Delhi District Court
Sh. Kawaljeet Singh Kohli vs M/S. M. Tech Developers Ltd on 30 August, 2014
Page 1 of 20
IN THE COURT OF MS. NAVITA KUMARI BAGHA, ADJ01 (SOUTH),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Suit No. 162/13/10
Unique Case ID No.02403C0258592010
Sh. Kawaljeet Singh Kohli
S/o Sh. Ranjit Singh Kohli
R/o W26, Second Floor,
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi110027.
................... Plaintiff
Vs.
M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd.
Through its Director
Sh. Mahender Sharma
ANS House 144/2, Ashram,
Mathura Road, New Delhi.
................ Defendant
Date of Institution : 04.08.2010
Date of reserving order : 30.08.2014
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 30.08.2014
Suit for Recovery of Rs.4,86,534/
JUDGMENT:
1. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant on 04.08.2010. The brief facts of the suit as narrated in the Plaint are as follows: "Defendant is a company incorporated under Companies Kawaljeet Singh Kohli Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 162/13/10 Page 2 of 20 Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of various land projects including the residential complexes/ townships/commercial complexes/built up houses, villas, etc. On the inducement and allurement of the defendant, the plaintiff had booked an individual Villa in the land project of defendant at Bhiwadi (Rajasthan) @ Rs.1,250/ per sq. ft. on plot admeasuring 300 sq. yards and made a part payment of Rs.3,00,000/ (Rupees Three Lacs only) vide cheque no.305007 dated 19.05.2006. The said payment was duly acknowledged by the defendant by issuing receipt no.2027 dated 15.06.2006 to the plaintiff. At the time of booking, the plaintiff was assured by the defendant that the possession of the said Villa would be handed over to him within a period of 24 months. But despite a number of enquiries made by the plaintiff from time to time from the defendant regarding development of the project, no proper response was received from the latter. On making further enquiries, the plaintiff came to know that no approval was obtained by the defendant from the competent authorities for the said project and that no construction had started at the site even after the lapse of three years. The plaintiff immediately brought the said fact to the knowledge of the defendant and asked for refund of his registration amount of Rs.3,00,000/ and the defendant agreed to refund the aforesaid booking amount along with interest @15% per annum. The plaintiff, on the instructions of the defendant, Kawaljeet Singh Kohli Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 162/13/10 Page 3 of 20 surrendered the provisional registration with photocopy of Receipt no.2027 to the defendant by moving Surrender Request Application dated 29.12.2008 and while acknowledging the surrender request, the defendant issued a letter dated 22.01.2009 to the plaintiff assuring therein that the defendant would refund the advance/booking amount to the plaintiff by way of demand draft on 25.05.2009. But the said amount was never refunded by the defendant to the plaintiff despite several requests made by the plaintiff. Finally, the plaintiff served a legal notice dated 29.12.2009 upon the defendant for refund of the advance/booking amount of Rs.3,00,000/ along with interest @15% per annum. But despite the service of legal notice, the defendant failed to refund the said amount and hence, the present suit."
2. Summons of the suit were issued and served upon the defendant and after service the defendant filed the Written Statement wherein, while denying all the averments made in the Plaint, it has raised the following preliminary objections: that the suit is not maintainable because the plaintiff had not served any notice upon the defendant prior to filing of the suit; that this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain this suit as the total cost of the alleged plot booking by the plaintiff was more than Rs.37,50,000/; that the suit is barred by the law of contract because there was no written Kawaljeet Singh Kohli Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 162/13/10 Page 4 of 20 contract between the plaintiff and the defendant; that the suit is barred by Sec.41 of Specific Relief Act; that the suit is barred by law of limitation and that the suit has been filed without any cause of action. On merits, it has been submitted in the Written Statement that the plaintiff had booked a Villa in a prelaunching scheme but had failed to deposit the installments as per the schedule opted by him and, therefore, the defendant had cancelled his booking and forfeited the amount paid by him. The defendant, in WS, has denied the acknowledgment of amount of Rs.3,00,000/ vide Receipt no. 2027 dated 15.06.2006. It is further denied that any assurance was given by the defendant for handing of the possession of the Villa to plaintiff within 24 months from the date of booking or that no approval was obtained by it from the concerned authorities. It is submitted by the defendant in the Written Statement that the requisite permission from various concerned departments had been obtained by the defendant and the construction of Villas and flats was in full swing. It has further denied that the defendant had agreed to return the booking amount to the plaintiff along with interest @15% per annum. The service of legal notice dated 29.12.2009 is also denied in the Written Statement.
