Delhi District Court
M/S Akanksha Architect vs State Bank Of India on 21 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP YADAV,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-03, SOUTH,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ 1026/2018
M/s. Akanksha Architect
Through Mr. Devinder Gupta
Plot No. 89-90, Shop No. 1-2
Nehru Market, Badarpur
New Delhi.
.......Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. State Bank of India
Ansari Nagar (AIIMS Campus)
New Delhi.
2. Satish Kumar
Deputy General Manager (SME)
Corporate Centre
State Bank Bhawan
Madame Cama Road
Nariman Point, Mumbai.
3. The Deputy General Manager
State Bank of India
Delhi Zonal Office
DZO-2, First Floor
11, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi.
.....Defendants
Date of institution of petition : 31.10.2018
Date of reserving judgment : 07.08.2025
CS DJ 1026/2018 1/17
M/s. Akanksha Architect Vs. SBI & Ors.
Date of pronouncement : 21.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff M/s. Akanksha Architect filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 31,45,088/- alongwith interest against State Bank of India and other persons. After issuance of summons for settlement of issues, Mr. Gaurav Shukla, ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1, 2 and 3 had appeared. After defendants' evidence was closed, case was listed for final arguments to be heard on 26.10.2024. Thereafter, various opportunities were given to both parties to address arguments but none of the parties came forward to address final arguments. On 07.08.2025, none appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Kirit Singh, ld. Counsel for defendants, appeared through VC. Mr. Kirti Singh sought permission to file written arguments and one final opportunity to address oral arguments. Today, there is no appearance on behalf of plaintiff or defendants. Even written arguments have not been filed by defendants. Accordingly, the suit is being taken up for disposal.
2. Case of plaintiff disclosed during trial is as under :-
3. Plaintiff firm is a sole proprietorship concern and Mr. Devinder Gupta is the proprietor of plaintiff firm. Plaintiff firm has been empanelled with the State Bank of India for civil, interior work and other allied services. Being an empanelled contractor with the State Bank of India, the plaintiff firm has carried out renovation work successfully to the satisfaction of the defendants at different branches/location of the State CS DJ 1026/2018 2/17 M/s. Akanksha Architect Vs. SBI & Ors.
Bank of India across the Delhi from time to time as per the instructions / directions issued by the defendants, written as well as verbal.
4. Defendant No.2 who was posted as Assistant General Manager in the defendant No. 1 branch around the year 2016-17 was responsible for its day to day affairs and business, as such being overall in-charge and head of the defendant No.1. Defendant No. 3 is the Deputy General Manager with State Bank of India who is responsible for looking into day to day affairs/business of the State Bank of India throughout the territory of Delhi and is fully responsible for affairs & functioning of defendant No. 1 branch. In October 2016-17, the defendant No. 2 asked Mr. Devinder Gupta to immediately carry out renovation work in the defendant No. I branch so as to make the defendant No. 1 branch more presentable, beautiful and customer friendly as some senior officials of State Bank of India were scheduled to visit defendant no. 1 branch. Plaintiff was directed to renovate cash counters, wooden storage, wooden partition of cabins, wooden panelling, lacquer glass and acrylic panel (Korean) and other allied work. Defendant No. 2 requested Mr. Devinder Gupta to employ its labour day and night and to complete the renovation work at the earliest. Plaintiff accepted the above-said direction issued by the defendant No. 2 and the renovation work was started by defendant No. I branch w.e.f. 17.10.2016 as per the instructions of the defendant No. 2 and 95% of the work got completed by 24.10.2016.
CS DJ 1026/2018 3/17M/s. Akanksha Architect Vs. SBI & Ors.
5. Defendant No. 2 kept visiting, instructing and supervising the renovation work during the entire period to ensure its smooth and satisfactory completion within time but before the final bill could be submitted by the plaintiff firm, defendant No. 2 asked Mr. Devinder Gupta to accomplish some additional work of wooden partition, wooden flooring, glass, lighting, false ceiling and renovation of existing tables in defendant No. 1 branch. Plaintiff completed the renovation work at the defendant No. 1 branch well within time to the complete satisfaction of the defendant No.2. Since the plaintiff had already incurred a huge expenditure in performing the above-said work, it requested defendant No. 2 vide letter dated 24.10.2016 to release an amount of Rs. Five lac Only as an ad-hoc payment to the account of plaintiff. Being satisfied with the pace of renovation work at the defendant No. 1 branch, the defendant No. 2 immediately transferred to the account of the plaintiff firm a sum of Rs. Four Lac Only on 25.10.2016 as an ad-hoc payment. After the aforesaid payment, plaintiff also completed remaining 5% of the balance renovation work and the addition renovation work thereto to the full and complete satisfaction of the defendant No. 2.
