Delhi District Court
M/S vs Electricals And Traders Through Its ... on 3 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS SAVITA RAO, DISTRICT JUDGE
COMMERCIAL COURT-01, SOUTH ,
SAKET COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024
DLST010000722024
In the matter of :
Ms. Santosh Sirohi, Proprietor of
M/s V.S. Electricals and Traders
Plot No. 77, Flat No. 10, Khasra No. - 420
Near Gurudwara, Sultanpur New Delhi - 110030
Through its Manager and Attorney holder Sh. Virender Sirohi
..... Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Rahul Bhadana
Chairman and Managing Director
of Aravali College of Engineering
and Management, Jasana Tigaon Road,
Neharpur, Faridabad, State of Haryana- 121102
........ Defendant
Date of Institution : 04.01.2024
Date of Arguments : 04.08.2025 & 01.09.2025
CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024 1/25
Date of Judgment : 03.09.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is suit for recovery of Rs. 29,63,243/- (Rs. Twenty Nine Lacs Sixty Three Thousand Two Hundred Forty Three only) filed by plaintiff against the defendant on the facts that plaintiff's firm is engaged in the work of plumbing and painting of buildings, which are already constructed and its electrical works on oral contracts and agreements with different individuals, customers and society owners etc. on the agreed rate of per square feet as per requirements and gives the best quality of services with the co-operation of the owner/occupier, builders etc. On 18.10.2022, Defendant who is Chairman and Managing Director of Aravali College of Engineering and Management, Faridabad, visited the office of plaintiff and handed over the work order of painting works with final approval for Asian Paint quality Apex Pain work with materials per SQF rate Rs. 13.50/- alongwith regmark (Amri Paper) and primer, miner repair putty, double coat complete finishing with college logo with extra charges for GST @ 18%. On the same day, defendant had also issued another work order for plumbing, together with final approval of plumbing work on all 76 points at the cost of Rs. 9,72,000/- and further extended the work of tiles and also noted the same in the work order dated 31.10.2022 and finalized the rate for tile @ 165 Rupees per square feet duly signed and stamped with seal of the college.
2. After receipt of work orders dated 18.10.2022, plaintiff tendered his quotation on 01.11.2022 to the defendant furnishing the details of item/job description, HSH/SAC Quantity rate and CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024 2/25 total amount of cost of Rs. 38,37,359.67 including GST. All the works within the scope of Purchase Order were completed and finished in the month of February 2023 but defendant delayed the payments. Plaintiff, in order to get his entire payment, was asked by the defendant to do works even beyond the scope mentioned in purchase order, for which bill dated 03.05.2023 for sum of Rs. 11,73,428.45 and dated 11.05.2023 for sum of Rs. 18,32,785.27/- were raised, which were sent to the defendant vide whatsapp and email dated 11.05.2023. Plaintiff gave/furnished, all the bills and PI to the defendant through their administrative Incharge Yogesh to the total sum of Rs. 67,83,525.68, out of which defendant paid only sum of Rs. 38,64,377.98 but balance amount was not cleared despite repeated requests by the plaintiff. Legal Demand notice dated 23.05.2023 sent by plaintiff demanding the outstanding amount of Rs. 29,63,242 also did not yield any result.
3. Plaintiff initiated "Pre-Institution Mediation" proceedings and filed an application for Mediation before the competent authority under Rule 2 (c) of The Commercial Courts (Pre- Institution) Mediation and Settlement Rules, 2018 wherein Non- Starter Report dated 01.09.2023 was issued by the concerned authority and the plaintiff was constrained to file the instant suit.
4. In written statement filed on behalf of defendant, it was stated that it was signatory to the plaint who had visited the office of defendant on 18.10.2022 and was given a written approval dated 18.10.2022 qua paint work and plumbing work. It was denied that plaintiff tendered any quotation to the defendant for an amount of Rs. 38,37,359.67. As further submitted, plaintiff provided poor quality service to the defendant. Plaintiff never CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024 3/25 completed the work assigned within time. Plaintiff raised certain bill in relation to the work carried out by him at the site of defendant which was duly paid. However, defendant withheld the payment of the bills in relation to the poor quality of services provided by the plaintiff firm and further withheld the payment of the painting and plumbing work left pending by the plaintiff. As per the ledger maintained by the defendant, an amount of Rs. 39,99,786/-stood paid to the plaintiff firm and amount of Rs. 6,07,110/- was withheld owing to the poor services provided by the plaintiff.
5. It was further submitted that mere raising of financial demand by the plaintiff does not confer any right against the defendant. Owing to the delayed and poor quality of services provided by the plaintiff firm in relation to the paint and plumbing work at the site of defendant, defendant was compelled to engage the services of an independent plumber namely Kali Charan Plumbing works and it is rather the defendant, who suffered huge loss owing to the unprofessional and poor quality of work/services rendered by the plaintiff firm.