3. Replication to the Written Statement of defendant was filed by the plaintiff wherein almost all the averments of the defendant were denied and contents of the Plaint were reiterated and reaffirmed. Kawaljeet Singh Kohli Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 162/13/10 Page 5 of 20 The plaintiff has denied that his booking was cancelled for non payment of installments and submitted that the defendant had never raised any demand notice on the plaintiff for the payment.
4. After the completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor Court vide order dated 02.11.2011:
1. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of written contract between the parties? OPD
2. Whether the suit is barred by Sec. 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act? OPD
3. Whether the suit is without cause of action? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of Rs.4,86,534/ (i.e. booking amount of Rs.3,00,000/ + interest of Rs.1,86,534/), against the defendant? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendentlite and future interest @ 15% per annum, against the defendant? OPP
6. Relief.
5. In plaintiff's evidence the plaintiff had examined himself as one and the only witness i.e. PW1. Though a number of opportunities were given to defendant to lead evidence but defendant failed to lead any Kawaljeet Singh Kohli Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 162/13/10 Page 6 of 20 evidence and finally its opportunity to lead evidence was closed by the Ld. Predecessor Court vide order dated 22.08.2013.
6. PW1 in his affidavit in evidence i.e. A1 has deposed on the similar lines as of his Plaint. While reiterating his submissions made in the Plaint, he, in order to prove his case, has exhibited the following documents:
(i) Ex.PW1/1 - Advance Registration Application Form for Apartments/Villas.
(ii) Ex.PW1/2 - Acknowledgement issued by defendant of payment of Rs.3,00,000/ received from plaintiff towards registration of Villa.
(iii) Ex.PW1/3 - Payment Receipt bearing no.2027 dated 15.06.2006, issued by defendants of the payment of Rs.3,00,000/ received from plaintiff.
(iv) Ex.PW1/4 - Plaintiff's Letter dated 29.12.2008 regarding surrender of Provisional Registration of Villa.
(v) Ex.PW1/5 - Letter dated 22.01.2009, issued by defendant, assuring therein to issue a demand draft to plaintiff on 25.05.2009 against surrender of his booking.
(vi) Ex.PW1/6, Ex.PW1/7 & Ex.PW1/8 - Legal Notice dated 29.12.2009, issued by plaintiff to defendant, Postal receipt and AD card.
Kawaljeet Singh Kohli Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 162/13/10 Page 7 of 20
7. I have heard the final arguments from counsel Sh.Sanjay Sehgal for plaintiff and counsel Sh. Lalit Trakru for defendant. My issuewise findings are as under: ISSUE NO.1: Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of written contract between the parties?
8. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. But the defendant has failed to lead evidence despite grant of a number of opportunities. The defendant, in the Written Statement, has simply stated that the suit is barred by law of contract as there is no written contract between the plaintiff and defendant. But the Contract Act, 1872 nowhere says that a suit could not be filed if there is no "written" contract between the parties. Rather, both, written as well as oral contracts are permissible under the said Act. The objection raised by the defendant is totally baseless and appears to be mentioned just for the sake of raising objection and hence rejected. Thus this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.2: Whether the suit is barred by Sec.41(h) of the Specific Relief Act?
9. The onus to prove this issue was also upon the defendant but it has failed to discharge its onus as no evidence was led by it. The Kawaljeet Singh Kohli Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 162/13/10 Page 8 of 20 defendant has failed to prove/explain as to which other equally efficacious remedy is available to the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that he had paid Rs.3,00,000/ to the defendant at the time of booking of a Villa and since defendant had not fulfilled its part of agreement i.e. raised any construction, so he has claimed the refund of amount paid by him. For the recovery of the said amount, the plaintiff has filed the present suit which is the only remedy available with him for recovering the said amount from the defendant and hence it is held that the present suit is legally maintainable and not barred by the provisions of Sec.41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. Thus, this issue is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.3: Whether the suit is without cause of action?
10. The onus to prove this issue was again on the defendant as it had raised objection in its Written Statement that the suit has been filed without any cause of action. But as said earlier, the defendant has failed to discharge the onus. The plaintiff/PW1, on the other hand, has duly proved that he had paid Rs.3,00,000/ towards the part payment of construction of a Villa booked by him with the defendant, but neither the defendant had raised any construction nor refunded his amount despite repeated requests and service of legal notice. Hence it is held that the suit is not without cause of action. Thus, this issue is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and Kawaljeet Singh Kohli Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 162/13/10 Page 9 of 20 against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of Rs. 4,86,534/ (i.e. booking amount of Rs.3,00,000/ + interest of Rs. 1,86,534/), against the defendant?
