Delhi District Court
Suman Grover Prop Of M/S Groson ... vs M/S Varun Gupta And Co on 15 October, 2025
CNR No. DLCT01-011595-2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA :
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-03: CENTRAL :
TIS HAZARI (EXTENSION BLOCK) : DELHI.
CS DJ No. 6052/2018
In the matter of :-
Ms. Suman Grover,
Proprietor of M/s Groson Engineers,
Office at C-1/8, Sector-11,
Rohini, Delhi-110085.
Through its duly executed SPA Holder
Mr. Praveen Grover ...Plaintiff
Versus
1. Mr. Varun Gupta,
Proprietor of M/s Varun Gupta & Co.
Office at A-64/3, DDA Flats,
Saket, New Delhi-110017.
2. The Executive Engineer
(C) EDU.M. (West)
Public Works Department,
At ITI Campus, Pusa,
New Delhi-110012 ...Defendants
Date of Institution : 06.09.2018
Date on which Judgment reserved : 08.10.2025
Date on which judgment pronounced : 15.10.2025
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.1 of 68
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15
16:29:04 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the suit for recovery of Rs.71,75,578/- filed by plaintiff against the defendants.
(A) Facts of the Parties :-
2. Briefly stated facts of the case as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff is the proprietor of firm, M/s Groson Engineers, and engaged as electrical contractor in the Government and Semi Government Department as well as for private contractor, builder and developer in all parts of India. The plaintiff has been operating from C-1/8, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi. The plaintiff being lady had authorized her husband Sh. Praveen Grover to do the business/construction work on her behalf. The present suit has been instituted through Shri Praveen Grover who was stated to be competent to sign and verify the plaint and to institute the present suit on behalf of plaintiff by way of Special Power of Attorney dated 14.08.2018.
3. It is averred in the plaint that defendant no.1 is a civil contractor and doing the construction work in the Government Department. The defendant no.2 is the concerned Executive Engineer of PWD under whose supervision the work awarded to the defendant no.1 was carried out, hence, the defendant no.2 was stated to be the necessary party to the suit.
4. It is further averred that defendant no.1 had submitted the quotation/tender application against NIT No. CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.2 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:29:14 +0530 85/CE Edu (M)/PWD/2015-16 & 21/EE/Ed.M.Div.(West)/2015- 16 for work of "Construction of Additional SPS Class rooms in existing premises under Jurisdiction Zone-18 of District West-B (Priority-I) (SH:C/o SPS Type rooms, labs, MP Halls i/c internal & External water supply, sanitary installation, development of site and Fire Fighting System etc. at G (Co-ed) Bindapur, GGSSS Bindapur, SKV A-Block Janakpuri) (Package-D)". Subsequently the work was awarded by the defendant no.2, after completion of formalities to the defendant no.1, vide agreement no.
04/EE/Edu(M)West/2015-16. The copy of the acceptance letter dated 09.02.2016 issued by the defendant no.1 to the defendant no.2 was annexed with the plaint.
5. It is further averred that the plaintiff had submitted the quotation on the request of the defendant no.1 on 01.07.2016 through email with respect to the electrical and firefighting work and after negotiation of the rates, the defendant no.1 agreed to award the electrical and firefighting work to the plaintiff and had written letter of acceptance on 15.07.2016 addressed to authorized signatory of the plaintiff sent through email. It is further averred that it was specifically mentioned in the agreement that the rates of electrical and fire-fighting items shall be 14% less than BOQ rates as quoted by Varun Gupta & Co. (defendant no.1) at the time of submission of the tender application.
6. It is further averred that the defendant no.2 had written a letter bearing ref. no.20(22)/PWD Edu. M 1/2015- 16/307 dated 18.07.2016 for the approval of associate agency for CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.3 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:29:22 +0530 different package of E&M services to the defendant no.1 with proforma of required documents for approval of associate agency. The defendant no.1 had sent an email dated 26.07.2016 to the plaintiff alongwith letter dated 18.07.2016 and telephonically asked the plaintiff to submit the documents for electrical and mechanical work. Thereafter, the plaintiff had sent all the documents through email to the defendant no.1 on 27.07.2016 and started the work and submitted the tax invoice of the materials purchased for execution of the work. The statement of tax invoices alongwith tax invoice and statement of purchase invoice alongwith the purchase invoice are annexed with the plaint.
7. It is further averred that the plaintiff had submitted the following running bills in the defendant no.2 department under his signatures although in the name of defendant no.1 and submitted 4th & final bill through email, details of which are as under :-
R/A Bill No. Date Amount (Rs.)
1st 16.11.2016 20,57,839/-
2nd 18.03.2017 38,78,539/-
3rd Pre-final bill 27.03.2018 60,52,814/-
4th & Final bill Approx. 29,84,998/-
TOTAL 1,49,74,190/-
8. It is further submitted that the plaintiff had executed the work of the total amount of approx. Rs.1,49,74,190/- and the defendant no.1 had submitted the bills, through the plaintiff, in the office of the defendant no.2 as bill no.1 to 4. It is further stated that in terms of acceptance letter, the defendant no.1 was CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.4 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:29:33 +0530 entitled to withheld 14% of the total amount which comes to Rs.20,96,386/-, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to get Rs.1,28,77,795/-.
9. It is further averred that the defendant no.1 had paid Rs.59,52,217/- from 21.11.2016 to 12.04.2018 through transfer from his bank account to bank account of the plaintiff in 11 installments, hence, the plaintiff was entitled to get Rs.71,75,578/-.
10. It is further averred that the plaintiff had already submitted his representation dated 19.04.2018 to the defendant no.2 thereby stating all the facts and requesting to release the amount. The plaintiff had also submitted a letter dated 26.04.2018 to the Executive Engineer (Elect.), M-1 (Edu.) of defendant no.2 department making the same request. The concerned Executive Engineer namely Sh. Amrit Pal had forwarded representation of the plaintiff to the defendant no.2 on 08.05.2018 with request to resolve the dispute. It is further stated that despite release of the amount of electrical and fire-fighting work by the defendant no.2 upto 3rd running bill, the defendant no.1 had not paid the amount to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff had sent a letter dated 05.05.2018 through speed post on 07.05.2018 which was duly served upon defendant no.1 but was neither replied to nor acted upon by defendant no.1. The plaintiff then sent legal notice dated 18.05.2018 through speed post and by hand to the defendants seeking recovery of the due amount and the defendant no.2 had sent reply dated 06.06.2018 to the legal notice stating that the plaintiff was not working with the CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.5 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:29:41 +0530 department of defendant no.2 with respect to said work and work executed by the plaintiff was falsified by the documents sent through email by the defendant no.2 to the plaintiff. Thus aggrieved by the act of defendants, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit praying for a decree of recovery in sum of Rs.71,75,578/- alongwith future interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 18.05.2018 till its realization.
11. The defendant no.1 has contested the suit by filing a detailed written statement. By way of preliminary objections, it is stated that suit is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff has not disclosed the true facts from the Court by falsely claiming himself to be the associate contractor of the defendant no.1. It is stated that the defendant no.1 at no point of time had made him (plaintiff) his associate contractor nor plaintiff is eligible to become associate contractor. The copy of the eligibility criteria for main agency with respect to associate electrical agency to be engaged by the main contractor for executing the electrical sub heads have also been annexed to the written statement.
12. Another objection has been taken that the plaintiff had committed an act of cheating, forgery and tempering the records and prepared and filed the false documents and raised the fictitious claims for which she is liable to be punished.
13. Another objection regarding maintainability of the suit has been taken that the plaintiff is not technically qualified to be appointed as Electrical Engineer and that her firm is also not competent to carry out the awarded work of electrical and fire-
CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.6 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:29:49 +0530 fighting. It is further submitted that there exist no agreement or memorandum of understanding between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 to execute the awarded work and that the documents annexed with the plaint does not bear the signatures of the defendant no.1. It is stated that the defendant no.1 owes no money to the plaintiff as claimed by the plaintiff on account of alleged awarded work by defendant no.2 to defendant no.1 and the plaintiff has filed a false claim on the basis of forged and fabricated documents after illegally procuring them from defendant no.2.
14. On merits, each and every averment made in the plaint has been denied. It is denied that the plaintiff has authorized her husband to do the business/construction work on her behalf. It is stated that the plaintiff might have given authority to her husband to file the present case but the plaintiff does not have the qualification for electrical Engineer or contractor so plaintiff cannot authorize her husband to do the construction work or business. It is submitted that defendant no.1 is himself a electrical license holder and competent to execute the work, hence it is denied that any request was made to the plaintiff as alleged and the said fact has been acknowledged by defendant no.2 in their letter dated 06.06.2018 written to the plaintiff counsel. It is denied that the defendant no.1 had agreed to award electrical and fire-fighting work to the plaintiff and has written any letter to the plaintiff or her authorized representative to carry out any work as associate electrical contractor. It is denied that defendant no.1 has issued the letter dated 15.07.2016 to the plaintiff or her authorized representative or that the same CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.7 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:29:57 +0530 bears signatures of defendant no.1. It is stated that copy of quotation dated 01.07.2016 has been prepared falsely and was never acted upon as the plaintiff was not competent or fulfill the criterial of being appointed as associate electrical and firefighting contractor. In reply to para 5 of the plaint, it is submitted that the letter dated 18.07.2016 was a communication between defendant no.2 and defendant no.1. The plaintiff being incompetent to be associated with defendant no.1, the issue of proposing/approval of name of the plaintiff does not arise. It is reiterated that the letter dated 15.07.2016 is fabricated letter and does not contain the signatures of defendant no.1 nor contains the name of awarded contract and the documents annexed with the plaint are fabricated documents. It is denied that the defendant no.1 had sent any email or contacted telephonically to him for submission of any documents for associate contractor.
15. In reply to para no.6 of the plaint, it is stated that the work was awarded to the defendant no.1 who had executed the work without the aid of any associate contractor. It is further submitted that any purchases made by the plaintiff on tax invoices has nothing to do with the present case. It is stated that whatever material has been purchased by the defendant no.1 has been paid off to the plaintiff as he was only a supplier of electrical goods and not the associate contractor of defendant no.1. It is further stated that the plaintiff has not filed the present suit for recovery of the amount for material supplied and was trying to falsely project that he was an associate contractor and was entitled to the amount which the defendant no.2 owes to defendant no.1 for doing the electrical and firefighting work CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.8 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:30:05 +0530 under the contract. It is further stated that the defendant no.2 in his correspondence with the plaintiff had stated that plaintiff never acted as a associate contractor or did any work for the awarded contract vide letter dated 06.06.2018. It is further stated that the plaintiff was not entitled to submit any bill for and on behalf of the defendant no.1 as he was not associated with him or had any authority to sign or submit the bills on behalf of defendant no.1. It is stated that work had been awarded by defendant no.2 to defendant no.1 and the defendant no.1 had completed the work and this fact had also been admitted by the defendant no.1 in its letter dated 06.06.2018. It is further stated that the payment made by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff was towards the purchase of electrical goods and not towards the execution of work contract as in the present case no TDS had been deducted by the defendant no.1 and no proof of compliance of Income Tax as well as DVAT Act provisions has been filed by the plaintiff in support of her claim. It is stated that the plea of withholding 14% out of the total bill amount is without any basis and no amount is due and payable for the alleged work done by the plaintiff. It is reiterated that the plaintiff was not the associate contractor of the defendant no.1 or defendant no.2 and hence the defendant no.1 and 2 are not liable to pay any money to the plaintiff. Rest of the averments made in the plaint have been controverted on merits and it is prayed that the suit of plaintiff be dismissed with costs.