6. In replication, contents of written statement were denied and those of plaint were reiterated and reaffirmed.
7. Following issues were framed vide order dated 23.09.2024:
1. Whether the services rendered by the plaintiff were of poor quality, if so, its effect? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount, as claimed? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest as claimed, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024 4/25
4. Relief.
8. In plaintiff's evidence, Sh. Virender Sirohi, Power of Attorney Holder of Proprietor of plaintiff firm, was examined PW1. He filed affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/1 and relied upon following documents:-
1. Aadhar Card of PW1 as Ex. PW1/1.
2. Special Power of Attorney as Ex. PW1/2.
3. True and correct Photocopy of work order dated 18.10.2022 as Mark-A.
4.True and Correct Photocopy of work order dated 18.10.2022 & 31.10.2022 as Mark-B.
5. Original Quotation Voucher No. QU# 93 dated 01.11.2024 as Ex. PW1/3.
6. True and correct copies of emails, whatsapp chats, alongwith bill dated 03.05.2023 and 11.05.2023 as Ex. PW1/4 (colly)
7. Affidavit u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW1/5.
8. Original bills dated 20.01.2023, 13.04.2023 and 11.05.2023 as Ex. PW1/6.
9. Legal Demand Notice dated 23.05.2023 and original postal receipts alongwith delivery report dated 01.06.2023 as Ex. PW1/7.
10. MSME Registration Certificate as Ex. PW1/8.
11. Non Starter Report dated 01.09.2023 as Ex. PW1/9.
9. Sh. Anil Kumar Paswan, Employee and Supervisor of plaintiff was examined as PW2 who filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A.
10. In defence, Defendant Sh. Rahul Bhadana examined himself as DW1. He filed affidavit of evidence Ex. DW1/A and relied upon following documents:CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024 5/25
1. Trust deed of Edquest Welfare Trust as Ex. DW1/1.
2. Work order for paint work dated 18.10.2022 as Ex. DW1/2.
3. Work order for plumbing work for 18.10.2022 as Ex. DW1/3.
4. Ledger account of 'VS Electricals and Traders' maintained by defendant as Ex. DW1/4.
5. Account Statement of defendant from 1.11.2022 to 30.04.2023 as Ex. DW1/5.
6. Bills/Cash memos as Ex. DW1/6 to Ex. DW1/16
7. Ledger of Kali Charan plumbing work maintained by defendant as Ex. DW1/17.
8. Certificate u/s 63 of BSA as Ex. DW1/18.
11. Sh. Satbir, Security Guard from Aravali College of Engineering and Management, Jasana, Tigaon Road, Faridabad, Haryana was examined as DW2. He filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW2/A and relied upon following documents:
(i) The entry and exit record dated 18.10.2022 and 31.10.2022 in register of staff members and management of the college is Ex. DW2/1 (colly).
(ii) Entry and exit record of Mr. Virender Singh Sirohi in the register as Ex. DW2/2 (colly).
12. Sh. Robin was examined as DW4 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW4/A. Issue-wise findings are as under :
13. Issues No. 1 & 2 : Plaintiff claimed issuance of work orders from defendant dated 18.10.2022 and 31.10.2022 mark 'B' which were later on exhibited in defendant's evidence as Ex. DW1/2 and Ex. DW1/3. Both the work orders though are bearing date as 18.10.2022, however receipt of the same with final approval is 31.10.2022. It was clarified by PW1 in affidavit evidence that the CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024 6/25 work order was issued on 18.10.2022 for painting work, however another work order of even date was issued, for plumbing together with the final approval of plumbing work, which was further extended for the work of tiles as noted in the work order on 31.10.2022. Plaintiff further claims issuance of quotation on 1.11.2022 upon receipt of the work orders dated 18.10.2022 vide Ex. PW1/3.
14. According to plaintiff, all the works within the scope of purchase orders were completed by the month of February 2023 but defendant delayed the payments and in order to get the entire payment, plaintiff was asked by defendant to do the works even beyond the works as mentioned in Purchase Orders. Plaintiff claimed to have raised bills dated 03.05.2023 in sum of Rs. 11,73,428.45 and another bill dated 11.05.2023 in sum of Rs. 18,32,785.27 for the extra works, which contained the details of labour cost and material and remained outstanding against the defendant. Mention of bill dated 03.05.2023 as part of Ex. PW1/4 (in para 12 of affidavit evidence and plaint) as clarified, was typing mistake since bills were dated 13.4.2023 and 11.05.2023. In the subsequent paragraphs of plaint and affidavit evidence, the bill no. VS/79 was correctly stated to be dated 13.4.2023. According to plaintiff, it furnished all the bills to defendant through their Administrative Incharge Yogesh, out of which defendant paid only sum of Rs. 38,64,377.98, leaving the balance outstanding at Rs. 29,63,242/-.
