Delhi District Court
Ms La Silver Leaf Hotel vs Ms De Glass Trend Llp on 17 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF NAVEEN GUPTA, DISTRICT JUDGE-09
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01-000010-2013
CS DJ No. 7629/2016
In the matter of :-
M/s De Glass Trend LLP,
A Limited Liability Partnership,
Having Head Office at 71/6-F,
Rama Road, Industrial Area,
Najafgarh Road, New Delhi-110015.
..... Plaintiff
VERSUS
La Silver Leaf Hotel,
Through its Proprietor
Mr. Inderdeep Singh,
C/o M/s Manpreet Batra & Associate,
C144, First Floor, Mansarover Garden,
New Delhi-110015.
Also available at :-
R/o Chandigarh Road, Barnala Kalan,
Nawa Shahar, Punjab-144514.
.... Defendant
Date of institution : 30.04.2013
Reserved for Judgment : 03.12.2025
Judgment pronounced on : 17.12.2025
CNR No. DLWT01-000008-2014
CS DJ No. 7627/2016
In the matter of :-
La Silver Leaf Hotel,
Through its Proprietor
Mr. Inderdeep Singh,
CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 1/33
Digitally
signed by
NAVEEN
NAVEEN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17
17:10:43
+0530
VPO Barnala Kalan,
District Nawa Shahar, Punjab-144514.
..... Plaintiff
VERSUS
M/s De Glass Trend LLP,
A Limited Liability Partnership,
Having Head Office at 71/6-F,
Rama Road, Industrial Area,
Najafgarh Road, New Delhi-110015.
.... Defendant
Date of institution : 29.04.2014
Reserved for Judgment : 03.12.2025
Judgment pronounced on : 17.12.2025
SUITS FOR RECOVERY & DAMAGES
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this common judgment, above two suits have been decided by the Court, as both the suits pertain to same parties and same cause of action. The parties have been referred with their respective status as of suit no. 7629/2016. The suit no. 7629/16 is the suit for recovery of Rs.23,85,510/- alongwith interest filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. The suit no. 7627/16 is the suit for recovery of Rs.24,55,000/- alongwith interest filed by the defendant against the plaintiff.
2. Succinctly put, the case of plaintiff in suit no. 7629/2016, as per plaint, is that the plaintiff is a limited liability partnership concern registered under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008. It deals in reflective and architectural glasses alongwith other similar and ancillary items. The defendant is a proprietorship concern and inter-alia engaged CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 2/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:10:49 +0530 in the business of hospitality and owns a hotel by the name and style of La Silver Leaf. The defendant through its liaison office at Delhi approached the plaintiff for providing and fixing of structural glazing with glass panels and silicon joints for its hotel in Nawa Shahar, Ludhiana, Punjab. The plaintiff, after assessing the work, provided a quotation to the defendant at its Delhi liaison office on 06.01.2011. Based on mutual discussion, the quotation was revised and the same was sent to the defendant vide e-mail dated 07.02.2011. The defendant accepted the same and placed order for the abovesaid work vide letter dated 11.02.2011. The plaintiff started the work and raised running bills from time to time. The defendant also made lump-sum payments. Further, though the plaintiff supplied the necessary material for one of the items of work as per the above work order being item no. 5, but the defendant got the said equipment fitted by their own person without informing it (plaintiff). Upon inquiry, the defendant informed that it was done as he was in a hurry. Finally, the plaintiff completed its work at the site and raised its final bill on 03.12.2011 for a total sum of Rs.39,25,348/- out of which, a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- had already been paid by the defendant. The sum of Rs.14,25,348/- was due for payment. Further, since the fitting part of item no. 5 of the work order was not done by the plaintiff, it did not raise invoice for the same.
3. It has been further averred that the defendant did not pay attention to the final bill of the plaintiff despite its several requests to make payment. The plaintiff had made requests by e-mail as well as by other modes. Due to default in payment by the defendant, the plaintiff failed to honor several vendor commitments, which resulted into loss of its market commitments. The said loss is difficult to be assessed in CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 3/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:10:55 +0530 terms of money. However, the plaintiff conservatively estimated it to be around Rs.5,00,000/-. Accordingly, the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.14,25,348/- alongwith 24% interest per annum for a period from 03.12.2011 till filing of the suit, total amounting to Rs.18,85,510/-. He is further liable to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages. Thus, the plaintiff has prayed for decree for recovery of Rs.23,85,510/- with pendente lite and future interest.
4. In his written statement, the defendant has raised preliminary objection that he is not required to make any payment as claimed by the plaintiff. On the contrary, he is to recover more than Rs.20,00,000/-
from him on account of damages and also for the delay in execution and completion of the assignment/project given to him. There had been a clear understanding between the parties that the assigned job work was to be completed within stipulated period of three months. Further, it was also instructed that whatever job work was completed, the official of plaintiff must obtain a completion certificate from the defendant. However, neither the plaintiff nor its officials ever reflected in writing about completion of the assigned job work. They even did not take any endorsement from the defendant or its officials qua the completion of any job work. On the pretext of completing the assignment, the plaintiff continued raising demand after demand. Though the plaintiff might have done the job work to the extent of around Rs.15,00,000/-, but he stood paid Rs.25,00,000/-, which was about Rs.10,00,000/- more than the actual job work done by him. The plaintiff had manipulated the figures of account and further, placed a letter dated 27.10.2012 which was a forged one as the defendant never authorized such person to sign the letter. Further, due to the conduct of CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 4/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:11:01 +0530 plaintiff, the defendant was compelled to engage another party to complete the unfinished and unattended work left by it (plaintiff) and on that account only, he (defendant) incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.19,55,000/- to complete the said unfinished work. The defendant has further raised an objection that since all the dealings between the parties were affected at Nawa Shahar, Punjab and the job work was also executed there, thus, this Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
5. The defendant, on merits, has denied that he has any correspondence office at Delhi. Further, it was the plaintiff who had approached the defendant at his office situated at Nawa Shahar, Punjab and requested him to provide the job work/contract. He has reiterated that the plaintiff left the incomplete and unfinished job work, therefore, he was compelled to engage another technicians and incurred additional expenses to the tune of Rs.19,55,000/-. The recipients of said payment were M/s Bhogal Aluminum Decorators and M/s Jyoti Art Glasses.