16. The Defendant No.2 has also contested the suit by filing the written statement. By way of preliminary objections, it is stated that the present suit has been filed with the ulterior CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.9 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:30:11 +0530 motives against the defendant no.2 as no cause of action has arisen against the defendant no.2. It is stated that the suit is barred U/o 1 Rule 1 r/w Order 2 Rule 3 CPC for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties.
17. Another objection regarding maintainability of the suit has been taken on the ground that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the plaint is liable to be returned U/o VII Rule 10 CPC. It is contended that the defendant no.1 resides and works for gain at Saket, New Delhi whereas the plaintiff is carrying on business in Sector 8, Rohini.
18. The claim of plaintiff has also been challenged on the ground that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant no.2. It is stated that the plaint does not disclose when the defendant no.2 had given any directions or granted any work-order in favour of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has not filed any documents alongwith the plaint to prove any relationship with the defendant no.2 and on this ground alone the suit is liable to be dismissed.
19. Maintainability of the suit has also been challenged on the grounds that the suit has not been instituted, signed and verified by the duly authorized and competent person; the suit has not been valued properly and no proper court fee has been affixed on the plaint; the plaintiff had failed to give mandatory notice U/s 80 of CPC to the defendant no.2; neither the defendant no.1 nor the plaintiff had ever submitted any MOU in terms of CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.10 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:30:18 +0530 agreement with the defendant no.2 and that the suit is barred by limitation.
20. It is further submitted that as per prevalent rules, the tenders were called as composite tender including civil and electrical as major/minor component of the work for easement to execute through the agency of major component. The work in question had been executed by the defendant no.1 and all the running account bill of the defendant no.1 has been paid as and when the bill is submitted for the work done. It is further averred that for the payment in composite contracts, there is a Clause-7 in General Contract Condition (GCC-2014 in this agreement) which has been reproduced in para 15 of the written statement. It is further submitted that as per condition no.4 on page no.140 of the agreement, the main firm should submit the willingness from eligible electrical contractor to get associated with them for execution of electrical component of works in wholesome manner and that neither the defendant no.1 nor the plaintiff had ever submitted any MOU/ intimation in terms of said clause of the agreement with the defendant no.2 and in the absence of the same no payment can be made by the defendant no.2.
21. On merits, it is reiterated that there is no correspondence on record which prove that the plaintiff has been engaged as associated electrical contractor by the defendant no.1 in terms of the agreement. It has been denied that defendant no.2 is a necessary party in the present suit as there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant no.2. It is again stated that the plaintiff was not associated with the work CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.11 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:30:25 +0530 order/agreement in question. It is further stated that a letter was written to defendant no.1 by the Executive Engineer (Electrical), the Engineer-in-charge of minor component, on 18.07.2016 vide letter no.20(22)/PWD Edu.M1/2015-16/307 and in compliance of the said letter, the defendant no.1 had submitted a mandatory Memorandum of Understanding between him and one M/s Bhardwaj Electricals dated 10.11.2016 duly signed by both (main contractor and associated electrical contractor) on a non-judicial stamp paper. It is averred that the claim of the plaintiff is not maintainable as there was no MOU on record which proves that the work was assigned to the plaintiff by the defendant no.1. On the contrary, the MOU has been signed between the defendant no.1 and one M/s Bhardwaj Electricals.
22. It is further submitted that no one other than the contractor has any right to raise bills for work done to the department. There is no clause in the agreement which stipulates that any bill against the work done can be submitted by the associated contractor of minor component. As per record maintained by the defendant no.2, all the running bills followed by final bill had been submitted by the defendant no.1 himself and the payment of all the bills had been made directly to the defendant no.1 being the contractor of major component as per stipulation in Clause 7 of the agreement. Rest of the averments made in the plaint are controverted on merits and it is prayed that suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed.
23. The plaintiff has filed separate replications to the written statements filed on behalf of defendant no.1 and CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.12 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:30:32 +0530 defendant no.2 reiterating the averments made in the plaint and denying the contra averments made in the respective written statements. It is stated that the plaintiff has submitted the quotation on 01.07.2016 through email which was duly accepted by the defendant no.1 by issuing the acceptance letter on 15.07.2016 through email, hence the defendant no.1 has no right to take objection that the plaintiff is not the contractor engaged by the defendant no.1. Rest of the averments made in the written statements have been denied.
24. The plaintiff as well as defendants no.1 and 2 had filed their respective admission/denial on affidavits.
(B) Issues :-
25. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:-
1) Whether the plaintiff has done work for the defendant no.1? OPP.
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs.71,75,578/- as prayed in prayer paragraph(a)? OPP.
3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for any interest @ 18% per annum or at any other rate? OPP.
4) Relief. (C) Evidence :-
26. In order to prove its case, plaintiff/Smt. Suman Grover has examined herself as PW-1. In her affidavit Ex.PW-1/A, she deposed that she had executed a Special Power CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.13 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:30:41 +0530 of Attorney dated 14.08.2018 in favour of her husband Sh.Praveen Grover and proved the said document as Ex.PW1/1. The PW1 was not cross-examined on behalf of defendants no.1 & 2 despite opportunity.
27. The plaintiff has also examined Sh. Praveen Grover, her husband/SPA/AR of M/s Groson Engineers, as PW2. He has reiterated the averments made in plaint in his affidavit Ex.PW-2/A and relied upon following documents:-
S.No. Details of documents Exhibit No.
1. Original Special Power of Attorney executed by Already plaintiff in his favour on 14.08.2018 Ex.PW-1/1
2. Acceptance letter dated 09.02.2016 issued by Ex.PW-2/1 defendant No.1 to defendant No.2
3. Quotation dated 01.07.2016 Ex.PW-2/2
4. Print-out of email dated 06.07.2016 Ex.PW-2/3
5. Letter of acceptance dated 15.07.2016 Ex.PW-2/4
6. Proof of service of email Ex.PW-2/5
7. Agreement for electrical and fire-fighting work Ex.PW-2/6 executed between defendant Nos. 1 and 2
8. Email dated 26.07.2016 Ex.PW-2/7
9. Letter dated 18.07.2016 Ex.PW-2/8
10. Print-out of email of plaintiff dated 27.07.2016 Ex.PW-2/9 along with documents of registration of plaintiff as Electrical Contractor
11. Statement of tax invoices purchased along with Ex.PW-2/10 tax invoices dated 30.09.2016 (2 numbers - 3 to pages), 05.10.2016, 14.10.2016, 25.10.2016, Ex.PW-2/48 04.11.2016, 22.11.2016, 01.12.2016, respectively 06.12.2016, 14.12.2016, 16.12.2016, 17.12.2016 (2 numbers - 3 pages), 17.01.2017, 25.01.2017, 03.02.2017, 06.02.2017, 10.02.2017, 15.02.2017, 17.02.2017, 24.02.2017, 26.02.2017, 07.03.2017, 10.03.2017 (2 numbers
- 3 pages), 24.03.2017, 27.03.2017, 10.04.2017, 18.04.2017, 19.04.2017, 26.04.2017, CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.14 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:30:49 +0530 28.04.2017, 03.05.2017, 04.05.2017,
08.05.2017, 17.05.2017, 18.05.2017, 24.05.2017 and 25.05.2017
12. Running bills Nos. 1 to 3 (Ist bill dated Ex.PW-2/49 16.11.2016, 2nd bill dated 18.03.2017 and 3rd to pre-final bill dated 27.03.2018) Ex.PW-2/51
13. Details of payment made by defendant No.1 Ex.PW-2/52
14. Coloured photocopy of letter dated 19.04.2018 Ex.PW-2/53 with original receipt of defendant No.2
15. Coloured photocopy of letter dated 26.04.2018 Ex.PW-2/54 written by plaintiff to PWD with original receiving
16. Letter dated 08.05.2018 from Executive Ex.PW-2/55 Engineer (E) to Executive Engineer (C) of defendant No.2
17. Coloured photocopy of letter dated 05.05.2018 Ex.PW-2/56
18. Legal notice dated 18.05.2018 along with Ex.PW-2/57 original postal receipts, acknowledgment and to reply dated 06.06.2018 from defendant No.2 Ex.PW-2/60
19. Print-out of email dated 07.03.2017 sent by Ex.PW-2/61 defendant No.2 to plaintiff
28. During his cross-examination on behalf of defendant no.1, the PW2 testified that Smt. Suman Grover, his wife/ plaintiff was a Graduate and she did not have any knowledge regarding electric work. He has further deposed that at the time of his deposition, his wife was registered as a contractor for CPWD and that at the time of assignment of contract in question she was not so registered. He has further deposed that the plaintiff was registered as electrical contractor/licensing contractor all over India and was also registered as contractor for Northern Railway and that the registration certificate of plaintiff has been issued from Jaipur. He has further deposed that he had not filed copy of said registration certificate on Court record.
CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.15 of 68
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15
16:30:56 +0530
29. After going through the Court record, the PW2 admitted that photocopy of plaintiff's registration certificate with Odissa State, Mark-"X", had been filed at Page 40 to 45 of the list of documents. He has further deposed that the plaintiff had dispute with defendant No.1 regarding payment. He has further deposed that the defendant No.1 had taken contract from PWD and had assigned the same further to plaintiff and had agreed to pay the balance amount after deducting 14% from the total amount paid to defendant No.1 by PWD. He then deposed that all the terms and conditions between defendant No.1 and plaintiff were mentioned in Ex.PW-2/4 i.e. a letter dated 15.07.2016 written by defendant No.1 to him (PW2) and that the said letter was received by him vide email Ex.PW-2/3. He denied that letter Ex.PW-2/4 was forged and fabricated or that the same does not bear signatures of defendant No.1. He has further deposed that he does not have original of Ex.PW-2/4 as it was received by him through email.
30. During his further cross-examination by defendant no.1, the PW2 has deposed that the letter written by PWD, Ex.PW-2/8, was addressed to defendant No.1. A question was put to witness that queries raised by PWD in letter Ex.PW-2/8 were not replied by defendant No.1 but were replied by plaintiff and the PW2 replied that the defendant No.1 had forwarded letter Ex.PW-2/8 to plaintiff and plaintiff submitted documents to defendant No.1 in response thereto and that the plaintiff had not written any letter / email to defendant No.2 / PWD in response to queries raised vide letter Ex.PW-2/8. He was unable to admit or CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.16 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:31:05 +0530 deny if the said documents were further submitted by defendant No.1 to defendant No.2. He denied that the documents attached with email Ex.PW-2/9 were sent by plaintiff of her own to defendant No.1. He termed it correct that plaintiff is associate contractor of defendant No.1 and that Ex.PW-2/8 clearly lays down the requirement of contractor engaging associate agency / contractor. He denied the suggestion that plaintiff did not fulfill the criteria laid down in Ex.PW-2/8. He has further deposed that there was a separate MOU between plaintiff and defendant No.1 besides Ex.PW-2/4 and the same was at page No.33 and 34 of the list of documents. He denied that said MOU was not accepted by defendant No.1 as it did not bear his signatures thereupon.
31. The PW2 was not aware if CPWD had issued any guidelines with respect to eligibility criteria for main agency with respect to associated electrical agency to be engaged by main contractor for executing the electrical sub head as per CPWD norms. He volunteered to state that the work in question was of PWD and not of CPWD. He deposed that he had filed the affidavit of admission / denial of documents of defendant No.1 wherein he had denied the said document/eligibility criteria. He admitted that letter, Ex.PW-2/4, which is a letter written by defendant No.1 to him, refers to CPWD and not PWD.