ISSUE NO.5: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendentlite and future interest @ 15% per annum, against the defendant?
11. Issue no.4 and 5 are taken up together as these are interrelated and are required to be dealt jointly. The onus to prove these issues was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff/PW1 has deposed that he had booked a Villa in the land project of defendant at Bhiwadi (Rajasthan) and made part payment of Rs.3,00,000/ vide cheque no.305007 dated 19.05.06 at the time of booking which was duly acknowledged by the defendant by issuing receipt no.2027 dated 15.06.2006. He has proved the Advance Registration Application for Villa as Ex.PW1/1, Acknowledgment of defendant as Ex.PW1/2 and payment receipt bearing no.2027 as Ex.PW1/3. But despite his categorical deposition, he was neither crossexamined on this point nor any suggestion was given to him to deny the same. It is settled law that if the opposite party fails to crossexamine a witness on a certain point, then the said party is deemed to have accepted the same as true. It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2002 SC 3652, Kawaljeet Singh Kohli Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 162/13/10 Page 10 of 20 "It is a rule of essential justice that whenever opponent has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his case in cross examination, it must follow that evidence tendered on that issue ought to be accepted."
It is also held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satyendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Jitender Kudsia, 2006 (1) RCR (Rent) 206, "Section 137 and 138 of Evidence Act Crossexamination - If a witness is not cross examined on a particular point, the opposite party must be deemed to have accepted truth of the statement."
Similarly in the present case in the absence of any cross examination on the abovesaid points, it is deemed to be accepted by the defendant that the plaintiff vide Ex.PW1/1 had booked a Villa in defendant's project at Bhiwadi (Rajasthan) and paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/ to the defendant which was acknowledged by defendant vide Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3. Otherwise also, it is pertinent to mention here that though, in the Written Statement, the defendant has evasively denied the contents of the Plaint regarding the booking of a Villa by the plaintiff and making of payment of Rs. 3,00,000/ by him, but in para 34 of reply on merits, it has duly admitted that the plaintiff had booked a Villa, though in pre Kawaljeet Singh Kohli Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 162/13/10 Page 11 of 20 launching scheme. It has further stated that the amount paid by the plaintiff was forfeited by the defendant as the plaintiff had failed to deposit the installments as per the payment schedule, meaning thereby that it has admitted that the plaintiff had paid the amount to it. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that it has stood proved that the plaintiff had booked a Villa with the defendant and paid Rs.3,00,000/to the defendant as part payment at the time of booking of the said Villa.
12. Plaintiff/PW1 has further deposed that at the time of booking, it was assured by the defendant that the possession of the said Villa would be handed over to him within 24 months, but when the defendant failed to give any proper response to the inquires made by him regarding the development of their project, he himself made inquiries and came to know that the defendant had not even obtained any approval from the competent Authorities for the said land project and therefore he brought the said fact to the knowledge of the defendant and asked it to refund the amount deposited by him. Thus the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had failed to perform its part of the agreement and therefore, he (plaintiff) had demanded refund of his money from the defendant. The defendant, on the other hand, has put up his case that the plaintiff had failed to pay the installments as per the payment schedule and hence his amount was forfeited by the defendant. But neither the defendant Kawaljeet Singh Kohli Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 162/13/10 Page 12 of 20 has proved/placed on record any such payment schedule nor any document/agreement as per which it was entitled to forfeit the amount paid by the plaintiff. It was only in the crossexamination of PW1 that the defendant could elicit from the mouth of the witness that the payment was to be made as per the schedule of payment. But there also the PW1 had said that for the same agreement was to be formally drawn but the same was never drawn. PW1 had further said that the payment was to be made on construction link basis and no suggestion was given to him to deny the same. The case of the plaintiff is that no construction was raised at the site by the defendant and this is the reason that he has been demanding back his money. Though, the said fact has been denied by the defendant in Written Statement but neither any evidence is led to disprove the same nor even any document/photograph is placed on record by the defendant to show if any construction had started at the site. Apart from this, it is also pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff/PW1 has categorically deposed that the defendant had never sent any demand letter for payment of any installment. But neither any suggestion was given to him to deny the same nor it is the case of the defendant that it had issued any letter for demanding any payment of installment from the plaintiff. Thus, in the absence of any willful default on the part of the plaintiff to the demand raised by the defendant, how the defendant could have Kawaljeet Singh Kohli Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 162/13/10 Page 13 of 20 cancelled the booking of plaintiff? The defendant has failed to prove or place on record any document making him entitled to forfeit the money. It is also pertinent to mention here that PW1 has categorically deposed that on his submission of Surrender Application/Letter i.e. Ex.PW1/4, the defendant had issued a letter dated 22.01.2009 i.e. PW1/5 to him, assuring him to issue a demand draft on 25.05.2009 against surrender of booking. But despite his said categorical testimony, he was neither cross examined on this point nor any suggestion for denying the same was given, meaning thereby that the said document has been admitted by the defendant. Thus, if the defendant had agreed to refund the amount of the plaintiff at the time of his surrender of booking, then where the question of cancellation of his booking arises on the ground of nonpayment of installments ! The defence raised by the defendant is clearly sham and bogus and appears to be result of an afterthought. Hence, in view of the aforesaid analysis, it is held that the booking of the plaintiff was never cancelled on account of nonpayment of installments, rather the plaintiff had surrendered the booking vide Ex.PW1/4 and the defendant had agreed to refund his amount vide Ex.PW1/5 and thus plaintiff is entitled to recover his amount of Rs.3,00,000/ from the defendant. Thus, Issue no.4 to this extent is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Kawaljeet Singh Kohli Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 162/13/10 Page 14 of 20