6. In October / Nov. 2016, defendant No. 3 visited the defendant No. 1 branch and defendant No. 3 praised the defendant No. 2 for his efforts in looking after and taking care of day to day affairs of the defendant No. 1 branch. On that occasion defendant No. 2 introduced Mr. Devinder Gupta with the defendant No. 3 (DGM) and told defendant No. 3 that all the CS DJ 1026/2018 4/17 M/s. Akanksha Architect Vs. SBI & Ors.
renovation work was completed at fast pace only due to sincere efforts of the plaintiff.
7. After the visit of the defendant No. 3, defendant No. 2 called Mr. Devinder Gupta to his office and instructed him to carry out additional work of wooden partition, wooden flooring, glass, lighting, false ceiling and renovation of existing tables in defendant No. 1 branch. Since, defendant No. 2 has made ad-hoc payment of Rs. Four Lac Only to the account of the plaintiff firm on 25.10.2016, plaintiff firm under bonafide impression and on the instruction of the defendant No. 2 started carrying out additional renovation work.
8. Defendant No. 2 also asked the plaintiff to also carry out renovation in the ATM deployed in the boys hostel. Plaintiff firm duly completed the renovation work in the ATM deployed in the boys hostel around the last of November 2016 whereas the pace of the additional renovation work was little slow as the defendant No. 2 could not coordinate properly with the other vendors for removal of AC and fire- fighting equipment and decision of demonetisation took by the Government. During this period, defendant no. 2 asked plaintiff to change the internal sitting layout of (AGM) cabin again. Plaintiff firm showed its inability to again change the sitting layout of AGM cabin as same involved huge expenditures. Defendant No. 2 got annoyed with the plaintiff on account of inability expressed by plaintiff to change the layout of AGM cabin and started creating hindrances.
CS DJ 1026/2018 5/17M/s. Akanksha Architect Vs. SBI & Ors.
9. Plaintiff firm completed almost entire additional renovation work successfully except final painting. Since, plaintiff showed its inability to relocate the sitting layout in AGM office again and to bear huge expenditure, defendant no. 2 did not permit the plaintiff to complete the remaining job of painting and asked it to submit its bill for the work already done.
10. Having completed the renovation work and the additional renovation work in the defendant No. 1 branch as also the ATM booth in boys hostel successfully to the full satisfaction of the defendant No. 2, plaintiff submitted two Invoice No. 101 and 102 dated 11.1.2017 amounting to Rs. 19,56,223/- and Rs. 3,42,675/- respectively on account of completion of renovation work, the additional renovation work in the defendant No. l branch and the ATM booth in boys hostel. After seeing the Invoice No. 101, defendant No. 2 directed the plaintiff to submit the Invoices with bifurcation to amounts. Defendant No. 2 justified the issuance of this direction for bifurcation of Invoices so that the payments of the plaintiff could be processed and released early. Defendant No. 2 thus returned both the above-said Invoices back to Mr. Devinder Gupta and directed him to submit fresh Invoices with the same date. It is further stated that believing bonafide and as being directed, the plaintiff than submitted five Invoices each dated 11.1.2017 for a sum of Rs. 5,26,660/- Rs. 5,59,760/-, Rs. 3,64,303/-, Rs. 3,42,675, and Rs. 5,05,500/- respectively on the defendant No. 2 for all the renovation work, additional work, extra work CS DJ 1026/2018 6/17 M/s. Akanksha Architect Vs. SBI & Ors.
etc. so carried out by the plaintiff to the full and complete satisfaction of the defendant No. 2.
11. It is further stated that since the said Invoices were pending clearance, the plaintiff firm requested the defendant No. 2 to issue a gate pass to take back the unused extra material i.e texture paint, aluminum composite panel along-with fixing material, ply, laminations etc. and even sent its tempo twice but the defendant No. 2 did not issue any gate pass to the plaintiff firm nor permit it to take back its unused extra items. It is stated that the plaintiff firm requested the defendant No. 2 that the unused items would cost around Rs. 2.37 Lac, the plaintiff firm be permitted to take the same back and to utilise it somewhere else however the defendant No. 2 remained adamant and did not permit the plaintiff firm to take back its unused material. It is stated that plaintiff came under huge financial loss as neither its outstanding invoices were paid nor it was permitted to remove the unused extra material which amounted to around Rs. 2.37 Lac.