32. The PW2 termed it correct that in letters Ex.PW-2/53, Ex.PW-2/54 and Ex.PW-2/56, addressed by him to Executive Engineer of defendant No.2, plaintiff had represented herself to be associate contractor. He has further deposed that the defendant No.1 never denied to plaintiff that she was not an CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.17 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:31:13 +0530 associate contractor of his firm. He denied that plaintiff could never have been an associate contractor of defendant No.1 as she did not fulfill criteria for it. He admitted that his counsel had sent a legal notice Ex.PW-2/57 to Executive Engineer (C) and the copy of said notice was endorsed to defendant No.1. He has further admitted that Executive Engineer had replied to legal notice vide letter Ex.PW-2/60. He denied the suggestion that plaintiff was not associate contractor of defendant No.1 at any point of time since plaintiff did not fulfill the requisite criteria.
33. During his further cross-examination on behalf of defendant No.2, the PW2 has deposed that the plaintiff had never taken up electrical assignment for Delhi PWD. He has further deposed that the plaintiff had also not taken up electrical assignment for Delhi PWD as an associate contractor prior to work which was subject matter of the present suit. He has further deposed that the plaintiff was not aware of the concept of associate contractor or that it is mandatory for an associate contractor to have discharge work as contractor/associate contractor for PWD to the extent of 40% of the quantum of work order, 3 years prior to assignment of the work order in question. He has further deposed that no agreement was signed between Delhi PWD and plaintiff in respect of work order given to defendant No.1.
34. The PW2 has further deposed that he was aware that electric work is a specialized work and therefore for carrying out electric work in a work contract, the contractor is permitted to engage service of associate contractor. He has further deposed CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.18 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:31:21 +0530 that the plaintiff has an electrical license but she did not give copy of said electrical license to defendant No.2. By voluntary statement, he has deposed that its copy was given to defendant No.1. He admitted that plaintiff never raised bills on her letterhead nor submitted the same to defendant No.2 and volunteered to state that the agreement was between defendant No.1 and hence bills were submitted to defendant No.1.
35. The PW2 has further deposed that an MOU was executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and Willingness Certificate was also given by plaintiff and that the copy of signed MOU and Willingness Certificate were sent by plaintiff to defendant No.1. He was not aware if defendant No.1 had submitted said MOU and Willingness Certificate to defendant No.2 or not. He termed it correct that plaintiff had not sent copy of MOU and Willingness Certificate to defendant No.2. He was not aware if defendant No.1 also failed to send copy of MOU and Willingness Certificate to defendant No.2. He has further deposed that the plaintiff did not make any enquiry from office of defendant No.2 prior to execution of MOU with defendant No.1. He has further deposed that the plaintiff was not aware if prior consent of defendant No.2 was required before execution of any such MOU with defendant No.1. He volunteered to state that the defendant No.1 did not inform plaintiff about it.
36. During his further cross-examination by defendant no.2, the PW2 admitted that defendant No.1 issues specifications with respect to work assigned to contractor. He has further CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.19 of 68 Devendra Digitally signed by Devendra Kumar Kumar Sharma Date: 2025.10.15 Sharma 16:31:28 +0530 deposed that the plaintiff was not given copy of any such specifications by defendant No.1. He then deposed that the Defendant No.1 had given them details of material required and specifications thereof in writing vide Ex.PW-2/6. He admitted that responsibility of payment of dues of associate contractor is of the main contractor and not of defendant No.2 and volunteered to state that there is a clause in agreement between the main contractor and PWD that in the event associate contractor is not paid, then associate contractor may inform PWD regarding it.
37. When put that the defendant No.2 in their W.S. had suggested name of M/s. Bhardwaj Electricals as an associate contractor along with MOU between defendant No.1 and said M/s. Bhardwaj Electricals, Mark-Y, the PW2 replied that he was not aware of Mark "Y" and volunteered to state that the Defendant No.1 had made payment to plaintiff in respect of first running bill as per MOU between defendant No.1 and plaintiff. The PW2 was not aware that besides Mark "Y", defendant No.1 himself put forth his competence to discharge electric work and submitted copy of his electric license. He denied the suggestion that since plaintiff was not reflected as associate contractor in the record of defendant No.2, the defendant No.2 had no role to discharge in dispute between plaintiff and defendant No.1 nor was defendant No.2 liable to pay any sum of money to plaintiff. He did not recall if plaintiff had submitted any document like statement of account, TDS Certificate, etc. in respect of payment received from defendant No.1 qua first RA bill. After going through the record, the witness submitted that no such document had been filed on Court record.
CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.20 of 68
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15
16:31:36 +0530
38. No other witness was examined on behalf of plaintiff and vide separate statement given by plaintiff on 21.12.2023, PE was closed.
39. In order to prove their defence, defendant no.1/Sh. Varun Kumar Gupta has examined himself, as D1W1. He has reiterated the facts averred in the written statement in his affidavit Ex.D1W1 and relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Details of documents Exhibit No.
1. True copy of letter dated 18.05.2018 sent by Ex.DW1/1 the defendant no. 1 to defendant no.2 (Colly) alongwith true copy of eligibility criteria
2. Certified copy of agreement pertaining to work Ex.DW1/2 order
40. During his cross-examination, the D1W1 did not recall the date on which contract work was assigned to him by defendant no.2 and after refreshing his memory the witness deposed that he was awarded contract work on 09.02.2016. He has further deposed that it was composite contract. In response to a question as to whether he had submitted any application for approval of appointment of Electrical Contractor with defendant no.2 and if so, on which date, the D1W1 replied that he had deposited his Electrical Contractor license with defendant no.2 but he did not recall date thereof. He further did not recall if defendant no. 2 had approved his request to do electrical work himself. He also did not recall the date when he was given licence for electric work. He could not even say how many days, CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.21 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:31:44 +0530 months or year after award of contract on 09.02.2016, he was granted license for electric work.
41. The D1W1 denied that he was granted license for electric work in the year 2018 and volunteered to state that the contract work was completed in the year 2017. When asked to clarify who used to submit bill for electric work since February, 2016, he replied that he used to submit bills for electric work.
42. At that stage, the running bills Ex.PW-2/49 to Ex.PW-2/51 were put to D1W1 and he was asked as to who had signed and submitted the said bills. After going through the said documents, he stated that he does not recognize the signatures of the person who had submitted bills Ex. PW-2/49 to Ex. PW-2/51. He also stated that said bills were not the ones which were submitted by him. He has further deposed that he had not placed on record copies of bills for electric work which were submitted by him with defendant no.2. He has further deposed that he was given acknowledgment by the officials of defendant no. 2 when he submitted bills for electric work and that he had not placed on record said acknowledgment. He deposed that he can produce copies of bills submitted by him to defendant no. 2 as well as their acknowledgment. He denied the suggestion that Ex.PW-2/49 to Ex. PW-2/51 were the same bills which were submitted by him to the department for electric work and claimed that he can bring his own submitted bills.
43. The D1W1 further deposed that the plaintiff used to supply him electrical items at different sites. He denied the CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.22 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:31:50 +0530 suggestion that plaintiff had submitted quotation Ex.PW-2/2 to him. His email id was [email protected]. He deposed that he had not received the email, Ex. PW-2/3, from Sh.Praveen Grover, husband of plaintiff and that he had never sent Ex. PW-2/4 vide email Ex. PW-2/5 to Sh. Praveen Grover. He volunteered to state that Ex.PW-2/4 did not bear his signatures.
44. During his further cross-examination on 08.05.2024 when he was supposed to bring office copy of running bills with acknowledgment of receipt in the office of defendant no.2, the D1W1 deposed that he had not brought office copy of 1 st, 2nd and 3rd running bill i.e. Ex. PW-2/49 to Ex. PW-2/51 and volunteered to state that his house was infected with termite and those documents were destroyed by termites. He had brought office copy of final bill which was Ex. D1W1/P-1. He had produced the printout of 3rd running bill stating that he was having details on his computer. However, he did not have details of 1st and 2nd running bill on his computer. The printout of 3 rd running bill was marked as 'Mark X'.
45. The D1W1 has further deposed that he did not try to obtain certified copy of 1st to 3rd running bill from the department after receiving summon of the suit from the Court and volunteered to state that he had got pest control done in his house on 24.04.2024. He deposed that he did not file copy of office copy of 1st to 3rd bill as well as final bill, which he claimed were submitted with the PWD for payment, with his Written Statement.
CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.23 of 68
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15
16:31:59 +0530
46. The D1W1 has further deposed that Bhardwaj
Electrical has not done any work for him. The electrical work for the work contract was done by him. He did not recall the date when he got license to do electrical work from Government of Rajasthan. He had obtained license from Rajasthan as he was doing electric work in Rajasthan also.
47. Upon refreshing memory from record/Ex.D2W1/P-1, he has stated that he was granted electric license by Government of Rajasthan on 19.12.2016.
48. The D1W1 was asked to clarify if before 13.07.2017 the roof of any room was constructed/laid by him or not. He replied that the entire work was completed on 12.06.2017. He was unable to recall when the work of construction of 1 st roof was completed by him. He could not specify if any roof had been laid before 18.12.2016. He denied that the roof of any room cannot be laid without electric work. He termed it correct that the electrical work was done from 19.12.2016 till June, 2017 and volunteered to state that even prior to 19.12.2016 he was doing electric work in the premises by putting open condute pipes and boxes and that he also procured material for electric work. When asked to clarify whether only on the top floor the condute pipes and the electrical boxes were in open condition, otherwise on all floors they were embedded in the concrete/cement work, the D1W1 stated that condute pipes were open on roofs of all floors and they were embedded only on the walls. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that the condute pipes CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.24 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:32:08 +0530 on roof of all the floors except the top floor were embedded in concrete/cement work. He deposed that he used to take electric material from several persons including the plaintiff.
49. During his further cross-examination, the D1W1 admitted that alongwith his application U/s 8 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, he had filed photocopy of letter dated 15.07.2016, Ex. PW-2/4, sent by him to plaintiff and that the said letter was placed on record by him to dispute that he had written any such letter. He denied that he had sent letter Ex.PW-2/4 to plaintiff from his email or that the same bears his signatures and seal.
50. During his further cross-examination, the D1W1 deposed that he had not mentioned in his affidavit Ex. D1W1/A that office copy of 1st to 3rd bill got destroyed due to termites. He volunteered to state that he had checked at his home only after 09.04.2024 when he was asked to bring the copies of said bills to the Court. He admitted that his signatures does not appear on the bills, Ex.PW-2/49 to Ex. PW-2/51, against the heading of 'Contractor'. He was unable to identify the person who had signed on said bills under the heading of 'Contractor'. When asked to clarify whether he had received payment against bills Ex. PW-2/49 to Ex. PW-2/51, the D1W1 stated that he had not received payment against aforesaid bills. A question was put to witness as to whether he wrote any letter to defendant no. 2 for payment of bills Ex. PW-2/49 to Ex. PW-2/51, the D1W1 replied that he had received payment only of bills which were submitted by him and that he was unable to state anything with respect to CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.25 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:32:18 +0530 bills Ex. PW-2/49 to Ex. PW-2/51. He admitted that at Sl. no. 4 of the letter, Ex. D1W1/1, it was mentioned that "1st running bill and 2nd running bill raised by the alleged contractor to the undersigned for which payment had been made and accordingly Tax Deducted at Source". The D1W1 was asked to clarify that as per averments made in his letter Ex.D1W1/1 at Sl. no. 4, he had already received payment against 1st and 2nd running bill i.e. Ex. PW2/49 & Ex. PW-2/50 after deduction of TDS. He clarified that the 1st and 2nd running bill referred to in his letter Ex. D1W1/1 at Sl. no. 4 were not same as Ex. PW-2/49 & Ex. PW-2/50.