15. Issuance of work orders dated 18.10.2022 and 31.10.2022 mark 'B' and later on exhibited as Ex. DW1/2 and Ex. DW1/3 was admitted by defendant. Though receipt of quotation signed by plaintiff was denied on behalf of defendant. Plaintiff specifically CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024 7/25 averred in the plaint with regard to raising of invoices Vs/79 dated 13.04.2023 and invoice - Vs/87 dated 11.5.2023. In response to the said averment, it was mentioned in the written statement that contents of the para were matter of record and that mere raising of financial demand by plaintiff, did not confer any right against the defendant, with further mention that owing to delayed and poor quality of services provided by plaintiff firm, defendant was compelled to engage services of an independent plumber. There was no denial to the raising of bills dated 13.4.2023 and 11.05.2023 by the plaintiff. Albeit, in affidavit of evidence, all the invoices were admitted except for the invoice dated 11.5.2023. Further according to defendant, plaintiff never completed the work assigned within time . According to defendant, plaintiff raised certain bills in relation to the work carried out at the site of the defendant which were duly paid. Defendant withheld the payment in sum of Rs. 6,07,110/- out of the billed amount of Rs. 39,99,786/- owing to poor quality of services provided by plaintiff firm and also because of plaintiff having left the painting and plumbing work in between. According to defendant, sum of Rs. 39,99,786/- had been paid to the plaintiff firm while amount of Rs. 6,07,110/- was withheld.
16. Defendant relied upon its ledger details for the period 01.04.2022 to 06.05.2024 Ex. DW1/4 as well as bank account statement of defendant w.e.f. 1.11.2022 to 30.04.2023 as Ex. DW1/5. It was also stated on behalf of defendant that due to delayed and poor quality of services provided by the plaintiff firm at the site of defendant , defendant was compelled to engage services of an independent plumber in the name of 'Kali Charan Plumbing Works' and got the work completed from the said person, who raised the bills Ex. DW1/6 to Ex. DW1/16. Ledger details of CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024 8/25 said plumbing work in name of 'Kali Charan Plumbing Works' as maintained by defendant as Ex. DW1/17 were also placed reliance upon.
17. Plaintiff stated about raising of invoices Ex. PW1/6 (colly), aggregating to sum of Rs. 67,83,525.68, out of which defendant had paid sum of Rs. 38,64,377.98 as mentioned in the affidavit evidence leaving the balance amount in sum of Rs. 29,19,147.7 . Plaintiff further stated about unpaid bills in sum of Rs. 11,84,437/- vide Bill No. VS/79 dated 13.4.2023 and sum of Rs. 18,32,785.27 vide Bill No. VS/87 dated 11.05.2023. In Ledger details Ex. DW1/4 which is for the period 1.4.2022 to 6.5.2024, payment in sum of Rs. 39,93,786/- having been paid to the plaintiff is reflected. Plaintiff had issued the details of payment, sent alongwith bill dated 13.4.2023, part of Ex. PW1/6 which referred to the total amount in sum of Rs. 51,16,234.45 as on 18.04.2023, which was inclusive of the billed amount as well as amount for installation of pressure pump and due to increase in area for re-measurement of tile work. Receipt of amount as reflected in said statement was in sum of Rs. 39,42,806/-.
18. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff clarified that the figure with regard to receipt of payment in sum of Rs. 39,42,806/- was correct . Plaintiff had installed Grundfos cum pressure pump at the asking of defendant . Original bill for the purchase of the same had been placed on record by plaintiff, part of Ex. PW1/6, in sum of Rs. 38660/-, though separate bill for installation was not raised upon the defendant. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff sought to clarify that the Chartered Accountant wrongly entered the difference in amount in ledger details. It was stated that all the bills corresponding to the amount mentioned in ledger details and the statement of CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024 9/25 amount/payment received as referred above, indicate the receipt of payment in sum of Rs. 39,42,806/- which figure may be considered as correct on record. Defendant itself has referred to the payments in sum of Rs. 39,42,806/-, thereby there is no dispute/rival submissions between the parties pertaining to payment/receipt of amount in sum of Rs. 39,42,806/-.