12. Defendant No. 2 on being annoyed with the plaintiff unilaterally and without any intimation to the plaintiff, withdrew a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lac Only) and Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) from the account of the plaintiff firm on 4.2.2017 and 3.3.2017 respectively.
13. The invoices raised by plaintiff were forwarded for approval to defendant no. 3 who deputed a Civil Engineer for verification, cross CS DJ 1026/2018 7/17 M/s. Akanksha Architect Vs. SBI & Ors.
checking and vetting of the voices of the plaintiff firm after on the spot verification of the work done by plaintiff. Despite invoices being cross checked, verified and vetted by the Bank Civil Engineer in the year 2017, no payment has been remitted to the account of the plaintiff firm till date
14. Plaintiff wrote various letters from dated 25.4.2017 to 3.5.2018 to the defendants requesting for release of its outstanding amount. However, the defendant No. 1 put the onus on defendant No. 3 for non-payment for want of approval and the defendant No. 3 preferred not to give any cogent reply to the plaintiff. Defendant no. 2 & defendant no. 3 are hands in glove and connived with each other misusing their respective powers while illegally withholding the legitimate outstanding amount of the plaintiff. Thereafter, plaintiff was also constrained to issue a legal notice dated 28.7.2018 to the defendants but the legal notice failed to evoke any response from defendants. Plaintiff in the suit prayed for a decree of Rs. 31,45,088/-. This amount is calculated by plaintiff in the following manner :-
S.No. Invoice No. Dated Amount Verified
Amount
1. Akanksha 2016- 11.1.2017 Rs.364303/- Rs.268412
17/101
2. Akanksha 2016- -do- Rs.505500/- Rs.343406
17/102
3. Akanksha 2016- -do- Rs.559760 Rs.412806/-
17/103
4. Akanksha 2016- -do- Rs.526660/- Rs.436995/-
17/104
5. Akanksha 2016- -do- Rs.342675/- Rs.263971/-
17/105
CS DJ 1026/2018 8/17
M/s. Akanksha Architect Vs. SBI & Ors.
Total Rs.2298898/- Rs.1725590/-
(A)
+ Interest @ 12 % on (A) w.e.f.1.4.17 to Rs.326862/-
15.10.18. (AA)
+ GST @ 18 % on verified amount Rs. 310606/-
(B)
+ Unused Material costing Rs.237000/-
(C)
+ Interest @ 12 % w.e.f. 1.4.2017 to 15.10.2018 Rs. 45030/-
(CC)
+ Damages on account of harassment quantified
at Rs. 500000/- (D)
Total of (A) (AA) (B) (C) (CC) (D) Rs.3145088/-
15. Plaintiff has also prayed for interest and cost of suit.
16. Defendant no. 1, 2 and 3 filed joint statement and raised the following pleas/defences:-
17. There is no privity of contract between plaintiff and defendants. Plaintiff has not placed on record any documents in order to prove that it was authorised to execute the work within the bank premises. A bare perusal of bills, placed on record by plaintiff does not reflect details of work undertaken and executed. Vide letter dated 03.11.2016. State Bank of India aurthorised plaintiff bank to renovate boys hostel ATM. For execution of said order, the bank credited a sum of Rs. 4 lacs into the account of plaintiff.
CS DJ 1026/2018 9/17M/s. Akanksha Architect Vs. SBI & Ors.
18. For execution of the work, the plaintiff employed inexperienced labor and material of low quality. The defendant objected to the conduct of the plaintiff and requested him to improve his services. There was no instruction for the plaintiff to undertake any additional work.
19. There were considerable damages made to the Hospital property while execution of renovation works at the ATM Boys Hostel. Under the pretext of repair, the plaintiff undertook further work at the branch. On objections made by defendant no 2 (branch manager) the plaintiff said he had instructions from higher authority for the said work. The Defendant no 2 objected to any work being done without the due procedure as prescribed under CVC guidelines.