51. When put that the TDS deducted on bills Ex.
PW-2/49 to Ex. PW-2/51 must be reflecting in his 26 AS statement for the month of November 2016, March 2017 and March 2018, the D1W1 replied that he did not receive TDS deductions on bills Ex. PW-2/49 to Ex. PW-2/51. He volunteered to state that he had only received TDS deductions for the bills he had filed with the department. He was unable to recall how much payment he had received qua the bills raised by him and how much TDS was deducted with respect to each of the bills. He was unable to produce his 26 AS deduction statements for the months of November 2016, March 2017 and March 2018. He was unable to recall his PAN number verbally. He was unable to access the soft copy of PAN card available on his mobile phone. He denied the suggestion that he does not wish to produce his 26 AS Statement or to give details of his PAN number as they would reflect that he had received payments against bills Ex. PW-2/49 to Ex. PW-2/51. He admitted that he used to receive payments in CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.26 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:32:26 +0530 respect of work order in question in his bank account with Union Bank of India, SDA Branch, New Delhi. He was unable to recall his bank account number. He deposed that that bank account was still operational. He had not filed statement of his bank account for the months of November 2016, March 2017 and March 2018 but he could produce the same.
52. The D1W1 denied that he did not possess requisite license for doing electric work as on 18.02.2016. He denied the suggestion that as per the terms of work order, he could not have bid the department for electric work unless he possess requisite licence for doing electric work or had an associate contractor with said licence. He has further deposed that being the main Contractor, he could have submitted bills for electric work even without requisite licence or being associated with a Contractor with such electric licence. He had stated in para 9 of his affidavit Ex.D1W1/A that he used to purchase material from plaintiff. He had not filed ledger statement in respect of purchases made by him from plaintiff. He had also not filed any document from which it could be ascertained that he had paid plaintiff money for goods purchased from her. He admitted that accounts of his firm were audited and balance sheet was filed while filing Income Tax Return.
53. The D1W1 further deposed that he did not receive any material against invoices Ex. PW-2/10 to Ex. PW-2/48 and volunteered to state that he used to keep the original bills and gave receiving on the duplicate bill as and when he purchased material from the plaintiff. He was unable to produce any CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.27 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:32:34 +0530 original bill in respect of material purchased by him from plaintiff. He volunteered to state that he had already disposed off the said bills. He admitted that the present suit had been pending since the year 2018. When asked to clarify that even though the case had been pending since year 2018, he destroyed the original bills, which he claimed were with him, and claimed that he was unable to produce the same, the D1W1 has deposed that he could check his record and see whether or not original bills were traceable. He was unable to produce balancesheet of his firm for the Financial Year 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19. He had not placed any document on record from which it could be ascertained what all goods were purchased by him from plaintiff and the payment made by him to plaintiff in respect of said goods. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not producing balancesheet for Financial Year 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, for they would reflect transactions with the plaintiff i.e. the goods purchased from plaintiff, amount paid for said goods and the balance payment due and payable by him to the plaintiff.
54. During his further cross-examination, the D1W1 deposed that he did not depute any Contractor for the electric work in respect of work order in question. He has further deposed that the document, Ex. D2W1/2, was not submitted by him to the department nor does it bear his signatures. He had given copy of his electrical licence to defendant no.2 but he was unable to recall the date when he had submitted the same. He deposed that Ex.D2W1/P1 is the letter vide which he had submitted copy of his electric license to defendant no. 2. He was unable to recall the date on which his 1 st running bill was CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.28 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:32:43 +0530 passed/certified by the department. He was unable to admit or deny if his 1st running bill was passed/certified on 16.11.2016 by the department. He termed it correct that he did not have requisite electrical contractor license between the period 18.02.2016 till 19.12.2016. When asked to tell the name of the Contractor who had undertaken the electrical work during the the period 18.02.2016 till 19.12.2016 as he did not have the requisite electrical license for the said period, the D1W1 replied that he himself was doing the work of conduting, fixing of fan boxes and boxes. He did work of wiring after he obtained requisite electrical license. During that period, he had purchased electric material from different vendors including plaintiff. When asked to clarify whether according to him work of conduting, fixing of fan boxes and boxes was also part of electric work, the D1W1 denied the same and stated that it was part of the civil work. A question was put to witness that he did not carry out any wiring work before 20.12.2016 to which he replied that he did not join the connections but wiring work was going on. He denied that according to him, he had carried out electric work at the site without requisite license. He volunteered to state that whatever work he was doing at site was with the permission of defendant no.2 and that the said permission was verbal. He has further denied that in a government work, no oral permissions are given by the officials of government who are supervising the work. He admitted that he had not mentioned in his affidavit Ex. D1W1/A that he had taken oral permission from defendant no.2 to carry out electric work at the site without requisite electric license for the same. He denied that he had not stated so in his affidavit Ex.
D1W1/A as no such oral permission was given to him by CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.29 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:32:51 +0530 defendant no.2.
55. During his further cross-examination, the D1W1 brought his bank account statement for the months of November 2016, March 2017 and March 2018 and the same were exhibited as Ex. D1W1/P1 to P3. He also brought original bills of material purchased by him from plaintiff and the same were exhibited as Ex. D1W1/P4 (colly-19 pages). When asked to point out from the bank statement Ex. D1W1/P-1 to P3 when he received payment from defendant no.2 for work in question, the D1W1 deposed that he will not be able to state so even after perusal of Ex. D1W1/P-1 to P3. He admitted that he had not made any complaint against plaintiff in respect of the letter Ex. PW-2/4. He denied that he had not filed any complaint in respect of the said document as it is a genuine document. He denied that he was not making payment to plaintiff, for material purchased from her, on bill to bill basis. He testified that he used to make on account payment and generally he used to make payment to vendors either in cash or through RTGS transfer. He was unable to recall whether he had made payment to plaintiff in cash besides RTGS transfer.
56. No other witness was examined on behalf of defendant no.1.
57. In order to prove their defence, defendant no.2 has examined Sh. Govind Singh Saini, its Executive Engineer, PWD, Education West Division (N), ITI Campus, Pusa, Delhi, as D2W1. He has reiterated the facts averred in the written CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.30 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:32:59 +0530 statement filed on behalf of defendant no.2 in his affidavit Ex.D2W1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Details of documents Exhibit No.
1. Copy of Letter no. 20(22)/PWD Edu. Ex.D2W1/1
M1/2015-16/307 dated 18.07.2016
2. Copy of MOU dated 10.11.2016 executed Ex.D2W1/2 between defendant no. 1 and the M/s Bhardwaj Electricals
3. Copy of letter bearing no. 54(17)/Edu. M Ex.D2W1/3 (West)/2015-16/426 dated 06.06.2018
58. During his cross-examination, the D2W1 deposed that he had brought record pertaining to letter dated 20.12.2016 alongwith annexure, filed on behalf of department/defendant no.2, with its Written Statement. The photocopy of the same was then exhibited as Ex. D2W1/P-1. He has further deposed that as per agreement, the work under the work order was to commence on 18.02.2016 and was stipulated to be completed by 01.07.2016.
He deposed that the work was not completed by 01.07.2016 and was ultimately completed on 12.06.2017. When asked whether the defendant no.1 Varun Gupta submitted any electrical license prior to 01.07.2016 i.e. the date stipulated for completion of work under the work contract, the D2W1 stated that as per record, he did not submit any such license. He further deposed that the original of Ex. PW-2/49 to Ex. PW-2/51 i.e. the 1st running bill, 2nd running bill and 3rd running bill with respect to electric work, should be with the DDO (Electric) at that time. He had brought original record with respect to measurements and abstract of cost pertaining to electric work. He has further deposed that he would have to verify where the original of Ex. PW-2/49 to Ex. PW-2/51 would be with defendant no.2 or not. He had brought original CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.31 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:33:06 +0530 record with respect to measurement and abstract costs with respect to running bill 1 to 3 which was more or less similar to Ex. PW-2/49 to Ex. PW-2/51. Photocopy thereof was exhibited as Ex. D2W1/P-2 to Ex. D2W1/P-4. He has further deposed that as per record, Ex. D2W1/P-2 to Ex. D2W1/P-4 had been accepted by person whose name was reflected thereupon. He was unable to state whose signatures appear at point encircled at point 'X' on Ex. D2W1/P-2 to Ex. D2W1/P-4 as he was not posted in the concerned department at that time.
59. The document Ex. PW-1/1 i.e. the SPA executed by plaintiff in favour of her husband as well as signatures at point encircled 'X' on Ex. D2W1/P-2 to Ex. D2W1/P-4 were put to the witness and he was asked whether the signatures were identical to which the D2W1 stated that he cannot answer with certainty as he was not expert in identifying signatures. He has further deposed that there was no due pending towards electric work in respect of above noted work contract. The approval for Electric Contractor could be given by department during subsistence of the work contract even though the stipulated date for completion of work may be over. After verifying from the official record, the D2W1 deposed that the roof of none of the rooms of building had been laid before 01.07.2016 and as per record, first roof was laid on 15.07.2016. He volunteered to state that it was a red sand stone roof and not a RCC slab. He has further deposed that there was no RCC-Reinforced Cement Concrete roof over the sand stone roof and volunteered to state that there was PCC-Plain Cement Concrete. He denied the suggestion that the same was RCC roof and not PCC roof. He was not aware who had CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.32 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:33:13 +0530 submitted bills Ex.PW2/49 to Ex.PW2/51 to the department, on behalf of the Contractor, for payment. He admitted that generally the bills were submitted either by Contractor or person authorized by him for payment. He has further deposed that the department/defendant no.2 had no knowledge regarding the dispute of payment between plaintiff and defendant no.1. He admitted that vide letter, Ex.D2W1/1, eight documents were required to be submitted by defendant no.1 in respect of electrical contractor. He has further deposed that the mandatory MOU Ex.D2W1/2 was submitted by the contractor. He could not verify whether other 7 documents were submitted by the Contractor or not.
60. In response to a question whether the defendant no.2 conveyed approval of M/s Bhardwaj Electricals as electrical contractor for electrical work to defendant no.1, the D2W1 stated that whatever documents were available in the file with the department had already been submitted in the Court. He volunteered to state that there was no need for department to give a separate approval to the electrical contractor after the contractor submits MOU. He has further deposed that the department may or may not give separate approval, depending upon the case. He admitted that prior to 10.11.2016, there was no MOU submitted by the Contractor.
61. At this stage, witness was confronted with Ex.D2W1/P2 wherein at page 3 name of M/s Bhardwaj Electricals was shown as associate agency in said document dated 09.11.2016. A question was put to witness that since he did CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.33 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:33:20 +0530 not have any electric contractor till 10.11.2016, how the department showed name of M/s Bhardwaj Electricals as an associate agency in first running bill prepared on 09.11.2016. The D2W1 stated that he cannot answer this question as he was not holding the given seat at that time. He admitted that till such time that an electrical contractor having requisite license was named by the Contractor and requisite MOU and documents were submitted, the said electric contractor could not be shown as associate agency/ contractor. He admitted that no payment can be released to contractor with respect to associate agency/contractor till the time requisite MOU and documents were submitted. He deposed that letter dated 20.12.2016, Ex.D2W1/P1, submitted by defendant no.1 is available in the file of the department and that the notings by the officials of department on Ex.D2W1/P1 were matter of record.