19. Defendant also admitted raising of bill dated 13.04.2023 in sum of Rs. 11,84,437.75, however, in the ledger details of defendant Ex. DW1/4, the amount of bill is mentioned as Rs. 9,02,466/- , which is lesser than the original invoiced amount. Ld. Counsel for defendant submitted that though the invoice dated 13.4.2023 had been raised in sum of Rs. 11,84,437.75, however, the plaintiff had mentioned the higher charges, therefore, the bill was settled at Rs. 9,02,466/- . Ld. Counsel for defendant at the same time conceded that the said settlement pertaining to reduction of amount was not in written nor the part of whatsapp chat between the parties. Ld. Counsel for defendant though further sought to submit that it was based upon the telephonic conversation between the parties. Nevertheless, there being no documentary evidence or controversion to the deposition of PW1, nor the cross examination on the alleged aspect of higher charges, defendant cannot be justified in reducing the amount of the invoice in its ledger details.
20. Plaintiff claimed on record completion of work to the satisfaction of the defendant and also extra work against which two invoices dated 13.4.2023 and 11.5.2023 were raised. Ld. counsel for defendant submitted that bill no. VS/87 dated 11.05.2023 had been fabricated as the same did not bear any receiving from the officials of defendant, whereas all other bills/invoices had the receiving of the officials of the defendant. As submitted, no such CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024 10/25 work as mentioned in the said bill had ever been done by the plaintiff.
21. Ld. counsel for defendant also submitted that plaintiff never put any question either to the defendant or to his witnesses during their respective cross examination to prove genuineness of bill no. VS/87 dated 11.05.2023. Ld. counsel for defendant further submitted that plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and he cannot rely upon the alleged weakness of the defendant. Since onus to prove genuineness of the bill was upon the plaintiff, however, he failed to prove the same beyond any doubt, on the contrary, plaintiff is trying to find out the weakness of the defendant which is not permissible as plaintiff is required to prove its own case.
22. Despite specific averments in the plaint with regard to raising of bill dated 11.5.2023, there was no denial to the same in the written statement. PW1 in affidavit of evidence also asserted with regard to work having been performed against bill no. VS/87 dated 11.5.2023 which remained unpaid. In the cross examination of PW1, the said assertion of the plaintiff qua performance of the work against bill dated 11.5.2023 and said bill having been remained unpaid again remained un-controverted.
23. PW1 deposed that all the works within the scope of Purchase Orders were completed and finished in the month of February 2023 but defendant delayed the payments and plaintiff was further asked by defendant to do the works even beyond the scope of Purchase Orders for which bill dated 13.4.2023 and 11.05.2023 were raised. According to PW1, bills were sent through whatsapp and email which were duly received and acknowledged by defendant. Ld. Counsel for defendant submitted that all the bills had been handed over by the plaintiff to defendant at the site and as CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024 11/25 bill dated 11.5.2023 was never raised, therefore, it did not contain the acknowledgment of defendant. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, per contra, sought to point out that defendant had stopped making the payment and also after plaintiff made repeated requests to clear the payment, defendant refused to receive the bill. Therefore, the invoice dated 11.5.2023 was sent to defendant only through whatsapp and email.
24. Plaintiff relied upon whatsapp chat between the parties Ex. PW1/4 (colly). In affidavit of Admission/Denial of documents, whatsapp chat was admitted by defendant with mention " Whatsapp chats are admitted only to the extent of which are received by the defendant ". Defendant itself did not place on record any whatsapp chat between the parties contrary to or different from the whatsapp chat placed on record by plaintiff vide Ex. PW1/4 (colly). Thereby whatsapp communication placed on record by plaintiff remained uncontroverted and duly established on record vide which besides the other communication, plaintiff had also sent the copy of the invoice dated 11.5.2023 and also the details of payments made by defendant. Any response from defendant to the said details of payment sent by plaintiff, is not part of record.
25. Ld. Counsel for defendant stated that the phone upon which the whatsapp communication was made, had been stolen, while conceding that no evidence had been brought on record in support of the said argument nor in support of the contention with regard to non receipt of the whatsapp communication made by plaintiff. So much so, bill dated 11.5.2023 had also been sent by plaintiff through email dated 11.5.2023 , part of Ex. PW1/4 (colly) at the official email ID of the defendant, therefore, it is not open for the CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024 12/25 defendant to dispute the raising of and receipt of the invoice dated 11.5.2023 from plaintiff.
26. L.d counsel for defendant sought much of the benefit, from the factum of non payment of GST upon the invoice dated 11.5.2023 and reiterated about the falsity of the said invoice. Plaintiff, on the other hand, had specifically averred about non payment of GST on the said bill due to paucity of funds. Ld. Counsel for defendant submitted that plaintiff was already in receipt of Rs. 39,42,806/- therefore, it is not open for plaintiff to claim that there was paucity of funds, whereby it could not pay the GST amount. Counsel for plaintiff was successful in explaining that the amount of Rs. 39,42,806/- which had been received during and after completion of the entire work and had been spent in payments to the labour, procuring the material and other expenses, whereas defendant was still in arrears of more than Rs. 29 lacs. Plaintiff, as stated, is not a big company but a contractor working at ground level, therefore, did not have the sufficient funds available to pay GST amount, without receipt of payment from the defendant. It was stated that plaintiff shall pay the amount of GST alongwith the delayed payment charges to the authorities concerned upon receipt of payment or defendant itself ought to pay the GST charges for its own fault in delaying the payment and plaintiff may not be awarded the GST amount.