Further, the material used by the plaintiff was also of inferior/low quality. Due to which, the defendant was compelled to engage another contractor. The defendant also suffered business loss as he could not start his hotel business in time. The said conduct of plaintiff affected the reputation and goodwill of the defendant in his business circle. The defendant has further denied all the allegations made by the plaintiff against him in his plaint.
6. In its replication, the plaintiff has submitted that the defendant had misrepresented the facts regarding obtaining of the completion certificate by it from him and he incurred expenses to complete the unfinished work of the plaintiff. Further, no commitment of obtaining CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 5/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:11:05 +0530 completion certificate by the plaintiff was made by it to the defendant. On merits, the plaintiff has submitted that there was no delay in the job work as there was no stipulated period fixed for the completion of work. It used the best quality material available in the market. Further, the defendant had not engaged any other technician and had got the job work done through it (plaintiff). It has further denied all the averments made by the defendant against it in his written statement.
7. In the suit no. 7627/2016, the defendant while pursuing the said case as plaintiff (the parties have been mentioned as that of plaintiff and defendant of suit no. 7629/2016 herein too) has inter-alia stated that the plaintiff should have completed the job work within six months. The officials of plaintiff apprised the defendant that their approach is very systematic and methodical and after getting the job work completed, they would obtain a completion certificate and on the basis of same, they would raise the bills and claim the amount accordingly. During negotiations, initial payment of Rs.5,00,000/- was made in January 2011, to be adjusted later on. After the assessment, number of quotations were provided [by the plaintiff]. Out of those, quotation dated 17.02.2011 was found to be reasonable and hence, the plaintiff was asked to start the job work and raise the bill after obtaining the completion certificate from the defendant. It was also made clear to the plaintiff that the defendant intended to start the Hotel business by August 2011, therefore, all the job work should be completed by that time. But, the plaintiff did not adhere to its commitments. However, to get the work completed expeditiously, the defendant made further payment of Rs.20,00,000/- in March/April 2011. Though Rs.25,00,000/- in total stood paid to the plaintiff, but not a single job work was completed. As the business of hotel of defendant was getting CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 6/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:11:12 +0530 delayed, therefore, he was compelled to engage another technician for completing the incomplete task of the plaintiff. He incurred additional expenses to the tune of Rs.19,55,000/- and made the said payment to different entities i.e. M/s Bhogal Aluminum Decorators and M/s Jyoti Art Glasses. After spending huge amount, the job work of the hotel was completed, however, it got delayed for a period of one year. The completion of job work was finally materialized in August 2012. Thus, the defendant incurred a loss to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- due to not commencing his hotel business in time. Further, he also suffered loss of prestige and reputation in the market. The defendant, has further stated that his loss were categorized under three heads i.e. loss of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of non-completion of the project work in time, loss of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of usage of sub-standard and inferior raw material and loss of Rs.19,55,000/- on account of additional expenses incurred by him for getting the incomplete work done. The defendant has further stated that since he intended to settle all the issues amicably, thus, those discrepancies were brought in the knowledge of M/s Manpreet Batra & Associates, through whom he came in contact with the plaintiff. Then only, he (defendant) learnt about the case earlier filed by the plaintiff against him. Thus, the defendant filed the suit no. 7627/2016 against the plaintiff praying for decree for recovery of Rs.24,55,000/- with pendente lite and future interest.
8. In his written statement (in suit no. 7627/2016), the plaintiff has reiterated his stand put forward in the suit no 7629/2016 filed by him. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff did not specifically deny the submission of defendant about its commitment to complete the job work within six months. Further, the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- having CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 7/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:11:21 +0530 been made in January 2011 and Rs.20,00,000/- in March/April 2011, have also not been denied.
9. In his replication, the defendant has reiterated his stand earlier put forward by him through previous pleadings.
10. From the pleadings of the parties, issues had been framed on 11.01.2017. However, those issues were re-framed on 27.11.2025, which are as follows :-
In respect of case bearing Suit no. 7629/2016:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the suit amount of Rs. 23,85,510/- from the defendant? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on above amount, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action? OPD
4. Relief In respect of case bearing Suit no. 7627/2016:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of Rs. 24,55,000/- from the defendant on account of suffering damages due to the alleged act of omission of the defendant? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the above amount, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 8/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:11:27 +0530 dismissed for want of cause of action? OPD
4. Relief
11. Vide order dated 11.01.2017, at request of Ld. Counsels for the parties, both the cases had been consolidated.
12. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined one witness.
PW-1 is Sh. Rakesh Mittal, who is partner in the plaintiff concern. In his evidence affidavit, Ex.PW-1/A, PW-1 has submitted on the similar lines as stated in the plaint. He has relied upon the following documents:-
1. True copy of resolution dated 12.03.2013, Ex.PW1/1.
2. Office copy of quotation dated 06.01.2011, Ex.PW1/2.
3. Office copy of quotation dated 07.02.2011, Ex.PW1/3.
4. Office copy of order dated 17.02.2011, Ex.PW1/4.
5. Office copy of invoice dated 05.08.2011, Ex.PW1/5.
6. Office copy of invoice dated 15.10.2011, Ex.PW1/6.
7. Office copy of final bill dated 03.12.2011, Ex.PW1/7.
8. Original letter dated 18.10.2012 of defendant written to the plaintiff, Ex.PW1/8.
9. Original certificate under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, Ex.PW1/9.
PW-1 was cross-examined on behalf of the defendant. Thereafter, plaintiff's evidence was closed on 23.10.2018.