62. No other witness was examined on behalf of defendant no.2 and accordingly his evidence was closed.
63. During the pendency of cross-examination of defence witnesses, an application U/s 151 CPC had been filed on behalf of plaintiff on 16.04.2024 alongwith Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act for placing the said certificate on record.
Vide order dated 08.05.2025, Ld. Predecessor Court allowed the said application, however, it was ordered that admissibility of said Certificate shall be seen during the course of the final arguments. Thereafter, an application U/o XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC had been filed on behalf of defendant no.1 for recalling of plaintiff for further cross-examination with CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.34 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:33:27 +0530 respect to documents Ex.PW2/2, Ex.PW2/3, Ex.PW2/5, Ex.PW2/7, Ex.PW2/9 and Ex.PW2/61 which were electronic records since the filing of Certificate U/s 65B of IEA belatedly had given fresh life to hitherto inadmissible documents. The said application was dismissed by Ld. Predecessor Court vide order dated 16.08.2024. Thereafter, the defendant no.1 challenged the said order before the Hon'ble High Court and vide order dated 27.09.2024 passed by Hon'ble High Court in CM (M) 2864/2024 & CM Appl. 56459/2024 and CM (M) 3314/2024 & CM Appl.
51043-51044/2024 titled as 'Varun Gupta vs. Suman Grover & Anr,', the petition was disposed off with direction that PW-2 (Mr. Praveen Grover) would be permitted to enter into witness box for formally tendering the above said certificate and thereafter, the defendant would be permitted to cross-examine the said witness, limited to the aspect of said certificate and any document related to the above said certificate.
64. Pursuant to the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court, PW2 Sh. Praveen Grover was recalled and tendered his affidavit/Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act (now U/s 63 of BSA) in evidence, as Ex.PW2/62.
65. During his cross-examination on behalf of defendant no.1, the PW2 testified that he had sent the document, Ex.PW2/2, through email to defendant no.1. When asked as to whether he had produced original of Ex.PW2/2 since the same was sent by him through his email, the PW2 stated that original, if any, must be on Court record. He admitted his signatures at point encircled 'X' on Ex.PW2/2. He deposed that he had signed as Praveen and CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.35 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:33:34 +0530 that he had not put same signatures on bills and had put his other signatures on bills. He has further deposed that he had visited the office of defendant no.1 several times and that he had entered into a MOU with defendant no.1 pursuant to alleged acceptance letter Ex.PW2/4. He has further deposed that he had filed the original MOU on record which is part of Ex.PW2/9 (at page 33&34 of Ex.PW2/9). When asked to point out signatures of defendant no.1 on page 33 and 34 part of Ex.PW2/9, the PW2 deposed that it does not bore signatures of defendant no.1. He volunteered to state that he had sent the said documents through email to defendant no.1. He has further deposed that he does not have any MOU on which he as well as defendant no.1 had signed nor he had placed copy of any such MOU on Court record. He volunteered to state that he had sent all the documents through email to defendant no.1 and hence he did not have documents having signatures of defendant no.1.
66. The PW2 has further deposed that the documents at page 29, 33 & 34 of Ex.PW2/9 were prepared on computer and that the signatures thereupon were put manually by him after taking out its printout. He was unable to recall if he had placed on record printout with his original signatures thereupon, on Court record or not. He volunteered to state that he had filed all the documents on Court record. He deposed that same was his reply with regard to Ex.PW2/2.
67. Thereafter witness was asked to show the documents from Court record, the witness after going through the Court record stated that the printout of Ex.PW2/2 and pages 29, 33 and CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.36 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:33:41 +0530 34 of Ex.PW2/9, with his original signatures, were not on Court record. The PW2 admitted that page 29 (part of Ex.PW2/9) does not bear signatures of main contractor and volunteered to state that the document was sent by him to defendant no.1 through email and hence does not bear signatures of the main contractor.
A question was put to PW2 as to whether defendant no.1 countersigned the documents pages 29,33 and 34 (part of Ex.PW2/9) sent by him and sent him copy thereof through email, the PW2 replied in negative. He volunteered that the defendant no.1 was to submit those documents to defendant no.2 after putting his signatures and he was not aware if defendant no.1 complied with it or not. When asked as to whether he had any document/willingness certificate having original signatures of the main contractor, the PW2 stated that he does not have any such document. He has further deposed that he was not informed in writing, by defendant no.2, at any point of time, that he had been accepted as an Associate Contractor of defendant no.1. He denied the suggestion that the willingness certificate and MoU were self serving documents which were prepared by him or that no such willingness certificate or MoU was ever given to him by defendant no.1. He has further deposed that the defendant no.1 did not authorize him to submit any bill to defendant no.2, on his behalf and that the defendant no.1 did not authorize him to accept measurements, on his behalf. He has further deposed that defendant no.2 asked him orally to submit bill, on behalf of defendant no.1 and hence he submitted the said bills.
68. During his further cross-examination, the PW2 deposed that he was asked by JE/AE of defendant no.2 to submit CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.37 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:33:48 +0530 the bills to defendant no.2, on behalf of defendant no.1. He has further deposed that besides this, JE had also sent him a mail and he too had sent a mail to him. When asked to tell the name of said JE, he deposed that his name was Sh. Amit Gupta and he was succeeded by Sh. Saurabh Gupta. After going through the record, he deposed that the said email had not been placed on record but he can produce the same.
69. During his further cross-examination, the PW2 deposed that the email id at point encircled 'X' on Ex. PW-2/61 (pages 297 & 300) belong to JE Sh. Amit Gupta. He was not aware whether the said email was personal or the official email Id of Sh. Amit Gupta. The PW2 has further deposed that the email id at point encircled 'X' on Ex. PW-2/61 (page 302) belong to JE Sh. Saurabh Gupta. He admitted that for doing electrical work, he was required to have electrical licence and PWD Registration Certificate. When asked as to whether he had placed on record original of electrical licence and PWD Registration Certificate, the PW2 deposed that it was a matter of record. He was further asked as to whether he had filed originals of solvency certificate, DVAT registration certificate and turnover certificate, on Court record to which he stated that it was a matter of record. He denied the suggestion that plaintiff lacked essential requirements and requisite credentials for becoming an Associate Contractor or that due to this reason, originals of solvency certificate, DVAT registration certificate and turnover certificate, have not been placed on Court record.
70. During further cross-examination, the attention of CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.38 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:33:55 +0530 witness was drawn to Ex.PW-2/9 (pages 33&34) and he was asked to state who has signed as witness no. 2 on said pages, the PW2 has replied that the same had been signed by Ms. Pooja Kathuria who was working as Typist-cum-Accountant with the plaintiff. He has further deposed that he had deployed full time technically qualified supervisors for execution of the work as undertaken by plaintiff at point encircled 'X' on page 29 (part of Ex. PW-2/9). He has further deposed that he had deployed labour for execution of the present work.
71. Again the attention of witness during cross- examination was drawn to Ex. PW-2/2 (page 4) and he was asked whether the defendant no.1 deducted TDS with regard to the part payment allegedly made to him to which he replied that it was a matter of record. He denied the suggestion that since payment was made to plaintiff, for supply of goods and not for providing services as an Associate Contractor, therefore, no TDS was deducted and no TDS certificate had been placed on record. He has further deposed that the defendant no. 2 did not issue any drawings and designs to him for execution of this work. He has further deposed that he did not submit any completion plan to the defendant no.1 or 2, before execution of this work.
72. Again the attention of witness was drawn to para 6 of the plaint and he was asked to clarify to whom he submitted the tax invoices of the materials allegedly purchased by the plaintiff for the execution of the work, the PW2 replied that he submitted the same to defendant no.1 and defendant no.2. When asked whether he was having any receiving for the same, the CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.39 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:34:03 +0530 PW2 deposed that the invoices were sent by mail to defendant no.1 and to defendant no.2 alongwith the bills and there was no separate receiving. When asked whether he had placed on record copy of mail through which invoices were sent to defendant no.1, the PW2 deposed that it was a matter of record.
73. Again the attention of witness was drawn to Ex. PW-2/2 (page 4) and he was asked to point out the site of work with regard to which the alleged quotation was sent by him, the PW2 replied that it was a matter of record. He has further deposed that the name of plaintiff's firm is not reflected as Associate Contractor, from the bills, Ex. PW-2/49 to Ex. PW-2/51, submitted by plaintiff. He volunteered to state that the bills have been signed and submitted by him. When asked to explain why name of M/s Bhardwaj Electricals was mentioned at point encircled 'X' on Ex.PW2/49 (page 152), against the "associate agency" in the bill allegedly submitted by him, the PW2 deposed that it was not mentioned by him but by the defendant no.2/department.
74. During his further cross-examination, the PW2 denied that he had stated falsely in his cross-examination recorded on 25.11.2024 that the signatures at Point-X on Ex.PW2/2 and on the bills are his. He has further deposed that he had not mentioned his name as Associate contractor on pages 298 & 299 of Ex.PW2/61 alleged to have been submitted by him. He denied the suggestion that bills were submitted by defendant no.1 or that the plaintiff in connivance with defendant no.2 has tampered with the bills and replaced it. In his cross-examination, CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.40 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:34:11 +0530 he has admitted that he had not mentioned the details of the device in which the documents with regard to which Ex.PW2/62 i.e. Certificate U/s 65B of IE Act were stored nor had mentioned the details of the device through which the documents with regard to which Ex.PW2/62 i.e. Certificate U/s 65B of IE Act were printed out. He further testified that he did not recollect as to whether the device in which documents with regard to which Ex.PW2/62 i.e. Certificate U/s 65B of IE Act were stored was serviced regularly. He had also admitted that he has not mentioned the details, the date and time of the preparation and storage of each document with regard to which Ex.PW2/62 i.e. Certificate U/s 65B of IE Act was given nor he had mentioned the details of the date and time when each document with regard to which Ex.PW2/62 i.e. Certificate U/s 65B of IE Act was printed. He has further deposed that at the time when the computer source was operated by him, he had verbal authority to operate the said source and act on behalf of the plaintiff. He has further deposed that he and his typist/Ms. Pooja Kathuria were using the computer in question.
75. The PW2 was asked to clarify whether the device in which documents with regard to which Ex.PW2/62 i.e. Certificate U/s 65B of IE Act were filed, still functional, he has deposed that he had two devices out of which laptop was still functional but he did not recollect when he had purchased the said devices. He volunteered to state that everything was there on his mail.
76. Further cross-examination of the witness was CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.41 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:34:17 +0530 deferred. In the meantime, defendant no.1 again approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing CM (M) 3314/2024. Thereafter, vide order dated 07.05.2025 passed by Ld. Predecessor Court, the opportunity for cross-examination of PW2/Sh. Praveen Grover was closed.
77. The PW2/Sh. Praveen Grover was not cross-
examined again on behalf of defendant no.2, in terms of order dated 27.09.2024 passed by Hon'ble High Court in CM (M) 2864/2024 and CM (M) 3314/2024. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
(D) Final Arguments :-
78. Arguments were addressed by Sh.A.K. Trivedi, Counsel for plaintiff and Sh.Ganesh Khanna, counsel for defendant no.1 and Sh. Deeraj Kumar Singh, Counsel for the defendant no.2. Written submissions have also been filed on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant no.1. It is submitted on behalf of defendant no.2 that the defendant no.2 had paid the entire due amount to the defendant no.1 and now the dispute is confined between plaintiff and the defendant no.1 and hence no written submissions were filed on behalf of defendant no.2.
79. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted on the lines of pleadings that the plaintiff had executed the entire electrical and fire-fighting work after receiving the acceptance letter dated 15.07.2016 sent by defendant no.1 through email on 16.07.2016.