27. Pertaining to the plea of defendant, with regard to plaintiff having left the work incomplete and also because of the poor quality of work done by plaintiff, due to which defendant had withheld the amount of Rs. 6,07,110/-, DW1 reiterated that plaintiff never completed the work assigned within time. Defendant withheld payment of the bill due to poor quality of services CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024 13/25 provided by plaintiff firm and further withheld the payment of painting and plumbing work left pending by the plaintiff. He reiterated in cross-examination that the work order dated 18.10.2022 was never completed by plaintiff. Work further extended vide letter dated 31.10.2022 which was also never completed by the plaintiff. Witness was shown the legal notice dated 23.05.2023 sent by plaintiff Ex. PW1/7 (colly) which had been replied on 16.06.2023 part of Ex. PW1/7 (colly). DW1 stated that he had pointed out about the incomplete work by the plaintiff in the reply. Upon confrontation, witness stated that he had mentioned the said fact in para no. 2 of his reply to the legal notice dated 16.06.2023, however admitted that it was nowhere mentioned in para 2 of reply dated 16.06.2023 regarding the points/place where the work was not completed by the plaintiff.
28. DW1 was again asked that prior to issuance of notice dated 23.05.2023, whether they gave any written complaint to the plaintiff or issued any notice to the plaintiff for not completing the work as per work order, to which witness answered that they had physically met plaintiff and communicated the same orally during the tenure of the work, however conceded that they had not sent anything in written nor he remembered any specific date/month/year of the said meeting. While he stated that in his evidence affidavit, he had mentioned about ' Poor Quality of Services provided by the plaintiff' and withholding of amount of Rs. 6,07,110/- due to the same, he was asked whether in affidavit of evidence, he had mentioned for the first time about poor quality of services by plaintiff, witness reiterated that he had mentioned the same in reply to legal notice.
29. Witness was again shown the reply to the legal notice and he again failed to point out any reference to poor quality of services CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024 14/25 by plaintiff in the reply to legal notice. Witness again stated that the same was mentioned in written statement and conceded that he had not mentioned about poor quality of service by plaintiff in reply to legal notice. Witness was thereafter asked about the mention of the allegations of unprofessional and poor quality of work by plaintiff in the written statement to which he again answered that it was correct and it was mentioned in reply dated 16.06.2023 to the legal notice. Despite DW1 having failed to show any reference to poor quality of work by plaintiff in reply to legal notice, he had audacity to reiterate the same again and again in cross examination.
30. Relevant extract of testimony of DW1 is reproduced herein :
" It is correct that I have received the legal notice dated 23.05.2023 sent by plaintiff which is already exhibited as Ex. PW1/7 (colly).
It is correct that I had also sent reply to legal notice sent by plaintiff on 16.06.2023 which is part of Ex. PW1/7 (colly). I had pointed out about the incomplete work by the plaintiff.
Ques: In the reply dated 16.06.2023 to the legal notice, where have you specifically mentioned about the places where the work was not completed?
Ans: Yes, I had pointed out and mentioned about the details of the work not completed by the plaintiff firm in my reply dated 16.06.2023 to his legal notice dated 23.05.2023.
At this stage, DW1 is shown his reply dated 16.06.2023 to legal notice Ex. PW1/7 (colly). After seeing the document, the witness states that he has mentioned the same in para no.2 of his reply to the legal notice.
It is correct to suggest that you have nowhere mentioned in para no.2 of your reply dated 16.06.2023 regarding the points/places where the work was not completed by the plaintiff.
Ques: Is it correct that prior to notice dated 23.05.2023, did you make any written complaint or gave any notice to the plaintiff for not completing the work as per work order?
Ans : We have physically met him and communicated the same orally, during the work tenure. However, we have not sent anything in writing nor I remember specific date/month/year of the said meeting.
Yes, it is correct that in my evidence affidavit dated 14.11.2024 vide para no. 8, line no. 5 & line no. 9, I have written " Poor Quality of Service provided by the Plaintiff " Rs. 6,07,110/- was withheld owing to the poor service provided by the plaintiff.CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024 15/25
Ques : Is it correct that in your evidence affidavit Exhibited as Ex. DW1/A you mentioned for the first time " Poor Quality of Services" by plaintiff?
Ans. I have mentioned the same in the reply to the legal notice.
