Delhi District Court
M/S Neelansh Electrotech Systems Pvt. ... vs M/S Rama Contractors on 20 April, 2026
DLCT010136642019 Oba ror [=] Index to the Suit IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL ANTIL, COMMERCIAL COURT-09, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI. Serial No. M/s Neelansh Fire Page Nos. Protection System P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors. 1.
FACTS OF SUIT 2to8
2. WRITTEN & to 10 STATEMENT 3, REPLICATION 10
4. ISSUES 10 to il
5. EVIDENCE OF 11 te 13 PLAINTIFF
6. EVIDENCE OF 13-15 DEFENDANT
7. ISSUEWISE FINDINGS 15-26
8. DECISION/RELIEF 26-27 CS DINo. 2456:14 Mys Neelaash Fire Protection System P. Lid. Vs. Rama Contractors and Ors. Page No.1 off M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
DLCT010136642019 Oo eel IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL ANTIL, DISTRICT JUDGE-COMMERCIAL COURT-09 (CENTRAL DISTRICT), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CIVIL SUIT (COMMERCIAL) NO..:- 2450/2019 IN THE MATTER OF :-
M/s Neelansh Electrotech System Pvt. Ltd.
Formerly known as M/s Neelansh Fire Protection Systems Through its Authorized Representative ... Plaintiff VERSUS
1. M/s Rama Contractors
2. Sh. Ram Avtar Sharma (Partner of defendant no. 1)
3. Sh. Nitin Sharma (Partner of defendant no. 1) All the three defendants at :
B-155, Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP ... Defendants Union of India Through Central Public Work Department At-18, CPWD, IP Bhawan, New Delhi Through Executive Engineer (E) (earlier impleaded as defendant no. | since deleted on 28.11.2024) SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.33,44,435/- CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 1 of 27 M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
Date of institution : 04/10/2019 Date on which Judgment was reserved : 09/04/2026 Date of Judgment : 20/04/2026 i-JUDGMENT-=:
l. By way of present judgment, this court shall adjudi- cate upon suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs.21,93,041/- [initially filed for recovery of Rs.33,44,435/-] alongwith pendent elite and future inter- est @ 18% per annum.
2, Before proceeding further, it may be noted that plaintiff had filed the suit initially against Union of India as (D-1), Rama Contractors as (D-2), Sh. Ram Aviar Sharma as (D-3) and Sh. Nitin Sharma as (D-4).
3. The factual matrix of the case is noted hereunder in terms of the plaint so filed earlier by the plaintiff against the defendants.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
4. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present suit, as stated in the plaint, are as under:-
i. The plaintiff is a Company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 2013 having its CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 2 of 27 M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
registered office at E-5, 1" Floor, Bali Nagar, New Delhi-110015.
i. The plaintiff is carrying on its business of fire protection and material supply at the said address. The plaintiff company was earlier working under the name and style of M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System. Later on the constitution of plamtiff com- pany changed from Neelansh Fire Protection Sys- tem to Neelansh Electrotech System Pvt. Ltd. In be- tween, for some duration the name of the company was Neelansh Electrotech Pvt. Ltd.
ii. The plaintiff company is a class A CPWD pre- qualified contractor in Fire Alarm System and Fire Fighting Systems.
iv. The defendant no. 1 had released a Tender/ Work Order in favour of the defendant no. 2 for ex- tension of technical complex to DPL Building ARC at Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi 1/c internal W/S, S/T, Internal El, Street lighting, Goods Lifts, Automatic Fire Alarm System, firefighting system & DG set.
v. Further defendant no. 2 engaged the plaintiff for execution of Automatic Fire Alarm System and Fire Fighting System Work on its behalf as the CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 3 of 27 M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
CPWD Electrical specifications as per tender docu-
ments.
vi. On 24.01.2015, an agreement was duly exe- cuted and signed between the plaintiff and defen- dant no. 2 for execution of electric work for Auto- matic Fire Alarm System and Fire Fighting System Work by the plaintiff company.
