Delhi District Court
Rakesh Kumar Goel vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 17 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL KUMAR SISODIA DISTRICT
JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-04, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLCT010161222025
CS (Comm.) No. 1118/2025
M/S RAKESH KUMAR GOEL
Through its partner,
Rakesh Kumar Goel,
140, Vivekanand Puri, Sarai Rohilla,
New Delhi-110007
... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner,
Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PROJECT) ROHINI ZONE
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
2nd Floor, Sub Zonal Office Building,
Sector-17, Rohini, Delhi-110085
.... Defendants
Date of e-filing of the suit : 18.10.2025
Date of reserving judgment : 24.03.2026
Date of judgment : 17.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 61,27,526/- (Rupees Sixty One Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date:
SISODIA 2026.04.17 15:28:42 +0530 CS (COMM) NO. 1118/25 Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Page No. 1 of 20 Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Six Only) along with pendente lite and future interest against the defendants.
2. The facts of the case as stated in the plaint are that plaintiff is a duly registered partnership firm and Rakesh Kumar Goel is one of the partner of the plaintiff firm. The firm is duly enrolled as Municipal contractor with the defendants. It is averred in the plaint that the defendant no. 1 i.e., MCD is a body corporate of State of Delhi. The defendants are engaged in taking care of all the civil amenities, developments etc. The work order No. 07 dated 29.06.2020 for the nature of work as "Construction of Mother and Child Welfare Centre at B-Block Sultanpuri, Ward No.47 N in Rohini Zone was awarded to the plaintiff by the defendant no. 1.
3. After award of the said work order, the plaintiff made all necessary arrangements for the execution and completion of the awarded work order and completed the said work order in question on 08.06.2022 to the satisfaction of defendant no. 2 without any negative remarks.
4. It is stated that as per the agreement, the work was supposed to be completed on/before 28.09.2021 but there was a delay in the completion of work as the same got completed by the plaintiff on 08.06.2022. The said delay was not on the part of plaintiff as there were many reasons for delay like Covid-19 pandemic, change of layout due to coming of trunk sewer line during the execution of work etc. It is stated that on account of delay in completion of work, the plaintiff has already received the provisional extension of time from the defendant no.2 as per letter dated 10.09.2021 and 25.07.2022 which clearly shows that there was no fault on the part of the plaintiff contractor. ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR SISODIA KUMAR Date:
SISODIA 2026.04.17 15:28:50 +0530 CS (COMM) NO. 1118/25 Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Page No. 2 of 20
5. It is stated that in the month of September 2023, the defendant no.2 invited the tender through NIT for the nature of work as "P/F of Partition by Aluminum work and development of Open space etc. at M&CW Centre at B Block, Sultanpuri at Ward no.43 (old 47N) in Rohini Zone" and the said work was allotted to the agency named as 'Ishwar Singh'. It is stated that by inviting the said tender at the same site clearly is an admission on the part of defendant no.2 that the previous civil as well as Electrical work has been completed by the plaintiff.
6. It is averred that defendant no. 2 had completed the final measurement of the aforesaid works orders and recorded in the measurement books and same was accepted by the plaintiff. On the basis of measurement books, the defendant no. 2 prepared and passed the 1 st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th Running bills for the civil work and 1st Running bill for the Electrical work which were duly accepted by the plaintiff. But till date the defendant no.2 has not prepared and passed the withheld amount bill for both civil and electrical work, final bill for civil work and 10CA & 10C bills even after the submission of bills by the plaintiff as per clause 9 of GCC. It is stated that the plaintiff had also deposited the security/earnest money towards the said work. The details of amount of running bills passed by the defendants as well as the bills of civil & Electrical, 10CA & 10C bills submitted by the plaintiff, security/Earnest money and date of passing of bills for the work in question are as under:
S. No. Work order No. Amount of bills Date of Amount of 07 submitted by passing of security/Earnest contractor in bill by the deposit in Rs.