At this stage, DW1 is shown his reply to legal notice dated 16.06.2023 Ex. PW1/7 (colly).
DW1 failed to point out the " Poor Quality of Services" by the plaintiff in his reply to the legal notice.
Vol. However, the same is mentioned in the written statement. It is correct that, I have not mentioned about the "Poor Quality of Service" by the plaintiff in my reply dated 16.06.2023 to the legal notice.
Ques : Is it correct that in your written statement at Para no.2 of Para Wise reply, it is written ' In fact the defendant suffered huge loss owing to unprofessional and poor quality of work of services rendered by the plaintiff proprietorship"
At this stage, DW1 is shown his written statement. Ans. : Yes, it is correct. However, it is mentioned in the reply dated 16.06.2023 to the legal notice.
Ques: Did you mention any specific date, month, year, place in your reply dated 16.06.2023 to legal notice and your written statement about the alleged independent plumber from whom you have got alleged work completed?
Ans. Yes, I have not mentioned any specific date, month, year, place in my reply dated 16.06.2023 to legal notice and in my written statement about the alleged independent plumber from whom I have got alleged work completed.
However, the same is mentioned in my evidence affidavit Ex. DW1/A. At this stage, DW1 is shown his evidence affidavit Ex. PW1/A. No, it is not mentioned anywhere in the evidence affidavit.
Vol. it is mentioned in bills exhibited as Ex. DW1/6 to Ex. DW1/16. No. " Poor Quality of Service, Loss, huge loss, suffered by you " is mentioned in the reply dated 16.06.2023 to the legal notice.
Ques: Is it correct that you have not mentioned about completion of work by engaging painter or plumber for painting or plumbing work in your reply dated 16.06.2023 to the legal notice".
At this stage, DW1 is shown Ex. PW1/7 Colly i.e. reply to the legal notice. Ans. No, it is not mentioned anywhere in the reply. Vol. It is mentioned in evidence affidavit.
It is correct to suggest that after reply dated 16.06.2023 to the legal notice, first time, I after expiry of about 1 year on 13.05.2024 have mentioned about the poor quality of service by the plaintiff in my written statement and first time also mentioned about the completion of work by engaging painter and plumber."
31. DW1 had also referred to deployment of another independent plumber in name of 'Kali Charan Plumbing Works'. As stated, due to the delayed and poor quality of services provided by plaintiff firm, defendant had been compelled to engage services of another CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024 16/25 plumber. Defendant also placed on record bills raised by 'Kali Charan Plumbing Works' Ex. DW1/6 to Ex. DW1/17. Witness was asked in cross examination whether he had mentioned any specific date, month, year or place in reply to the legal notice dated 16.06.2023 and in his written statement about the alleged independent plumber from whom he got the alleged work completed, witness answered that he had not mentioned the same in reply or in written statement but had mentioned in his affidavit evidence. Witness was confronted with his evidence affidavit and he conceded that it was not mentioned anywhere even in the evidence affidavit.
32. He again stated that it was mentioned in bills Ex. DW1/6 to Ex. DW1/16 and again stated that 'poor quality of services, huge loss etc. suffered' was mentioned in reply dated 16.06.2023 to the legal notice. He conceded that he had not mentioned about completion of work by engaging painter or plumber for painting or plumbing work in reply to legal notice and again stated that it was mentioned in evidence affidavit, while conceding that after reply dated 16.06.2023 to the legal notice, for the first time, after expiry of about one year on 13.5.2024, he had mentioned about the poor quality of service by the plaintiff in written statement and for the first time, mentioned about the completion of work by engaging painter and plumber.
33. Apparently, testimony of this witness not only remained waivered, contrary to the documents on record but also lacks credence. With regard to engagement of Mr. Kali Charan, he stated that the services of Kali Charan had been engaged since February 2023 and prior to February 2023, Mr. Kali Charan was not known to them. He admitted that Kali Charan used to work with Mr. Sirohi CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024 17/25 i.e. the plaintiff in his college, although he denied that Kali Charan completed all the work in his college as per work order issued to plaintiff and they got all the bills forged and fabricated with the help of Kali Charan to defeat the genuine claim of plaintiff. Son of said Kali Charan was named as witness as per the list of witnesses filed on behalf of defendant, however, he was dropped from the list of witnesses later on. The bills submitted by said Kaali Charan and placed on record by defendant, thereby remained unproved on record.
34. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that the bills allegedly issued by the said Kali Charan were fabricated documents, which were the handmade bills with no mention of applicability or payment of GST. Defendant has placed on record the bills issued by a person who was working with the plaintiff only, as conceded by DW1, whereas the bills allegedly submitted by said Kali Charan also have not been proved on record . Defendant failed to establish on record the assertion with regard to plaintiff having left the work incomplete or completion of the same with engagement of another independent contractor.