vii. As per the agreement, it was settled that de- fendant no. 1 will be Engineer-in-Charge for the said Electrical Component.
vill. The Executive Engineer (Electrical), ED-18/ PWD will make 83% payment to the plaintiff com- pany and 17% payment to the defendant no. 2 for each running account and final bill.
ix. It was also setiled that full security will be recov- ered from the plaintiff company and other recover-
ies shall be made proportionately.
x. The plaintiff company has performed all for- malities and has executed and completed all the work to the satisfaction of the concerned authority/ defendant no. 1.CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 4 of 27
M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
xi. The gross final bill for the work done by the plamtff with regard to the Fire Alarm System is Rs.4,02,796.34/- and that of Fire Fighting Work is of Rs.56,91,113.17/-
xii. After statutory deductions, the net amount re- ceived/receivable for the Fire Alarm System and for the Firefighting Work by the defendant no. 2 from the defendant no. 1 thereby comes to Rs.3,71,230.53/- and Rs.52,96,519.52/- respectively.
xu. As per the agreement dated 05.12.2014 and the work order dated 24.10.2015 issued by the de- fendant no. 2 to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to get 83% of the net amount received/receivable for the work done which comes to Rs.3,08,121.34 for the Fire Alarm System and Rs.43,96,111.20/- for the firefighting work and total of the two comes to Rs.47,04,232.54/-.
xiv. The plaintiff company has completed all work in all respect and submitted the bills tume to time to the defendants for payment. The plaintiff company has received Rs.29,27,660/- against the said bills from the defendants.CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 5 of 27
M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
xv. The work was completed on 28.09.2017 and the security deposit deducted from the bills of the plaintiff became due on 28.09.2018. An amount of Rs.11,426/- and Rs.1,10,038/- were deducted from the bills of Fire Alarm System and firefighting work components respectively.
xvi. The plaintiff is entitled to get back 83% of the security deposit amount in terms of the work order issued by the defendant no. 2 which comes to Rs.1,00,815.12/-.
xvil. When defendants failed and neglected to dis- charge their obligation and failed to pay the due amount to the plaintiff company, plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 29.01.2019 but the defendants neither complied with notice nor gave any reply thereof.
xvui. The defendant no. 2 had invoked the Arbitra- tion Clause of the Agreement executed by it with the defendant no. | and filed claims on behalf of as-
sociated agencies i.e. the plaintiff. xix. The defendant no. 2 had succeeded in the Ar- bitration and vide Arbitration Award dated 16.01.2021 got the reliefs against claim Nos. 9, 27, CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 6 of 27 M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
28, 29 and 41 which included claims on behalf of the associated agencies i.e. the plaintiff, thus the plaintiff is entitled for the pro rata share in the said Award amounts which comes to Rs.3,15,653/-.
xx. After adjusting the received amount of Rs.29,27,660/- till date, the plaintiff is entitled to re- cover an amount of Rs.17,76,573/- as the balance bill amount and an amount of Rs.1,00,815/- as re- fund of security deposit apart from an amount of Rs.3,15,653/- on account of the Arbitration Award recetved by the defendant no. 2 on behalf of the plaintiff, xxi, Thus the total principal amount due against the defendant no. 2 comes to Rs.21,93,041/-.
xxi. The plaintiff is also entitled to recover interest @ 18% on balance bill amount of Rs.17,76,573/- since 28.03.2018, on security deposit of Rs.1,00,815/- since 28.09.2018 and on Award amount of Rs.3,15,653/- since 17.01.2021.
xxiti. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendants.
DELETION OF NAME OF DEFENDANT NO. I CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 7 of 27 M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
5. On application moved on behalf of defendant no. 1, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff admits that defendant no. 1 i.e. Union of India is a proforma party and no relief has been claimed against it and hence vide order dated 28.11.24, the name of the defendant no. 1 was deleted from the array of the parties.