The plaintiff had submitted measurement/abstract of 1st RA Bill, 2nd RA Bill, 3rd RA/Pre-final Bill and the defendant no.2 had CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.42 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:34:24 +0530 passed the same; that the signatures of the AR of the plaintiff, on behalf of defendant no.1, in acceptance of the passed bills is there on 1st RA Bill, 2nd RA Bill and 3rd RA/Pre-final Bill; that the defendant no.1 had paid a sum of Rs.59,52,217/- to the plaintiff but after passing of the 3rd RA Bill, the defendant no.1 had refused to make payment of the executed work to the plaintiff; that thereafter the plaintiff had sent letters dated 19.04.2018 and 27.04.2018 to the defendant no.2 stating about the dispute arose between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 regarding non-
payment of executed work and making request for withholding of the amount of Rs.49,57,886/- and that the tax invoices sent by the plaintiff to the defendant no.1 as the material mentioned in the tax invoices are used in the execution of the work. It has been further submitted that in the cross-examination, the DW1 has admitted that "Bhardwaj Electricals has not done any work for me" and the defendant no.1 in para 6 of reply of written statement has stated that "The work was awarded to the defendant no.1 who has executed the work without the aid of any associate contractor". Hence, it is proved that the defendant no.1 in connivance with officer of defendant no.2 has used the certificate of Bhardwaj Electricals (Ex.D2W1/2) for release of the amount without the knowledge of the plaintiff knowing well that the plaintiff has executed the work. The plaintiff is entitled for the amount in view of the Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act i.e. Doctrine of Quantum Meruit. Hence, it is prayed that suit of the plaintiff be decreed. In support of contentions, he has relied upon judgment in case titled as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Vihaan Networks Ltd. reported in MANU/DE/6799/2023 and MANU/DE/2945/2025.
CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.43 of 68
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15
16:34:31 +0530
80. Per contra, counsel for defendant no.1 has submitted on the lines of pleadings that the Plaintiff has filed the present suit on false and frivolous ground without any basis; the Defendant No.1 was awarded the work by Defendant No.2 vide acceptance letter dated 09.02.2016; that the entire electrical work was executed by the Defendant No.1 on his own and the Defendant No.1 has raised bills with regard to work done with Defendant No.2 and the same were duly paid by the Defendant No.2; that the plaintiff has failed to prove the alleged quotation (Ex.PW2/2) as the same is secondary evidence; that the signature appearing on alleged letter of acceptance dated 15.07.2016 (Ex. PW-2/4) are not that of the Defendant No.1 and same can be clearly seen by comparing with his admitted signatures on his pleadings. It has been further submitted that during his cross examination as well in his Written Statement, Defendant No.1 has denied his signatures on Ex PW 2/4; that the Plaintiff has not led any evidence to establish that the signature on alleged letter of acceptance dated 15.07.2016 (Ex.PW-2/4) is that of Defendant No.1. It has been further submitted that the alleged quotation is not addressed to the Defendant No.1 as the office address of the Defendant No. 1 is A-64/3, DDA Flats Saket-17. It has been further submitted that the same address is appearing in the letter of award by the Defendant No.2; however, the alleged quotation is addressed to some Varun Gupta and Co. which has its office in Janakpuri, Delhi and therefore, there was no occasion for the Defendant No. 1 to convey acceptance in absence of any such submission of quotation. It has been further submitted that the alleged email vide which the alleged quotation was submitted CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.44 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:34:38 +0530 nowhere bears the name of Varun Gupta and Co, hence the same has been filed only to mislead the Court. It has been further submitted that Defendant No.1 in his cross examination has categorically denied receiving Ex.PW 2/2 (alleged quotation) and has also denied sending any acceptance letter (Ex PW2/4). It has been submitted that onus lies upon the Plaintiff to prove that there was concluded contract between the parties, which the Plaintiff has miserably failed and therefore, in absence of any contractual relationship between the parties, for the reason aforementioned, it has been submitted that Plaintiff was not associate contractor of the Defendant No.1 for the work in questions and that PW 2 has further admitted in his cross examination that at no point of time Defendant No.2 department had informed the Plaintiff that he has been accepted as associate contractor of Defendant No1.
81. It has been further submitted that the Plaintiff lacked the eligibility for becoming an Associate Contractor as in addition to possessing a valid license and registration, certain mandatory eligibility conditions were also laid down by Defendant No.2 for engaging associate agency/contractor. Those prerequisites are detailed in EX PW-2/8. In the absence of possession of such mandatory eligibility criteria, the plaintiff could not have even become eligible to execute the electrical work in question. It has been further submitted that these requirements are essential and have duly acknowledged and accepted by PW-2 in his Cross Examination dated 21.12.2023.
82. It has been further submitted that it is the case of the CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.45 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:34:45 +0530 Plaintiff that pursuant to the letter of acceptance, there was a Memorandum of Understanding between her and Defendant No.1. The alleged MoU, according to the Plaintiff was sent by the email dated 27.07.2016 (Ex.PW 2/9 at page 33 and 34). But the Plaintiff has failed to prove the said alleged Memorandum of Understanding for want of originals and has offered no explanation or laid down any factual foundation for leading secondary evidence. The alleged MoU sought to be relied upon the Plaintiff doesn't bear the signatures of the Defendant No. 1. The PW2 admitted during cross-examination that Plaintiff had not sent the copy of MoU and Willingness certificate to the Defendant No.2. The Original Willingness not placed on record and doesn't bear signature of Defendant No.1, therefore the said willingness certificate has not been proved by the Plaintiff.
83. It has been further submitted that the Plaintiff has further admitted in his cross examination by counsel for D-2 that electrical license was never submitted by him to Defendant No.2. It is submitted that in absence of any such submission, he couldn't have been eligible for becoming an associate contractor and receiving payments. It has been further submitted that the Plaintiff has filed alleged copy of electrical license, which is at page 35 of Ex. PW-2/9, which bears the name of "Groson Business Co-ordination Engineers" and not of the Plaintiff i.e "M/s Groson Engineers". It is further submitted therefore, there is no valid license on record to demonstrate that the plaintiff could have executed work. On the other side, the Defendant No.1 has placed on record his electrical license submitted to Defendant No. 2 which is exhibited as D2W1/P1.
CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.46 of 68
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15
16:34:53 +0530
84. It has been further submitted that for carrying out electrical work, the agency must be enlisted contractor of CPWD in electrical work in appropriate category. It is submitted that the PW2 has himself admitted in his cross-examination dated 21.12.2023 that at the time of assignment of contract, plaintiff was not registered as Contractor for CPWD, therefore he couldn't be eligible for executing the said work. It has been further submitted that the Plaintiff has falsely claimed to have executed electrical work with regard to the work in questions. It has been further submitted that the Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence with regard to execution of work. It is further submitted that Plaintiff has claimed to have purchased materials and submitted tax invoices which has been exhibited as from Ex. PW-2/10 to PW -2/48. It is submitted that said invoices are false and self-self-serving and doesn't have authentication from either of the Defendants.
85. It has been further submitted that had the Plaintiff executed work at site, he would have surely obtained labour license and would have been in a position to provide details of labour deployed at site. However, he has failed to produce such license and also details of labour deployed. It is mandatory to submit completion plan before taking up the said work. However, no such completion plan has been submitted by the Plaintiff. It is further submitted that PW2 has admitted that no drawings and designs were issued to him. It is submitted that without any drawing, it is impossible to execute work. It is submitted that Clause 11 provides that work shall be done strictly as per CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.47 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:34:59 +0530 drawings and specification. Plaintiff has also not placed on record details of payment made to labours or technical staff, if they were deployed by him for execution of work which proves that he has never executed such work. It has been further submitted that except PW-2, Plaintiff has not examined any labour, technical representative, supervisor of any other person allegedly deployed for execution of work to prove he has executed work. It is submitted that the invoices exhibited as Ex. PW-2/10 to PW -2/48 are manufactured and self-serving and no materials were ever supplied vide these invoices at the site of work for using it in the work in question. It has been further submitted that no lorry receipt or transport vide which these materials have been alleged to have delivered at site of work have been placed on record. It has been further submitted that according to clause 29 of agreement, material which are purchased, have to be first approved by the Defendant No. 2, however, the Plaintiff has failed to prove any such approval by Defendant No.2.
86. It has been further submitted that the claim of the plaintiff is patently false as only the main contractor was authorised to submit the bill to the Defendant No.2 department. No such authority could ever have been delegated by Defendant No. 1 upon the plaintiff or his agent, as they were nowhere in picture. This position that only main contractor can submits bills, is clearly reflected in Paragraphs 23 and 25 of Written Statement filed by Defendant No.2. In his evidence affidavit at para 8, PW-2 states that the bills were submitted to Defendant No. 2. However in his cross-examination dated 21.12.2013 by counsel CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.48 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:35:06 +0530 for Defendant No. 2, he contradicts himself and says that bill were submitted to Defendant No.1. The alleged bills and measurements do not anywhere mention the name of Plaintiff or PW-2 as associate contractor. It is submitted that submission of CMB (Computerised Measurement Book) under Clause 6-A of Agreement is a sine qua non for passing of the bills. However, the said CMBs bearing the name of plaintiff as associate contractor were not submitted by the plaintiff. Further, the Plaintiff has not examined the alleged J.E. who allegedly asked him to submit the bills orally, that the plaintiff had no authorisation, either written or oral, from either Defendant No. 1 or Defendant No. 2 allegedly to submit the bills on behalf of Defendant No.1.
87. It has been further submitted that the bills were originally submitted by Defendant No.1. However, the Plaintiff in connivance with the officials of Defendant No. 2 department, has tampered with the same and replaced them with fabricated documents. That facts is bolstered by the fact that the third running bill has been placed on record by the Defendant No.1 and has been marked as Mark "X" and the same is different from the bill which the Plaintiff has placed on record.
88. It has been further submitted that the Plaintiff, in an attempt to give undue legitimacy to such act, sent emails not to the official communication address but to the personal email of the alleged Junior Engineer, which further raises serious doubts as to the authenticity of the alleged correspondence and documentation. On one hand Plaintiff claims that it was CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.49 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:35:13 +0530 Defendant No.2 who allegedly asked him to submit the bills. However, later blames Defendant No. 2 for mentioning the name of Bharadwaj Electricals on bills which he was allegedly asked to submit by Defendant No.2.
89. It has been further submitted that the Plaintiff has also not failed to place on record any ledger account reflecting the payment qua which bills have been made and which remains. It is submitted that the said burdens lies on the Plaintiff, which the Plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the Plaintiff has conceded that he has received some amount from the Defendant No. 1. However, the amount he claims to have received is allegedly with regard to work done by him whereas it is the case of Defendant No.1 that the same has been paid for materials supplied. It has been further submitted that Plaintiff has failed to prove the amount which he has received from the Defendant No. 1 allegedly for execution of work. The calculation filed by plaintiff is incorrect as the Claimant has not received such amount from the Department. The amount received by the Defendant No.1 from Defendant No. 2 of first, second and third bill is Rs.18,64,344/-, Rs. 35,10,075/- and 57,64,984/- respectively, therefore the Plaintiff has failed to prove the exact amount due and the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone
90. It has been further submitted that to disprove signature on Exhibit PW-2/2 and bills are not that of the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 sought opinion of handwriting expert which has been taken on record vide order dated 09.07.2025. The said CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.50 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:35:19 +0530 opinion clearly points out that the signature on bills and Ex. PW 2/2 are different. Therefore, it is submitted that the burden shifts on the Plaintiff to prove which are his signatures. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove that the signatures are his. It has been further submitted that the Plaintiff in his reply to Application filed by the Defendant No. 1 under Section 45 of Evidence Act read with Order 26 Rule 10A dated 16.12.2024; has taken a volte face and has imputed the signatures to be that of one Pooja Kathuria. Therefore, PW-2 has not been consistent in proving and identifying his signatures which amount to failure of the Plaintiff to prove his signature on the alleged bills. That as per the mandate of law it is necessary to deduct TDS for payment made against execution of services as opposed to purchase of goods. However, the Plaintiff has failed to produce any such TDS certificate or has even failed to produce 26AS certificate to evidence that the payment of Rs. 59,52,217/-
was against execution of work rather than supply of goods.