13. Now let us come to the interest sought by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sought interest - presuit, pendentlite and future, @15% per annum. The plaintiff/PW1 has deposed that when he demanded refund of his money, while bringing to the notice of the defendant the facts regarding not obtaining any approval from the competent authorities for the land project by the defendant and further regarding fraudulent tactics adopted by the defendant to usurp the hard earned money of the plaintiff and other innocent investors, the defendant agreed to refund his booking amount of Rs.3,00,000/ along with interest @15% per annum. The counsel for plaintiff has argued that the standard format of Surrender Application/Letter dated 29.12.2008 i.e. Ex.PW1/4 was provided by the defendant itself to the plaintiff and one of the terms of the said letter grants interest @15% per annum. But the counsel for defendant has vehemently argued that the said letter could not be termed as agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the rate of interest. I find force in his contention as the said letter is simply a letter written by the plaintiff to the defendant expressing therein his wish to surrender his provisional registration of Villa due to non development in the project and further requesting the defendant to refund his amount along with interest @15% per annum from the date of payment. This request of plaintiff in no manner can be construed as agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant Kawaljeet Singh Kohli Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 162/13/10 Page 15 of 20 even if the standard format of said letter was provided by the defendant. The counsel for defendant has further argued vehemently that the interest clause has already been deleted in the Surrender Application Ex.PW1/4 and therefore, the plaintiff could not claim any interest. The plaintiff/PW1, in his crossexamination, has deposed that he had not deleted the said clause and that the same might have been deleted by the defendant only. The same sounds convincing as the deletion would have affected him adversely but favourably to the defendant. Moreover the said deletion/cutting is not bearing any signature/initials of any of the parties and hence could not be relied upon. There is one more reason also i.e. the said deletion pertains not only to interest but to the principal amount also i.e. the amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendant and had the said clause been deleted, then why the defendant would have issued letter dated 22.01.2009 i.e. Ex.PW1/5, assuring therein to refund plaintiff's amount by way of demand draft on 25.05.2009 !! Hence the contention of the counsel for defendant is rejected being totally baseless and meritless. This Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to reasonable rate of interest as he has suffered loss because his money is lying blocked for the last almost 8 years and he has been deprived of its use by the defendant.
14. Now the question arises that from which date the interest should be Kawaljeet Singh Kohli Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 162/13/10 Page 16 of 20 awarded? The plaintiff has claimed interest from the date of booking i.e. from 19.05.2006. But the counsel for defendant, while relying upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Zile Singh Vs. Mangloo Ram Bansal, RSA No.195/04, has vehemently argued that the interest, if awarded, could not be awarded from the date prior to the date of legal notice although the defendant has denied the receipt of legal notice. Let us first take up, before taking up point relating to ascertaining the date from which interest could be awarded, the issue raised by the defendant's counsel regarding nonservice of legal notice. The defendant has simply denied the service of legal notice in Written Statement as well as in the suggestions given to PW1 in his crossexamination. The PW1 has deposed that he had served the legal notice dated 29.12.2009 i.e. Ex.PW1/6 upon the defendant vide postal receipt and AD card i.e. Ex.PW1/7 and Ex.PW1/8. It is settled law that once the letter is sent through registered post at correct address and AD card is received back bearing some signatures, the presumption is drawn about its service upon the addressee unless the same is rebutted. It is held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Smt. Bhavneshwari Devi Vs. Kalyan Singh, 1993 (2) RCR (Rent) 330 that presumption of service arises in law if the AD card of registered post is received back bearing signatures of someone. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone even a step further and held that even if the AD card is Kawaljeet Singh Kohli Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 162/13/10 Page 17 of 20 lost or does not come back for any reason, the presumption of service could still be drawn. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basant Singh Vs. Roman Catholic Mission, 2002 A.I.R. (SC) 3557, "Civil Procedure Code, Order 5 Rule 19A(2) General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 27 Service by Registered post Registered post Presumption of Service Summons properly addressed sent by registered post with acknowledgement due Notwithstanding loss of A.D. card/not received back for any reason, a presumption of due service is attached However the presumption is rebuttable It is for the addressee to prove that the registered notice was not presented/reached to him for service."