DEFENDANT'S CASE
6. In the written statement, the defendants have averred that there was no agreement ever entered into between the plaintiff and defendant no.2,
7. That the defendant (D-2) had entered into an agree- ment with M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System and has completely denied any relation between M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System and M/s Neelansh Electrotech System Pvt. Ltd.
8. Defendant have also denied any liability towards M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System or M/s Neelansh Electrotech System Pvt. Ltd.
9, It is further averred by the defendants that the plain- tiff has concealed the fact regarding issuance of debit notes issued by the defendant (D-2) to M/s Neelansh Fire Protec-
tion System.
CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 8 of 27M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
10. That vide debit note no. 002 dated 02.04.2019 a sum of Rs.6,84,750/-, which was equivalent to 83% of the total amount, was withheld by the defendant (D-1) for de- fective work, and a sum of Rs.3,49,404/- via debit note no. 003 dated 03.04.2019, which was issued in respect of the amount equivalent to 83% of penalty levied on work done by M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System.
11. That the defendants had requested M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System on several occasions to submit the final bill and to reconcile the accounts after adjustment of the debit notes but with malafide intentions has failed to do sO.
12. That Neelansh Fire Protection system had already received a sum of Rs.61,092/- in excess from the defendant (D-2) even prior to filing of the present case by the plain-
tiff company.
13. That during the pendency of the case, the defendant (D-1) released a sum of Rs.4,93,493/- & Rs.3,31,507/- to the defendant (D-2).
14. That subsequently D-2 issued a credit note number 001 dated 10.06.2020 for a sum of Rs.4,09,599/- and credit note no. 001 dated 04.04.2021 for a sum of Rs.2,75,151/- i.e. 83% of the amount released by the defendant (D-1) to the plaintiff.
CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 9 of 27M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
15, That the plaintiff is hable to return the balance amount of Rs.4,10,496/- to the defendants till the complete payment is released by the defendant no. 1 to the defendant no. 2.
16. That no cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff company or M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System and against the defendants to file the present suit as M/s excess amount of Rs.61,092/- from the defendants.
17. That the suit be dismissed with heavy cost. REPLICATION
18. Plaintiff has filed the replication controverting the allegations of the defendants in the written statement and the contents of the plaint has been reiterated and reaf-
firmed.
ISSUES 19, On the basis of the pleadings following issues were settled on 04.05.2023 :
L Whether there 1s no privity of contract between the plaintiff M/s Neelansh Electrotech System Pvt. Ltd. and the defendant no. 2? (OPD-2) I. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 10 of 27 M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
Rs, 33,44,435/- as asked tor in the plaint? (OPP) ut In case if the issue no. (11) is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest as asked for in the plaint? If ves, at what rate? (OPP) Vv. Relief EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF
20. Vide order dated 25.05.2023, evidence in this case was ordered to be recorded before Ld. Court Commis-
sioner who was appointed by this court for timely record-
ing of the evidence and disposal of the case.
21. In the evidence recorded before Ld. Court Commis- sioner, plaintiff has examined Sh. Pankaj Maini as PW1 and Sh. Jagdish Kumar, Assistant Engineer (Electrical), DED 31, CPWD as PW2.
22. PW1 Sh. Pankaj Maini has filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and has relied upon the documents as under:
i. Copy of my Adhar Card is Ex.PW1/1 (OSR);
i. Original Copy of Resolution dated 14.05.2023 is Ex.PW1/2;
iii. Copy of plamt in the present suit is Ex. PW1/3;CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 11 of 27
M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
iv. Copy of certificate of incorporation of the plaintiff- company as Neelansh Electrotech Private Limited is Ex.PW1/4 (OSR):
v. Copy of certificate of incorporation of the plaintiff company as Neelansh Electrotech System Private Limited is Ex.PW1/5 (OSR);
vi. Copy of the Office Order No.5/2016 is Ex.PW1/6; vil. Copy of Agreement dated 05.12.2014 is Ex.PW1/7; vii. Copy of letter dated 08.07.2017 is Ex. PW1/8 (OSR); ix. Copy of the 17th and final bill of the ERM compo nent alongwith abstract of cost which was marked as Ex.PW1/9 was de-exhibited and marked as Mark A. (on the objections raised by counsel for the de fendant) x. Copy of the Work Order is Ex.PW1/10; xi. True Copy of the calculation sheet mentioned in para No.11 of the affidavit is Ex.PW1/11; xii. Copy of legal notice dated 29.01.2019 alongwith postal receipt and delivery report which is marked as Ex.PW/12 in the affidavit was de-exhibited and marked as Mark B;
xitl. Copy of non-starter report is Ex.PW1/13; xiv. Copy of Arbitration Award is Ex.PW1/14; CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 12 of 27 M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
xv. Copy of Pages contaming Claim No.9, 27 & 28, 29 and 41 is Ex.PW1/15;
xvi. True Copy of the calculation sheet mentioned in para No.7 of the affidavit is Ex. PWI1/16.
23. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendants before Ld. Court Commissioner. The cross-examination of PW1 will be discussed in the later part of the judgment.
24, PW2 Sh. Jagdish Kumar has produced the original file of the 17" and Final Bill of Agreement No.16/EE/ ED-3/2014-15 of M/s Rama Contractor and has proved the original bills of the work executed by M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System as Ex.PW2/1 (colly.) (earlier marked as Mark A).
25, This witness was also cross-examined by Ld. coun- sel for the defendants which will be discussed in the later part of the judgment.
EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT
26. In the evidence recorded before Ld. Court Commis-
sioner, defendants have examined Sh. Nitin Sharma, part- ner of the defendant firm as DW1 who has filed his evi- dence by way of affidavit and has relied upon the follow-
ing documents:
i. Letter dated 06.12.2014 issued to defendant No.1 alongwith MOU and documents of Neelansh CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 13 of 27 M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
(inadvertently mentioned as Nishansh) Fire Protection Systems as associate electrical contractor and willingness certificate is now marked as Mark-D1;
u. Office Copies of the Debit Notes (total three) issued to Neelansh (inadvertently mentioned as Nishansh) Fire Protection Systems is Ex.DW1/2 Colly.; (objected to by the counsel for the plaintiff that since these documents are not prepared by the witness and also these documents are not on record of the court and originals have not been produced so cannot be exhibited) iti. Computerized statement of account maintained by the defendant No.2 alongwith certificate under Section 65- B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex. DW1/3; (objected to by the counsel for the plaintiff that since these documents are not prepared by the witness and also these documents are not on record of the court and originals have not been produced so cannot be exhibited) and iv. Office Copies of credit notes (total two) is Ex.DW1/4 Colly. (objected to by the counsel for the plaintiff that since these documents are not prepared by the witness and also these documents are not on record of the court and originals have not been produced so cannot be exhibited) CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 14 of 27 M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
27. This witness was also cross-examined by Ld. coun- sel for the plaintiff which will be discussed in the later part of the judgment.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS Issue no. 1 (i Whether there ts no privity of contract between the Plaintiff M/s Neelansh Electrotech System Pvt. Ltd. and the defendant (D-2;? (OPD-2)
28. Onus to prove this issue was on the defendants.
29, It is contended by the defendants that there was no privity of contract between the parties as the defendant (D-2) had entered into contract with Neelansh Fire Protec- tion System and not Neelansh Electrotech System Private Ltd, the plaintiff herein, and thus the defendants have no liability of any nature towards Neelansh Electrotech Sys- tem Pvt Ltd.
30. Per Contra, it is contended by counsel for the plain- tiff that earlier the plaintiff company was working under name & style of M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System, a proprietorship concern, which was thereafter incorporated as Neelansh Electrotech Pvt. Ltd., when the agreement to execute the work was executed with the defendant (D-2), and afterwards, tt was converted to Neelansh Electrotech CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 15 of 27 M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
Systems Pvt. Ltd. taking over all its rights & liabilities and assets accordingly.
31. Plaintiff has placed on record the incorporation cer- tificate, the change of name certificate, and the constitution and its acknowledgment by the CPWD.
