compliance of the terms and conditions of the General Conditions of Contract and the Work Order.
(20) In order to prove his case the attorney of the plaintiff namely Umesh Tyagi has examined himself as his sole witness as PW1 whereas on the other hand the Assistant Engineer namely Sh. Atul Kumar Sharma has examined himself as DW1.
(21) I have considered the rival contentions and the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the parties.
Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 20 of 36 (22) At the very Outset, I may observe that the plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs.7,57,303/ along with pendentelite and future interest on the ground that he had completed the Work Order awarded by the defendants despite which the defendants have not made the payments to him. Here, I may note that the provisions of Section 2 (1) (c) (vi) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are very clear and read as under:
(c) "commercial dispute" means a dispute arising out of
(i) ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents, including enforcement and interpretation of such documents;
(ii) export or import of merchandise or services;
(iii) issues relating to admiralty and maritime law;
(iv) transactions relating to aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft equipment and helicopters, including sales, leasing and financing of the same;
(v) carriage of goods;
(vi) construction and infrastructure contracts, including tenders;
(vii) agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce;
(viii) franchising agreements;
(ix) distribution and licensing agreements;
(x) management and consultancy agreements;
(xi) joint venture agreements;
(xii) shareholders agreements;
Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 21 of 36
(xiii) subscription and investment agreements pertaining to the services industry including outsourcing services and financial services;
(xiv) mercantile agency and mercantile usage;
(xv) partnership agreements;
(xvi) technology development agreements; (xvii) intellectual property rights relating to registered and unregistered trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications and semiconductor integrated circuits;
(xviii) agreements for sale of goods or provision of services;
(xix) exploitation of oil and gas reserves or other natural resources including electromagnetic spectrum;
(xx) insurance and reinsurance; (xxi) contracts of agency relating to any of the above; and (xxii) such other commercial disputes as may be notified by the Central Government.
(23) The provisions of Section 2 (1) (c) (vi) of Commercial Courts Act as above are very much clear and provides that construction and infrastructure contracts, including tenders do come within the jurisdiction of Commercial Courts Act.
Therefore, the facts which alleged in the plaint fall under the commercial dispute.
(24) Secondly, on the issue as to whether this Court has the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter which is in dispute, the provisions of Section 3 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides that:
Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 22 of 36 Section 3: Constitution of Commercial Courts:
3. (1) The State Government, may after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute such number of Commercial Courts at District level, as it may deem necessary for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction and powers conferred on those Courts under this Act:
[Provided that with respect to the High Courts having ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute Commercial Courts at the District Judge level:
Provided further that with respect to a territory over which the High Courts have ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakh rupees and not more than the pecuniary jurisdiction exercisable by the District Courts, as it may consider necessary.] 3[(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the State Government may, after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakh rupees or such higher value, for whole or part of the State, as it may consider necessary.] (25) Admittedly, the Commercial Court Act was amended on 03.05.2018 and by virtue of the amendment and by virtue of the notification, the pecuniary value of the Commercial Courts Act shall not be less than Rs.3,00,000/. In the present case, the claim amount shown in the plaint is of Rs.7,57,303/ and hence, this Court has the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter which is in dispute.
Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 23 of 36 (26) Thirdly, this Court has the Territorial Jurisdiction to try the present suit since as per the record the plaintiff is having his office at Burari, Delhi110094 which falls within the jurisdiction of this Court. Further, the office of the defendant no.1 Municipal Corporation of Delhi is situated at Civic Center, Minto Road, Delhi110002 which falls within the jurisdiction of this Court.
(27) Fourthly, in so far as the aspect of Limitation is concerned, it is evident from the record that the work order was awarded to the plaintiff on 01.05.2019 and the defendants had passed the first and final bill on 08.02.2021. Therefore, the present suit which was filed on 07.09.2022 is within the period of limitation.