91. It has been further submitted that the section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act certificate submitted by the plaintiff along with electronic evidences are inadmissible, defective and not as per requirement of law. It is submitted that as per Order XI Rule 6, mandatory declaration is provided for proving the Electronic Records under Sub-rule 3. It is submitted that these mandatory declaration should bear details viz. details of the device in which the documents with regard to which certificate u/s 65B of IB Act were stored, details of the device through which the documents with regard to which certificate U/s 658 of IE Act were printed out etc., have not been mentioned and as CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.51 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:35:25 +0530 such the certificate is defective and inadmissible.
92. It has been further submitted that PW-2 cannot depose on behalf of the plaintiff and as such has failed to prove his case. In support of the contentions, defendant no.1 has relied upon judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani And Another v. Indusind Bank Ltd. And Others; A.C Narayanan v. State Of Maharashtra And Another, Man Kaur (Dead) By Lrs. v. Hartar Singh Sangha 2010 INSC 672 etc. It has been further submitted that that PW-2 in his affidavit of evidence has averred that "Plaintiff being a lady has authorised me to do business on her behalf", but has failed to produce any authority letter with regard to his authorisation to have worked on behalf of the Plaintiff firm, with regard to the transaction in questions. PW-2 has not made any such averment either in the Plaint or his evidence affidavit that he has personal knowledge of the transactions. Therefore on this ground alone, suit of the Plaintiff shall fail as he has failed to prove his case. It has been further submitted that the Plaintiff has not filed on record any registration of the proprietorship firm indicating that Suman Grover is the proprietor of the said firm and is in that capacity has given power of attorney to PW-2 to depose on behalf of the firm. Hence, it is prayed that suit filed the plaintiff be dismissed.
(E) Analysis of Evidence and Findings:-
93. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and also perused the record as well as written submissions filed on behalf CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.52 of 68 Devendra Digitally signed by Devendra Kumar Kumar Sharma Date: 2025.10.15 Sharma 16:35:33 +0530 of plaintiff and defendant no.1 carefully. I have also gone through the case laws relied upon by the parties. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:-
Whether the plaintiff has done work for the defendant no.1? OPP.
94. Onus to prove this issue was upon plaintiff. In order to prove this issue, witness PW1/Smt. Suman Grover, proprietor of the plaintiff concern and witness PW2/ SPA of the plaintiff have been examined in the present matter. In the pleadings in plaint as well as in the evidence led on behalf of the plaintiff, it has been alleged that the electrical work was performed by the plaintiff towards the contract awarded to the defendant no.1 by the defendant no.2 as Associate Agency while defendant no.1 has refuted it and claimed that the plaintiff had supplied the materials but was never associated as Associate Agency to perform the electrical work and has claimed that it is the defendant no.1 who himself executed the entire electrical work having appropriate license to perform the electrical work at the time of submission of first bill to final bill in the office of the defendant no.2.
95. In this regard, the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the documents Ex.PW2/4 whereby plaintiff has claimed that plaintiff was authorized to execute the electrical work as Associate Electrical Contractor as per CPWD norms with the terms and conditions enumerated in the said letter dated 15.07.2016 Ex.PW2/4. However, defendant no.1 has denied his signatures upon Ex.PW2/4 regarding the alleged proposal sent on CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.53 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:35:40 +0530 his behalf through mail to the plaintiff.
96. Be as it may, in order to qualify as Associate Contractor, even there is mention in Ex.PW2/4 that all the terms of the agreement shall in conformity with the CPWD specification.
97. Further, the plaintiff has claimed that one MOU dated 26.07.2016, Ex.PW2/9, was also entered into wherein plaintiff had sent her willingness under her signatures as Associate Contractor but perusal of the MOU makes it clear that it was never signed by the defendant no.1 but it finds signatures of one Pooja Kathuria as a witness. As a matter of fact, this witness was never examined by any of the party in order to prove or disprove this document. Perusal of this MOU makes it clear that the alleged MOU was entered into between defendant no.1 and plaintiff showing the defendant no.1 as main contractor and plaintiff as Associate electrical contractor.
98. In the present case, one license for electrical work was got issued in favour of the plaintiff from Jaipur with the stipulation that it is to perform the electrical work as per guidelines of Government of Rajasthan for the State of Rajasthan. There is one other license Mark-X which has been placed on record in favour of plaintiff issued from the State of Odisha. Further the defendant no.1 though has claimed that he has the requisite qualification to complete the electrical work but his license for electrical work is also not of Delhi and same was issued on 19.12.2016.
CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.54 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:35:47 +0530
99. In the present case, bills were submitted towards the electrical work which were allegedly performed by the plaintiff as Associate Contractor of defendant no.1 and one set of those bills were exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff as Ex.PW2/49 to Ex.PW2/51 for first three running bills and all the bills were again exhibited in the testimony of DW2 as Ex.D2W1/P2 to Ex.D2W1/P4 .
100. Interestingly in the present matter the defendant no.1 has claimed that these bills were never submitted by him or on his behalf but these bills have been claimed to have been manipulated by the plaintiff in connivance with the officials of the defendant no.2. However, when he was given opportunity during his cross-examination when he claimed that he has the receipt of acknowledgment of submission of bills by him and he can produce the same, he came with an explanation that those bills/receipts have been destroyed by the termites except placing on record a photocopy of 3rd running bill Mark 'X' without explanation as to how this copy was not destroyed.
101. In this background, it is to be seen first as to whether the plaintiff was competent to be an Associate Contractor to execute the electrical work on behalf of defendant no.1 if the claim of the plaintiff is accepted to be correct that vide Ex.PW2/9/ MOU the electrical work was to be executed by the plaintiff and secondly, as to whether the plaintiff has performed the actual electrical work in any of the capacity qua the contract awarded in favour of defendant no.1 by defendant no.2.
CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.55 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:35:54 +0530
102. It is admitted case of the plaintiff that the bill for payment for electrical work were submitted by defendant no.1 through authorized representative of the plaintiff/PW2. It has come in the testimony of PW2 that the plaintiff has never taken up electrical assignment for Delhi PWD as contractor or Associate Contractor prior to the work of the present case. It has also come in the testimony of PW2 that he is not aware of the concept of Associate Contractor or that it is mandatory for an Associate Contractor to have discharge work as a Contractor/Associate Contractor for PWD to the extent of 40% of the quantum of work order three years prior to assignment of the work order. It has also been admitted by PW2 that the plaintiff never raised any bill nor submitted any bill to the defendant no.2.
It has also come in his testimony that plaintiff was not aware that prior consent is required of defendant no.2 to be associated with defendant no.1 for execution of the work order. Thus, from the own testimony of PW2, it is clear that the plaintiff was never qualified to be an Associate Contractor to execute the work for defendant no.2, on behalf of defendant no.1.
103. It has also been admitted by PW2 in his cross- examination that plaintiff is registered as an electrical contractor/licensing contractor all over India but no such document has been placed on record nor has been proved by the plaintiff or on behalf of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was registered as contractor for all over India.
104. In his cross-examination, PW2 has clearly admitted CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.56 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:36:09 +0530 that he does not have any MOU on which he as well as defendant no.1 has signed nor even has placed the signed copy of any such MOU on Court record. Even he has admitted that the original of Ex.PW2/2 and Ex.PW2/9 i.e. his proposal and acceptance on behalf of the defendant no.1 with original signatures of the plaintiff are not on Court record. He has further admitted that he was never informed in writing by defendant no.2 that he has been accepted as an Associate Contractor of defendant no.1. He has even admitted that defendant no.1 has never authorized him to submit any bill to defendant no.2 on his behalf but defendant no.2 has asked to submit bill on behalf of defendant no.1 orally. Though there is denial that the plaintiff was not competent to be an Associate Contractor but no document has been proved on record pertaining to solvency, registration and turnover certificate in order to prove the competence of the plaintiff to become an Associate Contractor with defendant no.1 to execute the electrical work.
105. According to the plaintiff, the payment was made by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff for first three running bills after the deduction of the amount as stipulated in MOU Ex.PW2/9. If the version of the plaintiff is believed to be true, according to the plaintiff there was terms and conditions that 1% TDS would be deducted on 15% of labour cost and payment was to be made bill-wise. However, from the evidence available on record, the plaintiff has failed to substantiate her claim that the payment made by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff was towards the execution of the electrical work as the calculation of the total bill amount of the plaintiff towards the electrical work, after the CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.57 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:36:19 +0530 deduction of 14% from the bill amount, do not match the amount paid to the plaintiff and alleged entitlement of the plaintiff for the first three running bills as claimed by the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff has failed to place on record any TDS certificate in order to corroborate that the payment received by the plaintiff was against the execution of the electrical work.
106. In the present case, the first running bill was allegedly submitted by PW2 and on behalf of the defendant no.1 under the signature of PW2. Perusal of the first running bill/Ex.PW2/49 makes the version of plaintiff that the electrical work was performed by the plaintiff concern improbable and in other words unreliable as in the bill itself for electrical work the Associate Contractor has been shown as M/s Bhardwaj Electricals. This document has been signed by PW2 to claim to be authorized representative at the time of execution of the work and this bill is claimed to have been submitted under signatures of PW2. Thus, it was well within the knowledge of PW2 that the plaintiff has never been associated as Associate Contractor. Had the plaintiff been engaged as Associate Contractor by defendant no.1, there was no possibility that the said bill would have been signed by PW2 with the mention of M/s Bhardwaj Electricals as Associate Contractor. Thus, from the said fact itself, it is clear that the electrical work since beginning was never performed by the plaintiff as Associate Contractor. Either it was performed by the said M/s Bhardwaj Electricals or has never been performed at all and it was for the defendant no.2 to take into consideration that whether any such electrical work has been performed by said M/s Bhardwaj Electricals or not. This finding necessitated from CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.58 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:36:27 +0530 the testimony of DW1 that the said M/s Bhardwaj Electricals has never been the Associate Contractor nor has performed any electrical work.
107. In his testimony, PW2 has claimed that the first running bill, Ex.PW2/49 dated 16.11.2016 for an amount of Rs.20,57,839/-, second running bill, Ex.PW2/50, dated 18.03.2017 for an amount of Rs.38,78,539/-, third pre-final bill dated 27.03.2018, Ex.PW2/51, for an amount of Rs.60,52,814/- and fourth and final bill for approximately Rs.29,84,998/- were submitted by the plaintiff with the defendant no.2 department under his signatures, although in the name of defendant no.1 and has also claimed that the plaintiff has executed the work of total amount of Rs.1,49,74,190/- and therefore, after deducting the 14% of the amount i.e. Rs. 20,96,386/- of the total bill amount of Rs.1,49,74,190/-, plaintiff is entitled to Rs.1,28,77,795/- against the work done by the plaintiff. The total amount admitted to have been paid to the plaintiff by the defendant no.1 is Rs.59,52,217/- from 21.11.2016 to 12.04.2018 and therefore, claim of the plaintiff is for Rs.71,75,578/-. The payment schedule has been filed and exhibited as Ex.PW2/52. Perusal of the said payments details does not match with the claim of the plaintiff that any of the payment against any of the running bill is of the amount after deduction of 14% amount of the first, second or any of the bills.