32. Ex.PWI/4 is the incorporation certificate of the plaintiff company reflecting its change of name from M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System to Neeclansh Electrotech Pvt. Ltd.
33. Ex.PW1/5 is a certificate of incorporation of Nee- lansh Electrotech Systems Pvt. Ltd. Indicating the change of name from Neelansh Electrotech Pvt. Ltd.
34, The factum of change of constitution and the name of the plaintiff firm from M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System to Neelansh Electrotech System Pvt. Ltd. was duly confirmed by CPWD, in terms of their office order 05/2016 dated 27.06.2016 Ex.PW1/6 wherein no objection was also given.
35, It is relevant to note that all these documents are ad- mitted by the defendants. There is no dispute to the said fact.
36. In the case at hand, the Plaintiff (Separate Legal en- tity) proprietorship firm had undergone change in the con- stitution and its name, wherein all the rights and liabilities were taken over from the earlier proprietorship concern CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 16 of 27 M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
and thereafter the company, by the plaintiff herein Le. Neelansh Electrotech System Pvt. Ltd. as is evident from Ex.PW1/6 and the no objection was given by CPWD.
37. It may further be noted that an amendment sought by the plaintiff, in terms of his application U/O VI Rule 17 CPC, was allowed wherein the plaintiff had prayed for amendment to the name and constitution of the plaintiff as it had changed to Neelansh Electrotech System Pvt. Ltd., with no objection from the defendants.
38. Even otherwise, Neelansh Electrotech System Pvt. Ltd. would fall under the beneficiaries of the earlier firm / company whereby entire business was taken over by it un- der the abovesaid change in constitution and name.
39, Further, case of the plamtiff is also covered under the doctrine of estoppel by conduct, acknowledgment and admission by the party / defendants itself.
AQ, It may be noted that defendants had moved an appli- cation for amendment of pleadings/written statement to brought on record the fact that defendants had issued two credit notes to the plaintiff upon receiving subsequent pay- ments from CPWD.
Al. DWI in his deposition has also admitted that the credit notes were issued post arbitral award, and further in his cross-examination that defendants had made payments to the plaintiff in that regard.
CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 17 of 27M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
42. In my view, if there was no privity of contract be- tween the plaintiff and defendant (D-2), there was no rea- son or occasion for him to issue credit notes (Ex.DW1/4) to the plaintiff upon receiving payments from CPWD, when the suit was already pending between the parties and the issue of privity was very much there within the knowl-
edge of the defendants.
43. Further, there are also categorical and specific ad- missions on the part of DW-1, wherein he has admitted not only the relationship between the defendants & plaintiff, as his sub-contractor, but also to the factum of payments made to the plaintiff, and the fact that the plaintiff was yet to submit the final bill and reconcile the statement.
44. Thus, appreciating the documents, the evidence so led by the parties and admissions on the part of the defen- dants, it cannot be said that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendants or that the suit is thereby liable to be dismissed against the defendants.
4S, The issue is accordingly decided against the defen-
dants and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue no. 2
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs,33,44,435/- as asked for in the plaint? (OPP) CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 18 of 27 M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
46. It is case of the plaintiff that defendant (D-2), being the lowest tenderer, was awarded the work by CP WD, and the defendants further engaged the plaintiff company for execution of some component of the said work 1.e.
(i) execution of fire alarm system,
(i) and fire fighting system component The work was duly executed by the plaintiff but the defendants failed to make the payment to the plaintiff.
AT. Plaintiff through PW1 and affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A has proved on record the following documents :
(i) Agreement Ex.PW1/7 entered between the parties, whereby defendant had engaged the services of the plaintiff through erstwhile company / firm, for execution of the work awarded to it by CPWD.
The document is not disputed by the defendants.
(ii) Work order dated 24.01.25 Ex.PW1/10 executed between plaintiff and defendant (D-2), in terms of which para 3, defendant (D-2) was liable to make 83% of the net payment of the each bill made by CPWD to defendants for the work executed by the plaintiff. This document is also admitted by the defendants.