20. Due to inexperienced labor and low quality of material (mostly old ones already existing in the branch) used the work done had caused substantial damage to the Hospital Property which the bank was responsible for. The defendant bank had to get the repair done of the ATM gate independently in May/June 2017.
21. Plaintiff was asked to deposit his bills and undertake no further work. The plaintiff deposited 5 different bills for one work that was undertaken. The bills deposited were vague, inflated and not in accordance with the guidelines as prescribed by CVC. Defendant no 2 requested the plaintiff to deposit bills with the details of labour charges, material used along with receipts and further details of work undertaken. Instead of CS DJ 1026/2018 10/17 M/s. Akanksha Architect Vs. SBI & Ors.
depositing the said bill the plaintiff threatened to file complaint against defendant no 2.
22. The Civil Engineer was appointed in order to estimate the cost incurred, give a detail report of magnitude of work undertaken and also the damages caused. The civil engineer did not give detail report. The bills were endorsed by the civil engineer without substantiating the same. Thus, the bank referred the matter for vigilance clearance. The said enquiry is pending. Hence, the advance earlier credited was withdrawn as there was independent repair work undertaken by the branch.
23. Plaintiff filed replication wherein averments of plaint were reaffirmed, reiterated and contentions of defendants in the joint statement were controverted. After completion of pleadings following issues were framed on 16.01.2023 :-
(I) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of Rs. 31,45,088/-along with pendente lite and future interest, as prayed for ? OPP.
(II) Whether for the execution of work, the plaintiff employed inexperienced labour and material of low quality, as per para 5 of the preliminary objections in the reply / written statement? OPD.
(III) Whether due to the inexperienced labour and low quality of material, substantial damage has been done to the hospital property ? OPD.
(IV) Whether the plaintiff has raised five different bills for single work ? OPD.CS DJ 1026/2018 11/17
M/s. Akanksha Architect Vs. SBI & Ors.
(V) Relief.
24. Thereafter, trial commenced and plaintiff examined Mr. Davinder Gupta as PW 1. Defendants' examined Mr. Sonu Gupta as DW 1.
25. The issue-wise finding of the Court is as under:
26. ISSUE NO.(I)
27. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs.31,45,088/-
along with pendente lite and future interest, as prayed for? OPP.
28. The burden of proof on this issue was on the plaintiff. As discussed above, the plaintiff examined PW1/ Devinder Gupta as a sole plaintiff's witness. PW1 in his evidence by way of affidavit deposed on the line of the plaint and substantiated the averment of the plaint. PW1 inter alia deposed that on the instruction of the defendant no.2, the plaintiff carried out renovation work and additional renovation work at the defendant no.1 branch. PW1 also deposed about the payment of Rs.4,00,000/- by defendant no.2 to the plaintiff as ad-hoc payment. PW1 then referred to direction of defendant no.2 to the plaintiff to carry out the renovation work in the ATM at the boys hostel vide letter dated 03.11.2016.
CS DJ 1026/2018 12/17M/s. Akanksha Architect Vs. SBI & Ors.
29. PW1, in support of his aforesaid contention, relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/10 and Ex.PW1/11 to Ex.PW1/14. However, these documents were de-exhibited being photocopies. These photocopies are inadmissible in evidence in view of the Provisions contained in Section 64 of the Indian Evidence Act. No application was filed by the plaintiff for leading the secondary evidence to prove these documents.
30. Mere oral testimony of PW1 to the effect that the plaintiff on the instruction of the defendant no.2, carried out the renovation work at defendant no.1 branch and the ATM installed at boys hostel costing to Rs.31,45,088/- will not be sufficient to prove the case of the plaintiff.
31. As a general practice, no one carries out such renovation work worth lakhs of rupees without any written instruction from the bank. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff insisted on written work order and the defendant no.2 instead of issuing written work order to the plaintiff, orally instructed the plaintiff to carry out the renovation work. In other words, the oral testimony of PW1 is not supported by any admissible and cogent documentary evidence. Only documents exhibited in the testimony of PW1 are Ex.PW1/11 and Ex.PW1/15. The document Ex.PW1/11 is copy of a letter dated 11.06.2017 written by the proprietor of the plaintiff to the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
CS DJ 1026/2018 13/17M/s. Akanksha Architect Vs. SBI & Ors.