13. In order to prove his defence, the defendant examined two witnesses. DW-1 is Sh. Inder Deep Singh, proprietor of the defendant. He tendered his evidence affidavit as DW-1/1. In his evidence affidavit, DW-1 has submitted on the similar lines as stated in his plaint filed in CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 9/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:11:45 +0530 suit no. 7627/2016. He has relied upon the following documents:-
1. Mark A is the copy of the receipt dated 05.07.2011.
2. Mark B is the copy of the quotation of M/s. Bhogal Aluminum dated 01.06.2011.
3. Mark C, D, E, F and G are the copy of the receipt dated 23.09.2011, 11.10.2011, 18.10.2011, 22.10.2011 and 21.11.2011 respectively.
4. Mark H, I, J, K and L are the copies of the receipt qua M/s Jyoti Art Glass dated 05.01.2012, 04.02.2012, 07.02.2012, 22.02.2012 and 19.03.2012.
5. Mark M is the copy of receipt dated 21.03.2012.
6. Mark N is copy of the cheque dated 02.11.2011.
7. Mark O is copy of the cheque dated 08.11.2011.
8. Mark P is copy of the cheque dated 19.11.2011.
9. Mark Q is receipt dated 09.07.2012.
10. Mark R is copy of the plaint filed by deponent in CS No. 607627/2016.
DW-1 was cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
14. DW-2 is Sh. Manoj Kumar, an employee of the defendant. He tendered his evidence affidavit as DW-2/X. In his evidence affidavit, DW-2 has submitted on the similar lines as stated by the defendant in the plaint filed in suit no. 7627/2016. He has relied upon the following documents:-
1. Voucher receipt dated 05.07.2011, Ex.DW-2/A.
2. Quotation of M/s Bhogal Aluminum dated 01.06.2011, Ex.DW-2/B.
3. Copies of receipt dated 23.09.2011, 11.10.2011, CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 10/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:11:52 +0530 18.10.2011, 22.10.2011 and 21.11.2011, Ex.DW-2/C to Ex.DW-2/G.
4. Copies of receipts qua M/s Jyoti Arts Glass dated 05.01.2012, 04.02.2012, 07.02.2012, 22.02.2012 and 19.03.2012, Ex.DW-2/H to Ex.DW-2/L.
5. Copy of receipt dated 21.03.2012, Ex.DW-2/M.
6. Copy of cheques dated 02.11.2011, 08.11.2011 and 19.11.2011, Ex.DW-2/P.
7. Copy of receipt dated 09.07.2012, Ex.DW-2/Q. DW-2 was cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant's evidence was closed on 25.09.2025.
15. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the plaintiff and for defendant and carefully perused the material available on record. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that there is no dispute between the parties that an agreement had been arrived at between them for the work to be carried out at La Silver Leaf Hotel under the proprietorship of Sh. Inderdeep Singh. The plaintiff had sent a quotation Ex.PW-1/3 to him on 07.02.2011, which was approved by the defendant vide order dated 17.02.2011, Ex.PW-1/4. Subsequently, the plaintiff had raised two running bills Ex.PW-1/5 and Ex.PW-1/6 and final bill Ex.PW-1/7. The final bill was amounting to Rs.39,25,348/- and after adjusting the advance payment of Rs.25,00,000/-, the defendant was liable to pay balance amount of Rs.14,25,348/-. Ld. Counsel has pointed out that to the claim of plaintiff in para no. 5 of its plaint about completion of job work, the defendant has not denied the work done by the plaintiff. Though, he has raised issues of use of inferior quality material and incomplete job work. However, the defendant has failed to prove the CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 11/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:11:57 +0530 said issues. Further, the plaintiff has not raised the bill in respect of its inability to do fitting part of item no. 5 of the work order. The entire job work was done by the plaintiff as per the satisfaction of defendant. The architect supervising the said project of defendant i.e. M/s Manpreet Batra & Associate had given a completion certificate in this regard. Further, the defendant has failed to prove as to how the material used by the plaintiff was of inferior quality. He has further failed to prove that which work was left unfinished and incomplete by the plaintiff and the same was got done by him through other agencies. Ld. Counsel has argued that the letter dated 18.10.2012, Ex.PW-1/8 was issued on behalf of the defendant, whereby the work done by the plaintiff had been appreciated barring some minor defects sought to be rectified. Accordingly, the plaintiff has proved its case against the defendant and simultaneously, the defendant has failed to prove his claim against the plaintiff.
16. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that the plaintiff did not produce any bill which had been certified by the defendant or any of his authorized representative in respect of work claimed to have been done by the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff did not produce any completion certificate of the work issued by the defendant. The plaintiff has claimed that the work was being supervised by M/s Manpreet Batra & Associates at the direction of defendant, then he (Mr. Manpreet Batra) must have been examined by him (plaintiff) to prove his such claim.
But, the plaintiff has not done so for the reasons best known to him. Even otherwise, the plaintiff had raised inflated bill which amounted to much more than the quotation of the plaintiff/order of the defendant. Furthermore, since the plaintiff has admittedly not done the work of CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 12/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:12:04 +0530 item no. 5 of the order dated 17.02.2011, thus the corresponding amount of Rs.10,17,500/- shall be deducted from the final quoted amount. Further, since the plaintiff did not complete his job work, thus as per quotation dated 07.02.2011, he is not entitled to 5% balance amount of the total quoted amount. The plaintiff has failed to show as to who had issued letter dated 18.10.2012 on behalf of the defendant. On other hand, the defendant had to incur expenditure for getting the unfinished work done from other agencies and the said expenditure was amounting to Rs.19,55,000/-. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to prove his claim against the defendant. Rather, it is liable to pay damages to the defendant.