Rs. defendant
Digitally
signed by
ANIL
ANIL KUMAR
KUMAR SISODIA
Date:
SISODIA 2026.04.17
15:28:56
CS (COMM) NO. 1118/25 Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Page No. 3 of 20 +0530
1. 1st Running Bill 24,30,590.00 25.02.2021 -
Withheld amount 50,000.00 - -
2. 2nd Running Bill 9,29,142.00 30.07.2021 -
Withheld amount 25,000.00 - -
3 3rd Running bill 57,74,743.00 31.03.2022 -
4 4th Running bill 27,17,779.00 05.09.2022 13,44,777.00
Withheld amount 50,000.00 - -
5 5th & Final bill 69,428.00 - -
6 1st Running bill 11,24,481.00 23.09.2025 1,23,299.00
(Electrical)
Withheld amount 1,45,492.00 - -
7 10CA Bill 10,52,304.00 - -
8 10 C Bill 3,92,023.00 - -
Total 1,47,60,982.00 14,68,076.00
Grand Total of passed 1,47,60,982.00 + 14,68,076.00 = 1,62,29,058.00 bills and security amounts
7. It is submitted that the defendants have already released the First, Second, Third and Fourth Running bill amount of Rs.24,30,590/-., Rs.9,29,142/-, Rs. 57,74,743/- and Rs.27,17,779/- respectively in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the above said work order in question. But the remaining bill amount of Rs. 43,76,804/- have not been released by the defendant till date. The details of balance outstanding amount are as under:-
S.No. Work Order no.07 Unpaid amount or amount not released by the defendants in Rs.
1 Withheld amount in 1st Running Bill 50,000.00 (Civil) 2 Withheld amount in 2nd Running Bill 25,000.00 (Civil) 3 Withheld amount in 4th Running Bill 50,000.00 (Civil) Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA CS (COMM) NO. 1118/25 Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Page No. 4 of 20 SISODIA Date:
2026.04.17 15:29:03 +0530 4 Security/Earnest money in 4th 13,44,777.00 Running bill (Civil) 5 5th & Final bill (Civil) 69,428.00 st 6 1 Running bill (Electrical) 11,24,481.00 7 Withheld amount in 1st Running bill 1,45,492.00 (Electrical) 8 Security/Earnest money in 1st 1,23,299.00 Running bill (Electrical) 9 10 CA bill 10,52,304.00 10 10 C bill 3,92,023.00 Total outstanding amount not released till 43,76,804.00 date
8. It is stated that as per clause-9 of GCC, the plaintiff has also submitted the bills of the Civil & Electrical work, 10CA and 10C vide letter dated 21.10.2024 upon the defendant no.2.
9. It is averred that despite passing of aforesaid electrical bill and/or submission of final bills by the plaintiff, neither the aforesaid remaining payments was released to the plaintiff nor he was informed about the reason for withholding the aforesaid outstanding amount. The plaintiff made several requests for release of the balance amount vide letters dated 07.04.2025 and 21.04.2025 upon the defendants but no heed was paid to the request of the plaintiff. It is stated that since the aforesaid amount of Rs.43,76,804/- is an admitted amount and the plaintiff also did not raise any objection, the defendants were under obligation to release the aforesaid balance amount to the plaintiff within the aforesaid period as laid down in clause-9 or within the reasonable time but the defendants have failed to release the payment till date. Thereafter the plaintiff had sent a legal notice dated 06.05.2025 upon the defendants to release the outstanding amount along with interest @ 12% P.A. i.e. within 60 days from the receipt of notice.
Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA SISODIA Date:
CS (COMM) NO. 1118/25 Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Page No. 5 of 20 2026.04.17 15:29:10 +0530
10. Despite service of notice, the defendants had failed to make the payment. Therefore the plaintiff is claiming interest @ 12% per annum from the date of completion of work i.e. 08.06.2022 till realization. The amount of interest on the aforesaid outstanding amount of Rs. 43,76,804/-
comes to Rs. 17,50,722/- from 08.06.2022 to 13.10.2025. Therefore, the total suit amount including the principal and interest comes to Rs. 61,27,526/-. Finding no other alternative, plaintiff has filed the present suit.
11. The defendants were duly served with the summons of the suit. Defendants have contested the suit by filing the written statement. Defendants have raised preliminary objections that the present suit is not maintainable in law as well as on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limine. The plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has concealed material facts, including his own breaches of the contractual obligation which disentitles him to any equitable or legal relief.
12. It is stated that Work Order no.07 dated 29.06.2020 was bifurcated into two distinct components, namely (i) Civil works amounting to Rs. 1,35,67,198/- and (ii) electrical works amounting to Rs. 14,68,341/-. It is submitted that the entire work under the said work order was duly completed on 22.07.2025 after a delay of approximately 1394 days. The plaintiff has incorrectly stated the date of completion in his pleadings, whereas the actual date of completion is 22.07.2025. It was stated that plaintiff himself as annexed first running bill pertaining to electrical component of the work order as Annexure P-13 (colly) which shows that the work was infact completed on 22.07.2025 and the said document also Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR SISODIA CS (COMM) NO. 1118/25 Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Page No. 6 of 20 KUMAR Date:
SISODIA 2026.04.17
15:29:16
+0530
bears the signature of the plaintiff. It was further stated that a total sum of Rs. 1,18,52,254/- was assessed as payable and the said amount had already been released to the plaintiff from 31.03.2021 to 20.03.2023. It was further submitted that the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- along with security deposit amount of Rs. 13,44,777/- had been validly withheld by the defendant Corporation from civil work bills paid sofar in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and CPWD/MCD works manual. The plaintiff was granted extension only upto 30.09.2022 but plaintiff failed to complete the work within the stipulated period of time and had committed breach of the terms of the contract. It was further stated that plaintiff did not apply for any extension of time and has unlawfully sought to submit claims under 10CA and 10C for approval. It was reiterated that entire delay in execution of work was attributable to the plaintiff's firm and in the absence of any valid or approved extension of time, plaintiff is not legally entitled to claim these bills under clause 10CA and 10C. It was further stated that plaintiff has also failed to submit essential documents such as statutory clearances, tax related certificates, no dues certificate/affidavit and other compliance documents without which plaintiff is not entitled for any amount. The plaintiff also failed to submit final bills in the prescribed format to the concerned office of MCD and can not seek interest on delayed payments as delay is on account of his failure to fulfill statutory obligations. The plaintiff has not complied with the mandatory provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in as much as no valid invoice, voucher or statutory undertaking has been placed on record to substantiate his claims.
On merits, the defendants have not disputed the award of work to the plaintiff but it has been reiterated that plaintiff has failed to complete the work within the stipulated period. Other contents of the plaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the suit.
Digitally
signed by
ANIL
ANIL KUMAR
KUMAR SISODIA
CS (COMM) NO. 1118/25 Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Page No. 7 of 20 SISODIA Date:
2026.04.17 15:29:23 +0530
13. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 07.01.2026: -
1. Whether the suit is pre mature as plaintiff has not submitted the GST paid invoices of the entire suit amount?(OPD)
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount of Rs.61,27,526/- as prayed for? (OPP)
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the pendente lite and future interest on the principal amount of Rs.43,76,804/-, if so, at what rate and for which period?(OPP)
4. Relief.
14. The plaintiff examined Sh. Rakesh Kumar Goel, Partner of plaintiff as PW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A and proved the following documents: -
Sr. Documents Exhibits
No.