32. In this case, the plaintiff raised a contention that despite the submission of the final bills to the tune of Rs.14,61,619/- submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant branch and duly vetted and corrected by the bank Civil Engineer, payment has still not been released. It transpired during trial that there was connivance between the plaintiff and the bank Civil Engineer and the matter has already been referred for vigilance enquiry. Therefore, the document Ex.PW1/11 will not help the plaintiff in any manner. The document Ex.PW1/15 is a letter written by Assistant General Manager of the defendant bank to the Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India forwarding a letter dated 03.05.2018 from the plaintiff for necessary action. Even, this letter nowhere mentioned that instructions were given by the defendant no.2 to the plaintiff for carrying out renovation work at different defendant no.1 branch and in pursuance of the renovation work, the plaintiff has raised the bills/ invoices which are justified and which needs to be paid by the Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India. Therefore, even the reliance on the document Ex.PW1/15 by the plaintiff will not serve any purpose.
33. On the other hand, as per the deposition of DW1, the bills of the plaintiff were endorsed by the Civil Engineer without substantiating the same. The plaintiff bank is stated to have referred the matter for vigilance clearance and the said enquiry is pending. This part of the deposition of DW1 was not challenged or rebutted by the plaintiff in his cross examination. This only goes to show the connivance between the plaintiff and the Civil Engineer to cause wrongful gain to the plaintiff and wrongful CS DJ 1026/2018 14/17 M/s. Akanksha Architect Vs. SBI & Ors.
loss to the defendant. In other words, the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that a sum of Rs.31,45,088/- was due against the defendant. Since the plaintiff failed to prove that he is entitled to recover Rs.31,45,088/-, therefore, the question of payment of interest does not arise. Accordingly, the issue no.1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
34. Issue nos. (II), (III) & (IV) are being decided together.
(II) Whether for the execution of work, the plaintiff employed inexperienced labour and material of low quality, as per para 5 of the preliminary objections in the reply / written statement? OPD. (III) Whether due to the inexperienced labour and low quality of material, substantial damage has been done to the hospital property ? OPD.
(IV) Whether the plaintiff has raised five different bills for single work ? OPD.
35. As regards Issue no.(II), the defendant has elaborated in the written statement that the plaintiff employed inexperienced labour and material of low quality. These words were repeated verbatim in the evidence of affidavit of defendant no.1/ Sonu Gupta.
36. Similarly, as regards Issue no.(III), it was stated in the written statement that due to inexperienced labour and low quality of material, substantial damage has been caused to the hospital property. Again these CS DJ 1026/2018 15/17 M/s. Akanksha Architect Vs. SBI & Ors.
lines were repeated in the testimony of PW1. No documentary evidence was adduced on record by the defendant to prove issue nos.2, 3 & 4. The burden of proof of such issue cannot be discharged by mere oral testimony which is just a repetition of the averment of the written statement. It was incumbent upon the defendant to prove by solid and cogent evidence as to whether any damage has been caused to the plaintiff on account of unexperienced labour and low quality material employed by the plaintiff. The defendant has not got examined the work done by the plaintiff by any expert agency to prove that the plaintiff used low quality material. The defendant even has not adduced on record any photographs to establish that any damage has been caused to the hospital on account of certain omissions on the part of the plaintiff.
37. Coming to Issue No.(IV). This issue will not have much bearing on the fate of the suit at present as it has already been held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs.31,45,088/-. Whether the plaintiff raised five different bills for single work or for single bill is irrelevant at this stage. Even otherwise, the defendant has not led any positive or credit worth evidence to prove issue no.4. In fact, the only document proof in the testimony of DW1 are power of attorney Ex.DW1/1 and copy of the central vigilance commission guidelines Ex.DW1/4. These documents are totally irrelevant so far as proof of issue nos. (II), (III) & (IV) is concerned. The obvious conclusion is that the defendant failed to prove the issue nos. (II), (III) & (IV).
CS DJ 1026/2018 16/17M/s. Akanksha Architect Vs. SBI & Ors.
38. RELIEF.
39. In view of the finding of issue no.(I), the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to the Record Room.
Digitally signed bySANDEEP SANDEEP YADAV Announced in the open court YADAV Date: 2025.08.25 10:15:28 +0530 on 21.08.2025. ( Sandeep Yadav ) District Judge (Commercial)-03 South, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
CS DJ 1026/2018 17/17M/s. Akanksha Architect Vs. SBI & Ors.