17. The issue wise findings are as follows:-
Issue no. 1 of suit No. 7629/2016 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the suit amount of Rs. 23,85,510/- from the defendant? OPP Issue No. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on above amount, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP First of all, the Court examines a preliminary aspect. Though no issue regarding this Court not having territorial jurisdiction to try this case has been framed, however since the defendant had raised an objection to this effect in his written statement, thus, the Court proceeds to deal with this aspect. PW-1 has categorically deposed that the meeting between the parties was held at the Office of Architect in Delhi. He has also tendered initial quotation dated 06.01.2011, Ex.PW-1/2 sent by the plaintiff to Mr. Manpreet Batra at his Delhi address only. No question CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 13/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:12:11 +0530 was put to him during his cross-examination conducted on behalf of the defendant to controvert the said quotation. Further, DW-1/defendant too deposed that M/s Manpreet Batra and Associates was the architect who executed the project of Hotel LA Silver Leaf. He admitted that the plaintiff firm was introduced to the defendant by M/s Manpreet Batra and Associates. In these circumstances, it stands proved that part of cause of action arose in Delhi. Accordingly, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try this case.
18. The onus to prove the above issues was upon the plaintiff. Firstly, the Court proceeds to examine the plaintiff's evidence. During his cross-examination, PW-1 has deposed that there was no specific agreement about the stage of submissions of running bill and the same was submitted as per the progress of work. There was no qualified engineer deployed by the defendant at the site, but all running bills were checked by the site supervisor of the defendant. He (PW-1) did not remember the name of person who used to approve the bills. The bills used to be accompanied by the progress of work affected by them. PW-1 admitted that the first running bill Ex.PW-1/5 was not annexed with any measurement sheet. He admitted that there was no signature of any of the officials of the defendant on the invoice/bill Ex.PW-1/5. He has stated that as Ex.PW-1/5 was the office copy of the bill and they were not given the approved copy of the running bill by the site incharge, therefore, it did not mean that work was not done at the site.
19. Though PW-1 has stated that all running bills were checked by the site supervisor of the defendant, but the plaintiff has not produced any such endorsement of checking having been made either by CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 14/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:12:17 +0530 defendant or by his authorized representative upon the bills Ex.PW-1/5 to Ex.PW-1/7 and thereby, approving the work being done by the plaintiff as reflected in the said bills. PW-1 has stated that they were not given the approved copy of running bill by the site incharge, therefore, the same did not mean that work was not done at the site. It is pertinent to note that even if the above version of PW-1 is accepted as true, the plaintiff must have sent a communication to the defendant asking for approval of the running bills and simultaneously, an approval of work having been done by it as reflected in the respective bill. The plaintiff has not placed any such communication on record.
20. Further, to the question put to PW-1 that did he make any correspondence with the defendant asking him to furnish the approved first running bill, PW-1 answered that they were paid for the first running bill Ex.PW-1/5 in part by the defendant after submission of the bill that is why, they never asked for the approved copy of the running bill. At this stage, the stand of defendant in respect of payment having been made to the plaintiff is relevant. As per the defendant, the plaintiff has been paid Rs.5,00,000/- in January, 2011 and Rs.20,00,000/- in March/April, 2011. The said version of the defendant in his plaint of suit no. 7627/16 has not been specifically denied by the plaintiff in its written statement filed in the said suit. The bill Ex.PW-1/5 had been issued on 05.08.2011. Even otherwise, the bill Ex.PW-1/5 itself contains the detail that an advance of Rs.25,00,000/- had been adjusted. Thus, the above version of PW-1 that the plaintiff was paid in part by the defendant after submission of the bill Ex.PW-1/5, is contrary to the record, as the defendant had not made any payment to the plaintiff subsequent to the submission of bill Ex.PW-1/5.
CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 15/33 NAVEEN GUPTA Digitally signed by NAVEEN GUPTA Date: 2025.12.17 17:12:24 +0530
21. PW-1 denied the suggestion put to him that their bills were inflated and exaggerated as they always made the bills as per work done till the date of billing at site. They never got any communication from the defendant about the bills being inflated or exaggerated.
22. It is correct that the defendant has not placed on record any communication with the plaintiff to the effect that he had conveyed his concern of inflated or exaggerated bills raised by it. However, it is pertinent to note that vide e-mail dated 07.02.2011 written to the defendant, the plaintiff sent the final estimate including the cost of shower cubical with actual site measurement (though the said e-mail page has not been tendered in evidence, but the same is available on record and PW-1 has tendered the final offer dated 07.02.2011 as Ex.PW-1/3). The said version of plaintiff reflects that the estimate had been forwarded to the defendant after thorough measurements of the site. Thereafter, the defendant placed order dated 17.02.2011 (Ex.PW-1/4) as per the quotation of plaintiff dated 07.02.2011. The said order also contains the recital 'with reference to their discussion, finalized rates, site measurement and discussion with the architect, following is the final area and fresh estimate for your kind reference'. The said order was having an estimate of total Rs.38,16,672/- and details of 13 works to be done by the plaintiff. Despite the above recitals in the final estimate Ex.PW-1/3 and order Ex.PW-1/4, the comparison of the said documents with the bills Ex.PW-1/5 to Ex.PW-1/7 reflects that there is considerable difference in the quantity/area shown in the order and the bills. Such as ACP Sheet Cladding at serial no. 2 in the order, Ex.PW-1/4 was of 110 sq meter amounting to Rs.2,69,500/-, while the bill, Ex.PW-1/7 reflects the area as 244.84 sq meter amounting to Rs.5,99,858/-. Frameless glass at CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 16/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:12:30 +0530 serial no. 3 in the order was of 180 sq meter amounting to Rs.3,87,000/-, while the bill reflects the area as 242.91 sq meter amounting to Rs.5,22,262/-. Poly Carbonate Sheet at serial no. 7 in the order was of 130 sq meter amounting to Rs.3,31,500/-, while the bill reflects the area as 206.9 meter amounting to Rs.5,27,616/-. MS Work a serial no. 8 had the quantity as 4000 kg amounting to Rs.3,40,000/-, while the bill reflects the quantity as 4859.3 kg amounting to Rs.4,13,040/-. There are other categories too which show increased area/pricing more than of the order, Ex. PW-1/4. When, admittedly, the plaintiff had already conducted the site inspection, there should not have been any scope for increase in the area of job work to such large extent and that too, without any written approval/acknowledgment of the defendant. In such circumstances, the plea of defendant that the plaintiff has produced inflated and exaggerated bills appears to be tenable, coupled with the circumstance that the plaintiff did not bring on record the bills approved from the defendant regarding the work shown to be done in the said bills.