(28) Fifthly, a perusal of the record shows that before filing the present suit, the preinstitution mediation proceedings were initiated by the plaintiff on 05.05.2022 and the NonStarter Report dated 12.07.2022 shows that notice was issued to the defendants for 02.06.2022. As per the Non Starter Report, the notice was duly served pursuant to which Sh. Sanjeev Sharma A.E. in North DMC had appeared before the DLSA and requested for another dated i.e. for 10.06.2022. However, on 10.06.2022 the defendants did not appear in the DLSA and hence, the matter was referred as Non Starter. (29) Sixthly, the plaintiff Umesh Tyagi (PW1) has in his crossexamination specifically admitted that he had hired two labours and had maintained an attendance register which he had Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 24 of 36 submitted to the department. Further, according to the plaintiff, he had paid salary/ wages as per the then prevailing minimum wages and had maintained the record regarding payment of wages paid to the labours. He has explained that he had not made the payment after deduction of TDS but has clarified that he has made the payment as per the Minimum Wages Act along with contribution of ESIC and EPFO. He has further testified that he had submitted the bills to the MCD for the repayment regarding work done. According to him, there is no such requirement of obtaining any clearance certificate from the concerned department after the completion of work order. The relevant portion of the testimony of Umesh Tyagi (PW1) is reproduced as under:
"...... Question How many labours have you hired for the completion of the said work order? Answer 2 labours.
Question Have you filed any documents regarding the said labours before commencement of work to the department of MCD?
Answer No. Question Have you maintained any attendance register of the said labours for the completion of the said work order?
Answer Yes Question Have you submitted said attendance register to the department?
Answer Yes Question Have you taken any acknowledgement from MCD regarding the attendance register of the labours ? Answer No. Vol. The MCD used to keep the said register and log book with itself stating that this is now their property.
Question Have you written any letter to MCD for providing the copy of the acknowledgement of attendance register of the labours for the completion of the said work Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 25 of 36 order?
Answer No. Question Can you tell that Place from where you have Purchased the said register?
Answer I have purchased the said register from some kiosk stall near ITO building opposite Y shaped building. I did not obtain any receipt for purchasing of the said register.
The labour which I have hired was my regular labours. Question Can you tell monthly salary/wages of your regular labours?
Answer I have paid salary/wages as per the then prevailing Minimum Wages. However, I can not tell the exact figure without seeing the judicial file. At this stage witness is asked to locate the said document from the file. (After seeing the case file witness referred Ex. PW1/11(Colly), wherein the wages of the labour are mentioned at Points A & B, which shows the minimum wages paid to the labour). I have maintained the record regarding the payment of wages paid to my labours. Today I have not brought the said record today. I can show the same before the court as and when asked.
Question Have you deposited the TDS against payment of the wages paid to the labour since the labour hired by you was for more than 1 year and the wages of the labour was more than Rs.14,000/ P.M.? Answer No. Vol. the department deduct the TDS and deposit the same to the respective department. Question Is it correct that sole responsibility of hiring and payments of the labours is on only upon you? Answer It is correct.
Question Whether the payment you made to the labour was after deduction of TDS of not? Answer No. Vol. However, I made the payment as per the minimum Wages Act alongwith contribution of ESIC and EPFO.
Question Have you submitted any bill to MCD for the payment regarding work done against the said work order?
Answer Yes.
Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 26 of 36 Question Have you obtained any clearance certificate from the concerned department after the completion of the said work order?
Answer No. There is no such requirement. I am not aware if there was any interest clause in the agreement.
It is wrong to suggest that that I am not entitled to the principal amount from the department since I have not submitted any bills to the department. It is wrong to suggest that I am not entitled for the interest amount since it is not mentioned in the agreement......".
(30) I may observe that the defendants at their end have not disputed the aspects as highlighted by the plaintiff Umesh Tyagi (PW1) in his deposition as highlighted herein above. (31) Seventhly, the defendants namely Atul Kumar Sharma (DW1) had in his crossexamination duly admitted that the ESIC & EPF amount as well as the Contractual/ Overhead Profit @ 15% on ESIC & EPF amount are not included in the work order in question. He has further admitted that the defendants are liable to pay the contractual/ overhead profit to the plaintiff and that the defect liability period has already expired on 06.05.2021. The witness of the defendant has also admitted that the defendants did not receive any complaint regarding the defects in the work performed by the plaintiff. He has further admitted that the plaintiff had completed the work for a sum of Rs.5,51,988/ which amount has been passed by the department. The witness of the defendant has further admitted that the bills are signed by the Executive Engineer, Assistant Account Officer and Contractor and that the defendant had sent the demand vide Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 27 of 36 document Mark A for the sum of Rs.5,51,988/. He has also admitted that the plaintiff had complied with all the terms and conditions of GCC qua the work order in question due to which reason the completion report Ex.DW1/P2 was made.
"...... Q. Did you comply with the circular Ex.PW1/5 in regard to the work in question?
Ans. Yes.