108. As per legal notice, Ex.PW2/P6, dated 05.05.2018, admittedly after the last payment allegedly made by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff on 12.04.2018, the payment is CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.59 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:36:35 +0530 stated to have been made of Rs.40,00,207/- and the balance amount has been shown as Rs.71,73,528/-. Thus, this amount also does not match with the figure alleged in the pleadings and led into evidence regarding the payment and balance unpaid amount. In the first instance, it appears to be insignificant but it can not be considered to be a calculation mistake when it is the claim of the plaintiff that all the bills were submitted by the plaintiff with the defendant no.2. Even otherwise, the claim of the plaintiff is that all the payments have been made through bank and therefore, the version of the plaintiff at the different stage of proceedings regarding the payment and balance amount does not inspire much confidence that these payments were being made against the running bills allegedly submitted by the plaintiff with the defendant no.2 on behalf of the defendant no.1.
109. The claim of the plaintiff that he was recognized as the Associate contractor with defendant no.1 has been belied in her own documents Ex.PW2/60 where the defendant no.2 has informed to the plaintiff that after obtaining the report from Engineer-in-Chief for electrical works, M/s Groson Engineers/ Plaintiff have no proof that they have carried over E&M work. This factum of not the plaintiff being associated as Associate Contractor with defendant no.1 is also evident in the letter dated 02.06.2018 annexed with Ex.PW2/60 wherein it has been categorically reported that the department can issue the notice under clause 7 to defendant no.1, had there been any proof that the plaintiff was the Associate Contractor as per record.
110. In this background, the testimony of D2W1/Mr. CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.60 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2025.10.15 Sharma 16:36:41 +0530 Govind Singh Saini, the Executive Engineer of Education (West Division), PWD becomes relevant. In his testimony, this witness has testified that the work in question was to be completed before 01.07.2016 which was completed on 12.06.2017 and as per record, the defendant no.1 has not submitted any electrical license prior to 01.07.2016. However, this witness has never been confronted with the fact that it is the plaintiff who had performed the work as Associate Contractor on behalf of defendant no.1 nor the finding in the letter Ex.PW2/60 was challenged by cross-
examining the witness that the said report that the plaintiff has never been the Associate Contractor in the records of the defendant no.2 is incorrect one. Instead of that this witness was asked to produce the original of running bills which were produced by the witness and in those bills, it is clear that the plaintiff has never been mentioned as Associate Contractor qua electrical work for defendant no.1.
111. According to the first running bill, Ex.PW2/49 (also Ex.D2W1/P2), the date of measurement for electrical work is stated to be 09.11.2016. Thus, it was to be proved by the plaintiff that by that time she was recognized as Associate Contractor for the electrical work and that she has performed the electrical work herself. However, as discussed herein-above, plaintiff has failed to place on record any document or to prove any document that the actual work on the site was performed by the plaintiff as Associate Contractor on behalf of the defendant no.1. In the testimony of D2W1/defendant no.1, it has come on record that vide Ex.D2W1/P1 he was granted electrical license by the Government of Rajasthan on 19.12.2016. Thus, on the day of CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.61 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:36:49 +0530 measurement on 09.11.2016 defendant no.1 was also not competent to complete the electrical work. As discussed earlier, even defendant no.1 has denied that any electrical work was done for him by M/s Bhardwaj Electricals. Thus, it remained mystery from the evidence on record in absence of any cogent evidence led on behalf of the plaintiff that she has ever performed the electrical work on behalf of defendant no.1 in the individual capacity or as Associate Contractor, as to how there was measurement done on 09.11.2016 and as to how this bill was cleared when this defendant no.1 was himself not competent to execute electrical work.
112. According to DW1, he was not possessing any requisite license for doing the electrical work as on 18.02.2016 i.e. the date of award of the contract. Thus, it is clear from the record and evidence that neither the defendant no.1 was having requisite license for clearance of the first running bill Ex.PW2/49 nor the plaintiff has been able to bring on record any evidence in order to prove her claim that she has performed the electrical work on behalf of the defendant no.1.
113. In the present case, the first running bill was approved for an amount of Rs.18,62,344/-, and as per Ex.D1W1/P1 i.e. statement of account filed on behalf of defendant no.1, the said amount has been remitted in the account of defendant no.1 on 19.11.2016 and admittedly by that time defendant no.1 was not having any eligible qualification to execute the electrical work and as per his own testimony he has not engaged any other electrical agency as Associate Contractor CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.62 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:36:54 +0530 including the plaintiff and M/s Bhardwaj Electricals. Thus, in absence of requisite qualification with plaintiff as well as defendant no.1 and since no agency was hired by defendant no.1 as alleged, even though there is payment of bill amount of first running bill. Thus, it can be safely held that the plaintiff has not done any work as per his claim at the time of submission of first running bill. From the evidence available on record, it can be held that either the claim of the first running bill was in toto raised on false documents in absence of requisite qualification with defendant no.1 to execute the electrical work and his denial of associating any other agency and in particular M/s Bhardwaj Electricals for the purposes of execution of electrical work. Even there is nothing on record to suggest from any of the bills submitted with the defendant no.2 that the plaintiff has been shown to be the Associate Contractor with defendant no.1 and therefore, claim and entitlement of the plaintiff that she has executed the electrical work appears to be doubtful.
114. In the present case, PW2 in his cross-examination has claimed that defendant no.1 had made payment to the plaintiff in respect of first running bill as per MOU but as discussed this claim of the plaintiff appears to be not trustworthy in view of the details given in Ex.PW2/52 where no payment is reflected which can be said to have been made against the first running bill as per said MOU. Even PW2 has admitted that no document like statement of account, TDS Certificate etc. in respect of payment received from defendant no.1 qua first running bill has been placed on record.
CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.63 of 68
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15
16:37:00 +0530
115. In his testimony, PW2 though has claimed that he has filed the original MOU on record but no such original MOU is there on record. As a matter of fact no document is there on record which shows that any of the documents were counter- signed by defendant no.1 in order to authenticate the claim of the plaintiff that there was a written MOU/ understanding between the parties recognizing the plaintiff as Associate Contractor. In his cross-examination by voluntarily statement, PW2 has stated that the said documents were sent to the defendant no.2 after putting his signatures and he does not know whether the defendant no.1 had submitted those documents with his signature or not. Here also it was for the plaintiff to prove that those documents were submitted with defendant no.1 in order to verify him as Associate Contractor but no such witness has been summoned from the department of Defendant no.2 that the said MOU/ written documents signed on behalf of the plaintiff were duly furnished with the defendant no.2 in order to accept the plaintiff as Associate Contractor. The documents placed on record and proved in evidence of PW2 can be at the best said to be documents unilaterally executed in absence of any proof that these documents/MOU were ever agreed and signed by the defendant no.1.
116. In the present case, the claim of the plaintiff is that he was orally authorized to submit the bills and defendant no.1 has claimed that all the bills were submitted by him. However, the plaintiff has categorically admitted that he was never authorized in writing. Even defendant no.1 has failed to prove that he has submitted any other bill with the defendant no.2 for CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.64 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:37:06 +0530 payment except Ex.PW2/49 to Ex.PW2/51 (Ex.D2W1/P2, Ex.D2W1/P3 and Ex.D2W1/P4). Even these bills have been disputed on behalf of the defendant no.1 by filing the expert opinion on record stating that the signature upon Ex.PW2/2 and Ex.PW2/49 to Ex.PW2/51 are of different persons. Though this witness has never been examined in order to prove the distinction in the said signatures. Further, the witness PW2 when confronted with document Ex.PW2/2 in his cross-examination, he claimed signature at Point X is his signature but perusal of the signature clearly shows that this signatures is of one P. Kathuria and not of PW2. Thus, from the said facts it is clear that in order to prove the association of plaintiff with the defendant no.1 as Associate Contractor, this witness PW2 has gone to the extent of owning a signature which is not of the witness raising serious doubt about his credibility as a witness.
117. During the cross-examination, PW2 has not given any specific answer regarding the entitlement by proving the documents of solvency and other conditions in order to entitle him to be the Associate Contractor by deposing that it is a matter of record. However, neither in the arguments nor from the record, any of the documents has been shown or proved which confirms the eligibility of the plaintiff to work as Associate Contractor as per the norms of the PWD/CPWD for execution of electrical work as well as regarding the deduction of TDS amount. Even this witness has admitted that no completion plan was submitted by him to the defendant no.1 or defendant no.2 before execution of the work. Even this witness has not given any specific answer by deposing that it is a matter of record when CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.65 of 68 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15 16:37:13 +0530 he was asked as to whether he has placed any copy of the mail through which invoices were sent to defendant no.1 and 2 by deposing that it is a matter of record, though there is no such mail is placed on record.
118. Finally in his cross-examination, PW2 himself has admitted that name of the plaintiff firm is not reflected in any of the bills Ex.PW2/49 to Ex.PW2/51 but it has been only stated voluntarily by the witness that bills have been signed and submitted by him. But when he was confronted as to why the name of M/s Bhardwaj Electricals was mentioned at Point-X on page no.152 of bill Ex.PW2/49, he has testified that it was mentioned by the defendant department and not by him. This explanation of the witness appears to be an afterthought as at no point of time before the said cross-examination, this witness has ever claimed that the name of M/s Bhardwaj Electricals was mentioned by the defendant no.2 on their own. This witness himself has admitted that upon second running bill at page no.298 and 299 of the documents Ex.PW2/61, no name of the plaintiff has been mentioned as Associate Contractor.
119. Further, in the testimony of PW2, it has come on record that the certificate Ex.PW2/62 filed U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act does not contain any details of device, details of the printer, details of date and time of the preparation and storage of these documents, its printing and has also admitted that the computer in question was not exclusively used by him. Thus, this testimony of PW2 itself raises serious doubt about the authenticity of the printout documents/electronic documents.
CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.66 of 68
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15
16:37:19 +0530
120. In view of the abovesaid discussion, this Court is of opinion that plaintiff has failed to prove on preponderance of probability that the electrical work was done for defendant no.1 either as Associate Contractor or otherwise in independent capacity. Hence, issue no.1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
ISSUE NO.2:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs.71,75,578/- as prayed in prayer paragraph (a)? OPP.
AND ISSUE NO.3:-
Whether plaintiff is entitled for any interest @ 18% per annum or at any other rate? OPP.
121. Onus of proving the issue no.2 and 3 were upon plaintiff. Since it has been held while deciding issue no.1 that the plaintiff has failed to prove that she has done electrical work for the defendant no.1 as an Associate Contractor, therefore, this Court is of opinion that plaintiff has failed to prove her entitlement for recovery of amount of Rs.71,75,578/- on preponderance of probability. Accordingly, issue no.2 and 3 are also decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
RELIEF :-
122. In view of my findings on issue no.1, 2 and 3, it is held that plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as prayed for and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
In the facts and circumstances discussed
CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.67 of 68
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2025.10.15
16:37:25 +0530
hereinabove, parties are left to bear their own costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due
compliance. Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Dictated and announced Kumar
Kumar Sharma
Date:
in the open Court on Sharma 2025.10.15
15th October, 2025. 16:37:31 +0530
(DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-03
Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
CS DJ No. 6052/2018 Suman Grover Vs. Varun Gupta & Anr. Page No.68 of 68