23. To the question put to him that when the amount of their bills was not paid in full, it was a message that work was not affected as per the bills and after verifying the work, the amount was paid to him, PW-1 has deposed that in any work contract, the running bills are paid sometime in part and as it was not a final bill, the work kept moving and they were never told by any of the person at site about any issue with regard to the running bills. When their final bill was not paid in toto, then they made the correspondence for non-payment of the final bill. Surprisingly, the plaintiff has not placed on record any such correspondence having been done with the defendant asking for CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 17/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:12:35 +0530 payment of the final bill, after submission of the bill Ex.PW-1/7 and non-payment of the balance amount by the defendant within a reasonable time of such submission.
24. To the question put to PW-1 that before raising any final bill qua the project, did he obtain any completion certificate or any certificate to the satisfaction of defendant to this effect, PW-1 has answered that they had taken completion certificate from the architect of defendant for the satisfactory completion of the work. He was again asked whether he had placed the completion certificate on record as approved by the defendant. PW-1 answered that they had not submitted the same but they could submit if required. To the question put to PW-1 that did he have any letter from the defendant that M/s Manpreet & Associates was authorized to issue the completion certificate on behalf of the defendant, PW-1 has answered that as all the drawings were approved by the architect and all the decisions related to the project were given by M/s Manpreet & Associates, that was why they asked the architect to issue the completion certificate, otherwise, they did not know any specific letter from the defendant about his authorization.
25. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the defendant, during cross-examination of PW-1, did not ask for tendering of the said completion certificate issued by M/s Manpreet & Associates. It is pertinent to note that onus to prove this aspect was upon the plaintiff. When the defendant in his written statement itself had taken a stand that the plaintiff did not complete the job work and he had to engage other agencies to get the work done, it was the duty of plaintiff to prove his claim of having completed the work as per the satisfaction of defendant. Even if it is accepted that the defendant did not ask PW-1 to place on CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 18/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:12:40 +0530 record the said completion certificate issued by M/s Manpreet Batra & Associates, it has not been explained by the plaintiff as to what restrained it from confronting DW-1/defendant with the said completion certificate during his cross-examination conducted on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not put the said certificate to DW-1 claiming that the work was done as per order Ex.PW-1/4 and accordingly, the bills were raised and thereafter, under authorization of defendant, M/s Manpreet Batra & Associates had issued the completion certificate. But, the plaintiff did not take such step for the reasons best known to it.
26. It is pertinent to note that in his preliminary objections of written statement itself, the defendant has claimed that the plaintiff had been instructed that whatever job work was completed, its official must obtain a completion certificate from him (defendant), however, neither the plaintiff nor its officials ever reflected in writing about completion of the assigned job works and further, even did not take any endorsement from him or his officials qua the completion of any job work and on the pretext of completing the assignment, the plaintiff continued raising demand after demand. In its replication, the plaintiff has merely denied the abovesaid submissions and submitted that the defendant had misrepresented the facts regarding obtaining of completion certificate by it from him as no such commitment was made by it. Surprisingly, it has not been submitted by the plaintiff in the replication that the completion certificate had been issued by M/s Manpreet Batra & Associates on behalf of the defendant and thereby, the defendant has falsely submitted about non-completion of the work by the plaintiff.
CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 19/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:12:45 +0530
27. This aspect can be looked into from another angle too. As per PW-1, they were associated with M/s Manpreet Batra & Associates before award of this project. The said Associates was placed in Delhi only. It has not been explained/clarified by the plaintiff/PW-1 as to what restrained it from examining Mr. Manpreet Batra of Batra & Associates to depose in support of its claim that it had completed the work as per order Ex.PW-1/4 and that too, to the satisfaction of defendant. Further, the work as shown in the bill Ex.PW-1/7 had actually been carried out by the plaintiff.
28. Furthermore, it is the case of plaintiff that M/s Manpreet Batra & Associates had issued the completion certificate. But, the said claim appears to be contrary to the case of plaintiff, as the plaintiff itself has mentioned in the plaint that the fitting part of item no. 5 of the work order was not done by it and the defendant got it done on his own. When, admittedly, the plaintiff did not complete the work as per order Ex.PW-1/4, then to what effect, M/s Manpreet Batra & Associates could have issued completion certificate to the plaintiff.
29. One more important aspect is worth noting here itself. The plaintiff has stated that the defendant got the equipments of item no. 5 of the work order fitted by his own person without informing it. Upon inquiry, the defendant informed that it was done as he was in a hurry. First of all, from the said version of plaintiff itself, it is reflected that the plaintiff was aware about the need of defendant of getting the work done earliest, that is why he had got the fitting mentioned at serial no. 5 done on his own. Even otherwise, it is pertinent to note that the work order had been issued on 17.02.2011 and the final bill was raised by the plaintiff on 03.12.2011. It means that almost 10 months were taken by CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 20/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:12:51 +0530 the plaintiff in doing the work as shown the bill Ex.PW-1/7 and that too, the work was not completed as per order Ex.PW-1/4. Though there was no agreed time reflected in the order Ex.PW-1/4 by which the said work was to be completed by the plaintiff, yet the work should have been completed within a reasonable time limit. In this regard, PW-1 has stated that the project was done as and when the site was given to them for work. But, he did not place any letter on record whereby the issues /reasons related to delay in doing the work were even conveyed to the project architect.