Q. Is it correct to suggest that Contractual/ Overhead Profit @15% on ESIC & EPF amount is not included in the work order in question?
Ans. Yes.
Q. Is it correct to suggest that ESIC & EPF amount is not included in the work order in question? Ans. Yes, it is correct.
It is correct that as per Ex.PW1/5 & Ex.PW1/9 defendants are liable to pay the contractual/ overhead profit to the plaintiff.
Q. I put it to you in how many days the department reimburse the amount of ESIC & EPF to the contractor which was paid by the contractor to its engaged employees of the work order?
Ans. As per the record, I am not aware. Q. Can you tell the defect liability period of the work order in question?
Ans. One year is the limitation period. Aforesaid period had already expired on 06.05.2021. It is correct to say that the defendants did not receive any complaint regarding the defects in the work performed by the plaintiff.......
.....Q. Can you tell whether the plaintiff has given proof of payment of ESIC & EPF for his engaged employees for the work order in question?
Ans. Yes.
It is correct that the defendants/ MCD has not reimbursed the payment of Rs.25,0992.34p to the plaintiff...
.....It is correct that bills are signed by the Executive Engineer, Assistant Account Officer and Contractor. It is correct that the defendant no.2 had sent the demand Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 28 of 36 vide document Mark A for the sum of Rs.5,51,988/ for the payment to the plaintiff. I have not followed up for release of the payment.
Q. Is it correct that a bill is signed by the Executive Engineer, Assistant Account Officer on behalf of MCD and the Contractor?
Ans: It is correct....."
(32) It is evident from the above that the defendants have already passed the bills in respect of the Work Order in question and had even sent the demand which fact is not denied by the plaintiff.
(33) Eighthly, in so far as the Security/ Earnest Money to the tune of Rs.10,750/ in respect of the Work Order in question is concerned, the witness of the defendants namely Atul Kumar Sharma (DW1) has categorically admitted that the same has not been released to the plaintiff. He has also admitted that the plaintiff had complied with all the terms and conditions of the GCC qua the work oder in question. Accordingly, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.10,750/ towards Security/ Earnest Money Deposit.
(34) Ninethly, coming next to reimbursement of ESIC & EPF amount to the tune of Rs.25,092/ and contractual profit @15% i.e. Rs.3,763/ (total Rs.28,855/). It is evident from the record that the plaintiff has duly proved that he had hired two labours for the completion of work order in question. The plaintiff has also placed on record the Contingent bill of ESIC & EPFO which is Ex.PW1/10; details of ESIC Contribution paid by the plaintiff from May 2019 to May 2020 which are Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 29 of 36 Ex.PW1/11 (colly); Challan of EPF deposit made by the plaintiff from May 2019 to May 2020 which is Ex.PW1/12 (colly); ESIC receipts of monthly contribution by plaintiff from May 2019 to May 2020 which are Ex.PW1/13 (colly) and payment details of EPF contribution by plaintiff from May 2019 to May 2020 which are Ex.PW1/14 (colly). It is also apparent from the record that the plaintiff had issued a notice dated 20.03.2023 under Order XII Rule 8 CPC to the defendant vide Ex.PW1/16, pursuant to which the witness of the defendants namely Atul Kumar Sharma (DW1) has produced the relevant documents i.e. copies of the measurement book (three pages) which are Ex.DW1/P1; Completion Report which is Ex.DW1/P2; Test Check Statement of the Work Order in question which are Ex.DW1/P 3; the 3rd party Quality Control Report which is Ex.DW1/P4; 1st RA Bill dated 08.02.2021 which is Ex.DW1/P5; Demand Letter sent to HQ which is Mark A; Agreement between the parties which is Ex.DW1/P6 and copy of the Attendance Register (16 pages) which are Ex.DW1/P7.
(35) I may further note that the plaintiff has not placed on record any document in the form of his statement of account or salary register to show that he had paid the salary to the said labours. However, as per the Office Memorandum No. DGW/MAN/184 dated 08.06.2009 and Office Memorandum No. DGW/MAN/150 dated 14.02.2007 which are Ex.PW1/5 (duly admitted by the witness of the defendant) issued by Central Public Works Department, the contractors are entitled to Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 30 of 36 Contractor's/ Overhead Profit @15%. The plaintiff has duly proved having hired two labours and having paid the EISC and EPF contributions. I, therefore, hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.28,855/ on account of ESIC & EPF contribution.