35. In terms of case of plaintiff, after completion of work pertaining to the work orders in February 2023, plaintiff had performed extra works and raised invoices dated 13.04.2023 and 11.05.2023. Invoice dated 13.04.2023 is the admitted fact on record whereas invoice dated 11.05.2023 is also not specifically disputed by the defendant, in pleadings or in evidence, as discussed above, though was disputed in Affidavit of Admission/Denial of documents. If the plaintiff had already left the work unfinished and the defendant had engaged another service provider since February 2023, there was no reason or occasion for the plaintiff to continue CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024 18/25 working at the site of defendant and raising of the invoices including the admitted invoice dated 13.04.2023. Besides that, whatsapp chat between the parties indicate the repeated requests and reminders by the plaintiff for the payment since November 2022 onwards. Defendant had also made the payments from time to time without raising any issue pertaining to the incomplete work or the alleged poor services by the plaintiff. Rather defendant had been seeking time to clear the payment of the plaintiff as is reflected from the whatsapp communication.
36. So much so, plaintiff had also made all the corrections/rectifications as pointed out by defendant from time to time. There is no whisper in the entire whatsapp chat, supporting the contention of the defendant with regard to incomplete work or poor performance by plaintiff. Plaintiff has also placed on record photographs of the site, part of Ex. PW1/4 (colly), at the "inception of the work and upon the completion of the same" to show the comparative state of affairs, which photographs also remained un- rebutted on record. Plaintiff had completed the work by February 2023 against the work orders and thereafter extra work was performed by plaintiff, as established on record. Invoices were raised in sum of Rs. 11,84,437/- and Rs. 18,32,785.27. The ledger details pertaining to the work allegedly performed by said Kali Charan points out the performance of the work by said Kali Charan only in sum of Rs. 1,23,555/- which is not even closer to the amount of work performed by plaintiff during the same period, which is less than even the amount of admitted invoice in sum of Rs. 11,84,437/-.
37. Apparently, the defence taken by the defendant is not only after thought but is sham and seemingly in order to avoid its CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024 19/25 liability of payment towards plaintiff. Plaintiff has been able to establish on record the performance of the work, with no complaint from the defendant, during the relevant period and non payment by defendant, despite the completion of the work by plaintiff. Plaintiff repeatedly asked for the payments from defendant for which defendant kept asking for time. Onus thereafter shifted upon the defendant to prove its assertion of incomplete work by plaintiff or the poor quality of work performed by plaintiff and the justification for withholding of the amount and non payment of the remaining amount, in which defendant miserably failed. Defence of defendant has been found to be false, after thought and to avoid its liability towards plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff is held entitled for recovery of the suit amount, as claimed.
38. Though defendant had earlier not taken any objection pertaining to territorial jurisdiction of the court in the pleadings or till the later stage, however, when the matter reached at the stage of the final disposal, objection was taken by counsel for defendant pertaining to territorial jurisdiction of this court. An application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC was also moved on record seeking framing of additional issue pertaining to territorial jurisdiction and counsel for defendant also sought the said issue to be treated as preliminary issue despite the fact that the evidence before Ld. court commissioner had already been concluded. Even in the proceedings before Ld. Court Commissioner, defendant laid much of the emphasis with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this court and led part of testimony of DW1 and complete testimony of DW2 and DW3 only on the aspect of territorial jurisdiction. It was emphasized that it was the plaintiff who had visited the college of the defendant, whereas defendant was not located within the CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024 20/25 territorial jurisdiction of this court, therefore, this court had no territorial jurisdiction.
39. Nevertheless, vide order dated 4.12.2024, application of defendant moved under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC was disposed off. It was noted that plaintiff had its place of working at Delhi. Work order was also issued upon the plaintiff at its office in Delhi and payment was also receivable at Delhi in the bank of plaintiff located within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, besides reference to the mention in invoice pertaining to restriction of jurisdiction to Delhi courts. Part of cause of action having been arisen within territorial jurisdiction of this court, it was noted that this court had territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter and the application of defendant was accordingly dismissed. Therefore, there is no requirement for discussion on the deposition of DW2 and DW3 pertaining to territorial jurisdiction of this court.
40. Ld. counsel for defendant thereafter raised objection pertaining to the suit not falling in the definition of Commercial Dispute. It was submitted that the instant dispute does not fall under the definition of Commercial Disputes as defined under section 2 (1) (c) (vii) of the Commercial Courts Act. Reliance was placed upon Dhee Educational and Cultural Trust & Ors. Vs. M/s Hartana Projects LLP, Writ Petition No. 18093 of 2022, wherein it was noted that running of educational institution is not trade or commerce. Ld. counsel for defendant referred to the observation that running of an educational institution for the purpose of the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act would be either trade or commerce though it would not be so in the context of the right that is enshrined under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India or for the purposes of other statutes. It was noted that if disputes arises CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024 21/25 out of an agreement relating to immovable property which is used exclusively for the purposes of running an educational institution, it cannot be a commercial dispute within the meaning of section 2 (1)
(c) (vii) of the Commercial Courts Act.