30. PW-1 has further deposed that there was no person authorized by the defendant at the site to sign as mark of receipt of the bill on his behalf. PW-1 has deposed that as the defendant normally did not issue any kind of letter for any of his decision and always gave verbal communication only about every project related issue that is why, they did not have any authorization letter of the defendant to the effect that M/s Manpreet Batra & Associates could take every decision for the project in question. To the question put to him that whether the particulars of concerned officials were provided from both the sides to monitor and supervise the project in question, PW-1 answered that no such official document was available. He further deposed that the defendant always gave only verbal instructions. He never issued any letter to authorize architect to approve the progress of the project. He reiterated that the defendant never authorized any of his person to sign any kind of document even after checking it, that was why, all the bills and measurements, even though the same were checked by their people, were not signed.
CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 21/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:12:55 +0530
31. From the abovesaid version of PW-1, a doubt is created on the document/letter dated 18.10.2012, Ex.PW-1/8 vehemently relied upon by the plaintiff. It has been claimed that vide the said letter, the defendant had acknowledged completion of entire work by the plaintiff to his satisfaction barring some defects. When the plaintiff/PW-1 has deposed on several occasions that the defendant did not authorize any person to sign any kind of document, then in what circumstances, the letter Ex.PW-1/8 could have been issued by authorized signatory of the defendant.
32. Even otherwise, the said letter has reflected the concern of defendant regarding the defects observed in the work done by the plaintiff. The work had been allegedly completed by the plaintiff vide final bill Ex.PW-1/7, which is of 03.12.2011, while the said letter was written on 18.10.2012. This leads to infer that during this period of more than 10 months, there must have been correspondence between the plaintiff and defendant communicating about the defects observed in the work done by the plaintiff and requesting it to rectify those defects. But, no other correspondence has been placed on record. This too raises doubt not only against the letter dated 18.10.2012, but also on the claim of plaintiff that the work was done to the satisfaction of defendant.
33. At this stage, the aspect of issuance of letter Ex.PW-1/8 can be looked into from another angle too. The plaintiff has placed on record a letter dated 27.10.2012 (though not tendered in evidence) written to the defendant, whereby it has requested for speedy release of payment of the balance amount of Rs.14,25,000/-. Surprisingly, the said letter dated 27.10.2012 did not contain any whisper about the above mentioned CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 22/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:13:01 +0530 letter of defendant having been issued just 9 days prior to the said letter, while admittedly, the letter Ex.PW-1/8 had appreciated the work completed by the plaintiff.
34. PW-1 has deposed that he did not know the person who had issued the letter Ex.PW-1/8 as their team who had gone to rectify the small defects asked the person available there to issue letter regarding the rectification of defect. He was not aware about the authority of any such person, but the letter Ex.PW-1/8 had been issued from the project site only and it was not a fabricated document. PW-1 has further deposed that one of their Engineer Sh. Mukesh was in the team who went to the project site to rectify the defects and he had obtained the letter. Further, as the letter Ex.PW-1/8 was on the original letter head [of the defendant], they never tried to find out the authority of person who signed it.
35. When the defendant had vehemently objected against the claim of plaintiff regarding the letter Ex.PW-1/8 having been issued on his behalf, the plaintiff should have examined the official Mr. Mukesh, who had admittedly obtained the said letter. But, the plaintiff did not examine him for the reasons best known to it.
36. Now the Court proceeds to examine the defendant's evidence.
DW-1, during his cross-examination, has deposed that he used to look after the progress of the work. He admitted the suggestion put to him that he was not physically carrying out the measurement and such other direct activities to evaluate the progress of work. He was not aware exactly who carried out the physical measurement, however, M/s Manpreet Batra & Associates used to monitor the progress from their CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 23/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:13:06 +0530 office. He currently did not have any document to show the amount of work done by the plaintiff in his hotel. He had never carried out the measurement of the work done by the plaintiff. He voluntarily stated that he had got more than half of the work done by other agencies. This statement was based on his physical examination of the site. He had not written any e-mail or letter either to M/s Manpreet Batra & Associates or to the plaintiff regarding non-completion of the work by the plaintiff. He voluntarily stated that he had made telephonic calls to Mr. Mittal of plaintiff. The plaintiff had done some of the work and some other work was not completed by it. He denied the suggestion that documents filed by him did not show any work which was contained in the invoices of the plaintiff. He admitted that the defendant had never sent any letter, e- mail or any other written communication claiming damages from the plaintiff. He had no written communication addressed to M/s Manpreet Batra & Associates asking them to persuade the plaintiff to complete the work. He did not know whether he had any other quotation of any other agency who had worked with the defendant towards the completion of work supposed to be done by the plaintiff except the one filed by him in the case.
37. Though from the cross-examination of DW-1, it is reflected that he did not have any details of the work carried out by the plaintiff.
Further, he did not produce any communication addressed either to the plaintiff or to M/s Manpreet Batra & Associates regarding non- completion of work by the plaintiff. But, it was the duty of plaintiff to prove the work done by him for the defendant. It is trite law that the plaintiff has to prove his own case and cannot take advantage of the weakness of defence.
CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 24/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:13:12 +0530
38. In view of above observations, the plaintiff has failed to prove, even on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, his claim that entire amount as reflected in the bill, Ex.PW-1/7 is payable by the defendant.
Further, no evidence has been led by the plaintiff as to how did he suffer the damages of Rs.5,00,000/- due to default in payment by the defendant.