(36) Tenthly, the defendants having already passed the bills to the tune of Rs.5,51,988/ in respect of the Work Order in question, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of said amount from the defendants.
(37) Lastly, in so far as the Interest Aspect is concerned, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has placed his reliance upon Clause 9 of the General Terms and Conditions of the agreement and has argued that the defendants having withheld the payment of the passed bills beyond reasonable time (i.e. six to nine months), the defendants are therefore liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum to the plaintiff. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has placed his reliance upon the judgment in the case of East Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Raj Kumar Jain, RFA No. 397/2017 & CM APPL. 14985/2017 decided on 22.03.2018. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for defendant has argued that the plaintiff is not entitled to any interest and has placed his reliance upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. R.K. Goel Abhay Kumar Jain, RFA (Comm) No. 11 of 2021 decided on 22.07.2021. (38) I have considered the arguments advanced before me and have also gone through the various judgments relied upon by Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 31 of 36 the Ld. Counsels. I may note that in the case of East Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Raj Kumar Jain, RFA No. 397/2017 & CM APPL. 14985/2017 decided on 22.03.2018, the Delhi High Court had an occasion to deal with the similar issues i.e. Whether payment of the principal amount can be delayed in view of Clause 7 and Clause 9 of the General Conditions of Contract read with the amendments? (ii) Whether the refund of earnest money/security deposit can be delayed in view of Clauses 17 and 45 of the General Conditions of Contract? (iii) Whether interest is payable on delayed payments/refunds and if so, for which period?
(39) Hon'ble Ms. Justice Pratibha M. Singh in the case of East Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Raj Kumar Jain (Supra) had elaborately discussed the General Conditions of Contract of MCD and the relevant law on the subject and concluded as under:
".......Conclusions and Findings
71. The General Conditions of Contract i.e., clauses 7 and 9 which are admittedly part of the work orders issued by both the NrDMC and the EDMC are being tested in these batch of cases. A contract which stipulates that the consideration would be paid in an unforeseen time in the future based on certain factors which are indeterminable, would in effect be a contract without consideration. Even if the contract is held to be a valid contract, then the concept of `reasonableness' has to be read into the same. Section 46 of the Contract Act and the explanation thereto is clear that "what is a reasonable time is a question of fact in each case." 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;
Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 32 of 36
b) There is also no fixed mechanism to determine as to when and in what manner the head of account is to be 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.
72. 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.
73. 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 payments who are in queue prior to the contractor;
74. 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.
74. By applying the above said principles, in respect of final bills raised by Contractors for works executed, that have been approved by the EngineerinCharge, 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 Engineerin Charge.
Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 33 of 36
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 nonpayment would attract payment of interest for the delayed periods.
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. 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.
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 therefore be read down.
f) The Security amount/Earnest money deposited would be refundable upon the fulfilment of the conditions contained in Clauses 17 and 45 of the General Conditions of Contract. Interest would be payable on delayed payments...."
(40) In so far as the judgment in the case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. R.K. Goel Abhay Kumar Jain (Supra) relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant is concerned, the same does not apply to the present case since the Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 34 of 36 said judgment relates to the interest on the Security/ Earnest Money deposited by the contractor.
(41) This being the background and in view of the conclusions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of East Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Raj Kumar Jain (Supra), I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to the Simple Interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of Rs.5,91,593/ (i.e. Rs.5,51,988/ towards passed bills + Rs.10,750/ towards Security/ Earnest Money Deposit + Rs.28,855/ towards ESIC & EPF contributions along with Contractual/ Overhead Profit) from the defendants from the date of filing of the suit till realization. (42) Both the issues are accordingly disposed off.
CONCLUSIONS & RELIEF:
(43) In view of my above discussion on the above issues, I hereby hold that the plaintiff is entitled to the following reliefs:
A) That the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.5,51,988/ towards the bills passed by the defendants.
B) That the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.10,750/ towards Security/ Earnest Money Deposit of from the defendants.
C) That the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.28,855/ towards ESIC & EPF contributions along with Contractual/ Overhead Profit.
Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 35 of 36 D) That the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Simple Interest @ 6% per annum on the total amount of Rs.5,91,593/ from the date of filing of the suit till realization.
(44) Suit of the plaintiff is accordingly Decreed. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. (45) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 05.12.2023 District Judge (Commercial Court)02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Umesh Tyagi Vs MCD & Anr, CS (Comm.) No. 2131/2023 Judgment dated 05.12.2023 Page No. 36 of 36