(iii) The work so executed by the plaintiff has also CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 19 of 27 M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
been admitted by the defendants in terms of para 10 of his affidavit of evidence of DW1.
As, Cross-examination of PW1 has primarily been on the aspects which seems to be undisputed qua the claim of the plamtiff to 83% of the contract and its payment subse-
quent to it being received from CPWD.
49. Besides that, PWI was also cross-examined w.r.t. the responsibility of submissions of the bills, deductions & liabilities for damages, and penalty to be that of the plain- tiff company, if any, due to delay or improper execution of work, which he denied that there was no penalty or any other damages levied by CPWD for the work executed by the plaintiff.
50. Whereas, defendants have taken somewhat contra- dictory pleas in their defence to the outstanding claim of the plaintiff.
Si. At one point, it is stated that plaintiff had not sub- mitted the final bill and has not come forward to reconcile his statement of accounts.
52. At some place, it is stated that plaintiff had not exe- cuted the work as per terms & conditions for which the payment has been withheld by CPWD.
CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 20 of 27M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
53. Yet at another, it is stated that defendants are yet to receive the payment from CPWD and therefore, further payment is not made.
54. And interestingly, despite admitting the work order and taking benefit under it from the CPWD, work order is also disputed at some places by the defendants stating it to be forged & fabricated with respect to some terms & con-
ditions.
55. Defendants have examined DW1 Sh. Nitin Sharma (D-3), the partner of the defendant's firm in support of their case.
56. His affidavit of evidence is also stmilar to his written statements wherein besides the contrary pleas, as noted above, defendants have also relied upon some debit notes Ex.DW1/2 (colly.), and copy of two credit notes exinbited as Ex.DW1/4 and computer generated statement of ac-
counts Ex. DW1/3.
57, All these documents were objected by the counsel for the plaintiff as not filed earlier on record nor the per- mission of the court was taken, and moreover, the docu- ments were computer generated and not prepared by the DW 1 himself.
58. DW 1 during his cross-examination admitted the fact that the said documents were not prepared by him, and that CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 21 of 27 M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
the print outs of the same were also taken out by the com-
puter operator.
$9, In the light of the objections & the fact that DW1 was not the person, who had taken out the print outs from the computer, nor is there anything on record to say that he was Incharge of the computer system or maintaining it in due course of busmness, coupled with the fact that these documents were not filed along with the pleadings, nor prior permission was taken, the documents cannot be taken on record and read in evidence.
60. Thus, the objections of the plaintiff's counsel are sustained and the documents Ex.DW1/2, Ex.DW1/3 and Ex.DW1/4 remains not proved and cannot be read into evi-
dence.
61. Debit notes Ex.DW1/2 further remains not proved as to when, if at all, the same were given to the plaintiff.
62. Defendants have further failed to prove the penalty, if any, levied by the CPWD or the deductions, if at all made by CPWD qua the work executed by the plaintiff.
63. During cross-examination, DW1 admits that he has not placed any document to show the deductions, if any, made by CPWD w.r.t. the work executed by the plaintiff, which necessitated the issuance of the said debit notes.
64. Defendants have further contended that an amount of Rs.8,25,000/- has been withheld by CPWD on account CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 22 of 27 M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
of defective and incomplete work by M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System.
65. During cross-examination, DW1 admitted the fac- tum of the said payment to the defendants by CPWD in two tranches in 2020 and 2021.
66. Plaintiff had examined PW2 from CPWD depart- ment and proved on record Ex.DW2/1 ie. final bill sub- mitted by the defendants to the CPWD which included the work executed by the plaintiff.
67. DW 1 during cross-examination, admitted to the en- tries at SI. No. 3 to 4 of Ex.PW2/] and the fact that the gross amount in terms of the said entries, for the work done by the Neelansh Fire Protection System on behalf of defendants was duly paid to it.
68. DW1 further admits his liability to pay 83% of the amount so released by CPWD after making statutory de-
ductions to the plaintiff.