Though the presumption is rebuttable and it is always open to the defendant to rebut the presumption by leading convincing and cogent evidence but here in the present case the addressee/defendant has utterly failed to lead any evidence to rebut this presumption. Moreover, it is also not the case of the defendant that the address as mentioned in the legal notice or AD Card is not its correct address. So, in view of the above caselaws and legal presumption contained in Sec.27 of General Clauses Act as well as Sec.114(f) of Indian Evidence Act (which has gone unrebutted in the present case), it is held that the defendant was duly served with legal notice Ex.PW1/6.
Kawaljeet Singh Kohli Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 162/13/10 Page 18 of 20
15. Now let us take up the other issue raised by the counsel for defendant regarding the date from which interest could be awarded. The Hon'ble High Court in Zile Singh Vs. Mangloo Ram Bansal (supra) has held that so far pendentlite and future interest are concerned, Sec.34 CPC is applicable but the payment of presuit interest is governed by Sec.3 and 4 of Interest Act, 1978. As per Sec.3(1)(a) of Interest Act, if the proceedings relate to a debt payable by virtue of a written instrument at a certain time, then, the interest may be allowed from the date when the debt is payable. And as per Sec.3(1)(b) of Interest Act, if proceedings do not relate to a debt payable by virtue of a written instrument at a certain time, then the Court may allow interest from the date mentioned in this regard in the written notice given by the person entitled. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court in the abovesaid case, "There is no dispute that in the present case there is no written instrument under which the debt is payable at a certain time. The plaintiff has also not averred in the plaint that there was any agreement with the defendants regarding payment of interest or there is any usage having the force of law regarding payment of interest. In the absence of any proof of agreement, either express or implied, or usage having the force of law regarding payability of interest, and in the absence of any written instrument, the claim of interest can be Kawaljeet Singh Kohli Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 162/13/10 Page 19 of 20 sustained only if it is proved that a written notice of demand to that effect has been issued."
In the present case, there is no written instrument under which the debt is payable at a certain time. The plaintiff has also not averred in the Plaint that there was any usage having the force of law regarding payment of interest. It is already held that there was no agreement between the parties regarding payment of interest. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is falling under Sec.3(1)(b) of Interest Act and the plaintiff could be awarded interest from the date of written notice of demand. Now it is pertinent to mention here that prior to issuance of legal notice Ex.PW1/6, the plaintiff had already raised demand in writing for refund of his amount vide Surrender Application dated 29.12.2008 i.e. Ex.PW1/4. This Court is of considered opinion that the said Surrender Application is equivalent to written notice as contemplated under Sec.3(1)(b) of Interest Act. Hence, it is held that plaintiff is entitled to claim presuit interest w.e.f. 29.12.2008. Though the plaintiff has claimed interest @15% per annum, but this Court is of the considered opinion that it is on the higher side and that the ends of justice would be sufficiently met if plaintiff is granted interest (presuit and pendentlite) @12% per annum i.e. from 29.12.2008 till date of this order and future interest @6% per annum till realization. Hence Issue no. 4 & 5 are decided in favour of the Kawaljeet Singh Kohli Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 162/13/10 Page 20 of 20 plaintiff and against the defendant.
Relief:
16. The present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/ (Rupees Three Lacs Twenty Four Thousand only) alongwith interest (presuit and pendentlite) @12% per annum w.e.f. 29.12.2008 till the date of this order and future interest @6% per annum till realization. Costs of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decreesheet be prepared accordingly.
17. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
(Announced in the open
Court on 30.08.2014) (Navita Kumari Bagha)
ADJ01, South District,
Saket Courts, New Delhi
Kawaljeet Singh Kohli Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd. CS No. 162/13/10