39. On other hand, it is also pertinent to note that in para no. 5 of his written statement, the defendant has merely raised objection regarding non-completion of work by the plaintiff and using inferior/low quality material by it. It has not been specifically submitted by the defendant that the work as agreed vide order dated 17.02.2011 Ex.PW-1/4, except mentioned in para no. 5 of the plaint, was also not done by the plaintiff. DW-1 has deposed that he did not have any document to show the amount of work done by the plaintiff. Further, the defendant has not placed on record the details of work, done by the plaintiff, as maintained by him. The Court has observed that the plaintiff has raised inflated bill, which did not bear due approval of the defendant. But, the said observation does not disallow the plaintiff his entitlement to be paid for the work done as per agreed order Ex. PW-1/4. However, two items mentioned at Sr. No. 9 and 12 of the order Ex.PW-1/4 do not have corresponding details in the bill Ex.PW-1/7. Further, since, admittedly, the work was not completed by the plaintiff, as per para no. 5 of the plaint, there shall be deduction of 5% from total amount in accordance with the quotation Ex. PW-1/3. The claim of defendant regarding damages for using low quality material and non-completion of work timely by the plaintiff have been discussed in detail in the later part of judgment. Accordingly, the following amount is held payable to the plaintiff:
CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 25/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:13:18 +0530 Agreed amount Sr. No. of Product Corresponding of work done Work in Sr. No. of Work or Actual Order in Bill amount of Ex.PW-1/4 Ex.PW-1/7 work done, whichever is lower 1 Structural Glazing 1 10,30,418 2 ACP Sheet 2 2,69,500 Cladding 3 Frameless Glass 3 3,87,000 4 Glass Doors 13 & 14 1,06,000 5 Glass Railing 3 2,05,200 6 SS Railing for 12 1,09,980 Service Stair Case 7 Poly Carbonate 4 3,31,500 Sheet 8 MS Work 5 3,40,000 10 Mechanical 6 10,880 Anchors 11 16 MM Thick Wire 7 60,000 Rope for Canopy 13 Aluminum Rib 8 1,57,500 Total 30,07,978 Less 5% discount as agreed 1,50,399 Balance 28,57,579 Less 5% on account of non-completion 1,42,879 Net Amount 27,14,700 Plus 4% WCT (as per quotation Ex. PW-1/3) 1,08,588 Plus 2.6% Service Tax (as per quotation Ex. 70,582 PW-1/3) Net Payable 28,93,870 Less Advance 25,00,000 Amount Due Rs. 3,93,870/-
CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 26/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:13:24 +0530
40. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay amount of Rs.3,93,870/- to the plaintiff. So far as prayer of pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 24% per annum is concerned, the Court is of the view that there is no agreed rate of interest between the parties. However, having regard to the prevailing bank rates, it is deemed fit to grant pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the sum adjudged. Thus, the issues no. 1 and 2 are decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.
41. Issue No. 3Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action? OPD The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. But, he did not lead any positive evidence in this regard. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has also not advanced any argument to show as to how the suit lacked cause of action. Even otherwise, the Court has already adjudged the sum payable to the plaintiff by the defendant. Thus, it stands held that the plaintiff had the cause of action to file the present suit. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendant.
42. Relief In view of the findings on above issues, the suit no. 7629/2016 is partly decreed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant in the sum of Rs.3,93,870/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realization. Defendant shall be liable to pay the aforesaid sum to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is also entitled to recovery of costs of the suit from defendant. Decree sheet shall be prepared accordingly.
CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 27/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:13:29 +0530
43. Issue no. 1 of suit No. 7627/2016 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of Rs. 24,55,000/- from the defendant on account of suffering damages due to the alleged act of omission of the defendant? OPP Issue No. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on above amount, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP The onus to prove these issues was upon the defendant. So far as cross- examination of PW-1 conducted on behalf of the defendant, regarding the claim of defendant, is concerned. PW-1 has deposed that some of the terms mentioned in the quotation issued by Bhogal Aluminums Decorator Mark PW-1/D1 were there in the work taken by them (plaintiff). But, they had not been given the entire similar work in the said project, the said terms might be for the different areas from where they had been awarded the work. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff left the project incomplete and the defendant had incurred additional expenses to the extent of Rs.19,55,000/-. He further deposed that as the project was done as and when the site was given to them for work and they completed the work whatever was to be done. Further, they had given the letter for the issues related for the delay in doing the work to the project architect as he was coordinating with the other people who were doing other works. He replied in negative when a question was put to him that whether there was any letter qua any difficulty faced by him in completing the project having acknowledgment of the defendant.
44. It is surprising to note that though the defendant has claimed in his pleadings that he intended to start the hotel business by August CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 28/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:13:35 +0530 2011, therefore, all the job work should have been completed by that time. But, the said version was not put to the plaintiff/PW-1 during his cross-examination conducted on behalf of the defendant to seek his explanation/clarification on this aspect, as to why the work was not completed by August 2011, when the defendant had conveyed to the plaintiff about the timeline.
45. The Court now considers the testimonies of defence witnesses. To the question put to him that whether he could show that Mr. Vikram Kumar had done the job which was actually supposed to be done by the plaintiff, DW-1 has deposed that he did not have any such document, however, he could show the same on the site. The other contractors performed the job which was left incomplete by the plaintiff. He further deposed that he did not have any document to show that the material used by the plaintiff on the site was of inferior quality. However, he could show the same from the site. The said material was still available on the site. He had not sent any letter or e-mail to the plaintiff intimating/complaining that the material used by the plaintiff was of inferior quality. However, he had made several telephonic calls to the plaintiff to intimate the same. He deposed that he did not know whether on his request, Mr. Manpreet Batra would come before the Court to depose about the facts submitted by him.