41. Reliance by Ld. counsel for defendant upon the Judgment (supra) is apparently misplaced. The dispute in the instant matter is not relating to immovable property being used as educational institution by the defendant but is arising out of the dispute between the parties for the commercial services provided by plaintiff based upon the issuance of business/commercial work orders by the defendant, unrelated to any dispute with regard to immovable property being used by defendant or status of defendant as educational institution.
42. Counsel for defendant also submitted that the instant suit is not maintainable as the suit cannot be instituted in the name of proprietorship firm as was held in Miraj Marketing Corporation Vs. Vishaka Engineering & Anr. , 2004 SCC Online Del 1047 and Svapn Construction Vs. IDPL Employees Cooperative Group 2005 SCC Online Del 1392.
43. Written submissions had been filed earlier and subsequent thereto, this objection had been considered and decided by the court vide order dated 04.08.2025, whereby plaintiff had been directed to file correct Memo of Parties on record and same had also been filed by plaintiff on 05.08.2025.
Both these issues accordingly stand decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
44. Issue No. 3: Plaintiff has claimed pendentilite and future interest @ 18% per annum over the entire due amount from the defendant as per MSME Act, as the firm of the plaintiff, as stated, CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024 22/25 is also registered under MSME. It was submitted by defendant that present suit is not maintainable as plaintiff has invoked the provisions of MSME Act which provides for an alternative dispute resolution under section 18 of the MSME Act, 2006. It was further stated by defendant that the aforesaid financial claim of plaintiff is admittedly as per the provisions of the MSME Act, 2006, which automatically confers the jurisdiction to entertain the alleged claim of plaintiff under the provisions of section 18 of the MSME Act, 2006.
45. Per contra, it was submitted by Ld. counsel for plaintiff that plaintiff in order to get speedy disposal has chosen to file the present suit before the Commercial Courts instead of filing under section 18 of MSME Act, because the nature of transactions and services provided by the plaintiff to the defendant are commercial in nature and commercial courts have jurisdiction to entertain the present suit for recovery filed under Commercial Courts Act.
46. Ld. counsel for plaintiff submitted that objection taken by defendant rather supports the claim of plaintiff that present financial claim is as per provisions of MSME Act which automatically confers the jurisdiction to entertain the alleged claim of plaintiff under the provisions of section 18 of MSME Act, 2006, whereby plaintiff shall be entitled for interest @ 18% per annum as per MSME Act. During the course of arguments, it was submitted that in terms of section 16 of MSME Act, plaintiff is entitled to claim compounding interest at the rate of three times of the bank rate notified by Reserve Bank of India.
47. Reference was made to section 16 of MSME Act which provides that:
CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024 23/25"Where any buyer fails to make payment of the amount to the supplier, as required under section 15, the buyer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement between the buyer and the supplier or in any law for the time being in force, be liable to pay compound interest with monthly rests to the supplier on that amount from the appointed day or, as the case may be, from the date immediately following the date agreed upon, at three times of the bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank".
48. It is correct that a party registered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) is not restricted to only filing a dispute under Section 18 of the MSMED Act and can still file a civil suit for recovery. Registration under Section 8 of the Act is not mandatory to use the dispute resolution mechanism under Section 18, which provides remedies to both registered and unregistered MSMEs. While the MSMED Act provides a specific mechanism for dispute resolution and recovery of dues, a registered MSME is not obligated to use it exclusively and is free to pursue other legal avenues including the civil suit for recovery.
49. Since the plaintiff has opted to choose the filing of civil suit for recovery, the award of interest is also required to be considered as per the prevailing norms and the banking conditions as well as the agreement between the parties, if any. There was no specific agreement between the parties for payment of interest at 18%, which in considered opinion of this court, is on the higher side, considering the prevailing banking rates and market conditons. Therefore, this court is inclined to grant interest @ 12% p.a.
50. Relief : Instant suit is accordingly decreed with cost in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs. 29,63,242/- (Rs. Twenty Nine Lacs Sixty Three Thousand Two CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024 24/25 Hundred Forty Two only) alongwith pendentilite and future interest @ 12 % p.a. till realization.
51. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. After completion of formalities, file be consigned to record room.
savita Digitally signed
by savita rao
rao Date: 2025.09.03
15:37:20 +0530
Announced in the open (SAVITA RAO)
court on 03.09.2025 DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT)-01
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM) No. : 11/2024 25/25