69, Further, it may also be noted that the defendants had filed an arbitration proceedings against CPWD for some claims on behalf of associated agencies including the plaintiff herein.
70. The said award was passed by the Ld. Arbitrator on 16.01.2021, wherein in terms of the claim 09, 27 & 28, 29 and 41, the relief was granted to the defendants / claimant therein, which included the sum w.r.t. the work executed CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 23 of 27 M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
by the plaintiff amongst others, and which the defendants are liable to pay to the plaintiff in proportionate to 83% of the received amount 1.e. Rs.3,15,653/-.
71. During cross-examination, DW1 admitted the fact of the receipt of the award money by the defendants, and ad- mitted their liability va the credit notes to make the afore- said payment of 83% from the said amount to the plaintiff, in terms of a voluntarily statement.
72. DWI also admitted that he had only paid Rs.29,27,660/- to the plaintiff till date. He has also failed to place on record any documents showing deduction of Rs.1,43,323/- as TDS towards the plaintiff's work.
73. Defendants had also contended that the work order dated 24.01.25 was forged and manipulated, whereby plaintiff has changed some clauses to its own benefit and convenience.
7A, But defendants have failed to substantiate any such manipulation of the clauses, if at all, and what all clauses.
75. Suffice to state that the defendants cannot blow hot & cold at the same time. Defendants themselves are rely- ing on the same work order in their defence, and therefore, it does not lie on their part now to state it to be a forged document. Their contentions are frivolous & misleading.
76, Appreciating & analyzing the documents, evidence of the witnesses and the admissions on the part of the de-
CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 24 of 27M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
fendants, it is thus evident that the defendants have paid only a sum of Rs.29,27,660/- to the plaintiff, whereas they had received the entire amount of Rs.4,027,96.34 (AFAS) & Rs.56,91,113.17 (Fire Fighting) in terms of the final bill at serial number 3 and 4 of Ex.PW2/1 submitted by it to the CPWD.
77, Defendants were required to pay 83% to the plain- tiff, in terms of admitted agreement dated 05.12.14 Ex.PW1/7, which the defendants have failed to do so Le.
Rs.17,76,573/-
78, Defendants have also admitted their liability to pay 83% of the amount received by them through the arbitra- tion award i.e. Rs.3,15,653/-.
79, Thus, defendants are thereby jointly & severally li- able to pay a sum of Rs. [17,76,573/- (the balance bill amount) + Rs.1,00,815 (refund of security) + 3,15,653/- (received from Arbitration Award) = 21,93,041].
80, Thus, this issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue no. 3 Quy dn case if the issue no. (11) 1s decided tn affirmative, whether the plaintitf 1s entitled to the interest as asked for in the plaint? If yes, at what rate? (OPP) CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 25 of 27 M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
81. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 18% per annum on the outstanding amount which the defendants failed to make good despite having received from the CPWD.
82. It may be noted that there was no clause in the agreement between the parties w.r.t. interest claimed by the plaintiff, nor any other document or any correspon-
dence in that regard is placed on record by the plaintiff.
83. However, taking note of the transaction between the parties, being commercial in nature, and prevalent rate of interest, the court deems it fit and justifiable to meet the ends of justice to grant interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount Le. Rs.21,93,041/- from date of filing of the suit till its realization.
Issue No. 4 :-
(iv) Relief
84. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the suit is de- creed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly & severally for a sum of Rs.21,93,041/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
85. The plaintiffis also held entitled to cost of the suit.
86. Decree sheet be prepared according.
CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 26 of 27M/s Neelansh Fire Protection System Put. Ltd. Vs. M/s Rama Contractors And Ors.
87. File be consigned to Record Room, after due com- pliance. bigually ANIL Nn aANen, ANTIL jihog"
+0530 Announced in the open Court on (Anil Antil) this 20" day of April, 2026 Distt. Judge, (Comm. Court)-09, Central District, THC : Delhi CS (Comm.) No. 2450/2019 Page 27 of 27