46. DW-2, during his cross-examination, has deposed that he used to get salary at the relevant time from the account of hotel La Silver Leaf. But he did not produce any document in this regard. He voluntarily stated that he had verified the bills raised on behalf of the plaintiff for the purpose of payment. He admitted that the defendant had never disputed the work done by the plaintiff as mentioned in their bills. He CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 29/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:13:54 +0530 was not aware who issued the letter Ex.PW-1/8. When this letter was issued, there were around 150 employees. He had not seen the bills Ex.PW-1/5 to Ex.PW-1/7 and he had not verified the same. DW-2 did not produce the bills of plaintiff which he had claimed to have verified. He admitted that payments to M/s Bhogal Aluminum Decorators, M/s Jyoti Arts Glass and Mr. Vikram Kumar were not made by him. He admitted that the defendant had not filed any document to support that the defendant had suffered a loss of Rs.5,00,000/- due to delay caused by plaintiff.
47. The claim of defendant is that the plaintiff used sub-standard and inferior raw material and on account of the same, he has suffered damages of Rs.1,00,000/-, but, surprisingly, he has not placed on record any report of a technical expert to prove as to how the material used by the plaintiff was of sub-standard and inferior quality. It is further surprising to note that the defendant did not send any written communication either to the plaintiff or to M/s Manpreet Batra & Associates complaining about use of such inferior quality material or even to bring into their knowledge about such usage.
48. It is reiterated that the defendant did not put his claim to the plaintiff/PW-1 during his cross-examination that the job work was to be completed by the plaintiff by August 2011. Further, the order dated 17.02.2011, Ex.PW-1/4 is also silent about the date of completion of the job work. Besides the mere submission made by the defendant that he incurred loss of Rs.4,00,000/- due to non-completion of the project work in time, he has not proved as to what type of loss he had suffered due to such non-completion and how had he arrived at the figure of loss of Rs.4,00,000/-. This claim of defendant can be looked into from CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 30/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:14:01 +0530 another angle. According to the bills placed on record by the defendant, the last payment of Rs.1,00,000/- had been made vide voucher dated 21.03.2012, Ex.DW-2/M and the account was settled with Mr. Vikram Kumar vide document dated 09.07.2012, Ex.DW-2/Q. Further, the work from other agencies had been initiated by the defendant as early as on 05.07.2011 vide voucher Ex.DW-2/A. This shows that other agencies had worked for defendant from the period dated 05.07.2011 to 09.07.2012. When the work assigned to the plaintiff was to be completed by August 2011, the case of defendant is silent as to what prompted him to engage other agencies to do the work already assigned to the plaintiff prior to the deadline of August 2011. Further, even those other agencies had also taken more than one year in completion of the work assigned to them. This shows that had the defendant been in need of completion of the work earliest, he would not have allowed other agencies to complete the work assigned to them so late i.e. by July 2012. In these circumstances, the defendant has failed that due to non-
completion of work assigned to the plaintiff in time, he suffered a loss of Rs.4,00,000/-.
49. So far as the claim of defendant is concerned that he incurred additional expenditure of Rs.19,55,000/- for getting the incomplete work left by the plaintiff done from other agencies. It is reiterated that the defendant has not produced any record/evidence to show that the work done by other agencies was in fact the work to be done by the plaintiff in terms of order dated 17.02.2011, Ex.PW-1/4. It is further reiterated that while the plaintiff was still doing the work assigned to it, the defendant had engaged M/s Bhogal Aluminum Decorators vide voucher dated 05.07.2011 Ex.DW-2/A. A quotation dated 01.06.2011 of CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 31/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:14:07 +0530 the said agency is also placed on record as Ex.DW-2/B. This leads to infer that these documents must not be related to the same work, which had earlier been assigned to the plaintiff. The Court is in agreement with the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the vouchers Ex.DW-2/C to Ex.DW-2/M are related to payments made to one Mr. Vikram Kumar and the defendant has not examined Mr. Vikram Kumar to prove the payments having been received by him against the said vouchers and what work has actually been done by him for the defendant. Similarly, the cheques Ex.DW-2/N to Ex.DW-2/P have been issued to Mr. Vikram Kumar. Furthermore, there is a lapse in the case of defendant regarding the following aspect. The defendant has claimed that he made payment of Rs.19,55,000/- to other agencies vide documents Ex.DW-2/A to Ex.DW-2/P. However, the document Ex.DW-2/Q shows that Mr. Vikram Kumar had refunded Rs.4,80,000/- to the defendant out of Rs.22,00,000/- received by him, meaning thereby, he had been paid Rs.17,20,000/- by the defendant. Thus, the defendant had paid Rs.17,20,000/- to Mr. Vikram Kumar and Rs.1,00,000/- to M/s Bhogal Aluminum Decorator and thus, total Rs.18,20,000/- was paid. Even otherwise, the vouchers produced by the defendant do not anywhere reflect the work done by other agencies is the same work which was to be done by the plaintiff. It was the duty of defendant to prove this aspect, but he has miserably failed to discharge this onus. Moreover, it is worth mentioning herein that the plaintiff has already been penalized, by deducting 5% from total bill amount payable to it, on account of non-completion of work assigned to it.
50. In view of above observations, the defendant has failed to prove his case that he suffered loss due to use of sub-standard and inferior CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 32/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.17 17:14:13 +0530 quality material by the plaintiff and non-completion of work by it timely. He has further failed to prove that he had got the same work done through other agencies which had been assigned to the plaintiff. Thus, the issues no. 1 and 2 are decided against the defendant.51. Issue No. 3
Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action? OPD The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. But, it did not lead any positive evidence in this regard. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has also not advanced any argument to show as to how the suit (filed by the defendant) lacked cause of action. It is reiterated that merely because the defendant has not been able to prove his case, the same does not ipso facto lead to infer that he did not have any cause of action to file the present suit. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
52. Relief In view of the findings on above issues, the defendant is not entitled to the relief claimed in the plaint. The suit no. 7627/2016 is dismissed.
Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
NAVEEN
Announced in the open Court NAVEEN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
on the 17th day of December, 2025 2025.12.17
17:14:20
+0530
(Naveen Gupta)
District Judge-09, West District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
CS DJ 7629/2016 & 7627/2016 Page no. 33/33