1 Copy of partnership deed Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR)
2 Copy of form A Ex. PW-1/2 (OSR)
3 Copy of form B Ex. PW-1/3 (OSR)
4 Copy of registration certificate Ex. PW-1/4 (OSR)
5 Copy of GST registration certificate Ex. PW-1/5
6 Work Order bearing no. 07 dated Ex. PW-1/6
29.06.2020 awarded to plaintiff
7 Copy of letter dated 07.04.2025 Ex. PW-1/7 (OSR)
Digitally
signed by
ANIL
ANIL KUMAR
KUMAR SISODIA
CS (COMM) NO. 1118/25 Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Page No. 8 of 20 SISODIA Date:
2026.04.17
15:29:30
+0530
8 Copy of letter dated 21.04.2025 Ex. PW-1/8 (OSR)
9 Copy of provisional extension of time Ex. PW-1/9
letter dated 10.09.2021 issued from office of defendant no. 2 to the plaintiff 10 Copy of provisional extension of time Ex. PW-1/10 letter dated 25.07.2022 issued from office of defendant no. 2 to the plaintiff 11 Copy of NIT and work order awarded Ex. PW-1/11 (colly) to the agency named Ishwar Singh by defendant no. 2 12 Copy of 1st running bill (civil work) Ex. PW-1/12 passed on 25.02.2021 13 Copy of 2nd running bill (civil work) Ex. PW-1/13 passed on 30.07.2021 14 Copy of 3rd running bill (civil work) Ex. PW-1/14 passed on 31.03.2022 15 Copy of 4th running bill (civil work) Ex. PW-1/15 passed on 05.09.2022 16 Copy of 1st running (electrical work) Ex. PW-1/16 (colly) along with measurement book passed on 23.09.2025 17 Copy of civil & electrical bill Ex. PW-1/17 (colly) submitted by plaintiff (OSR) 18 Copy of 10 CA & 10 C bill submitted Ex. PW-1/18 (colly) by plaintiff vide letters dated (OSR) 21.10.2024 19 Copy of Schedule F and all the cement Ex. PW-1/19 (colly) & steel 20 Copy of letter dated 08.10.2025 along Ex. PW-1/20 (colly) with tax invoices for the work in (OSR) question 21 Copy of reminder letter dated Ex. PW-1/21 (OSR) 07.04.2025 submitted by plaintiff 22 Copy of reminder letter dated Ex. PW-1/22 (OSR) 21.04.2025 submitted by plaintiff 23 Copy of General Conditions of Ex. PW-1/23 Contract (GCC) as drafted by defendant 24 Copy of legal notice dated 06.05.2025 Ex. PW-1/24 along with postal receipt 25 Copy of Non Starter Report Ex. PW-1/25 26 Copy of hindrance register Ex. PW-1/26 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA CS (COMM) NO. 1118/25 Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Page No. 9 of 20 SISODIA Date:
2026.04.17 15:29:36 +0530 PW-1 was cross-examined by counsel for the defendants and thereafter, PE was closed.
15. Defendants examined Sh. Bhavya Jain, AE Electrical, Rohini Zone, MCD as DW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex DW1/A. Defendants also examined Sh. Sethi Lal Meena, Asst.
Engineer, Project, Rohini Zone, MCD as DW-2, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.DW-2/A. DW-1 and DW-2 were cross examined by counsel for plaintiff and thereafter, DE was closed.
16. I have heard Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Ld. Counsel for defendant and have also perused the record.
Issue wise findings are as under: -
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the suit is pre mature as plaintiff has not submitted the GST paid invoices of the entire suit amount?(OPD)
17. The onus to prove this issue was cast on the defendants. Counsel for the defendants has argued that Defendants in the WS has taken an objection that plaintiff has failed to prepare and submit the final bills in accordance with clause 9 of GCC and the judgments passed by the Hon'ble High Court.
18. Per contra, counsel for the plaintiff has argued that plaintiff has filed on record the bills passed by the defendant department which have not been disputed by the defendants. The plaintiff has further filed 10CA Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR SISODIA KUMAR Date:
CS (COMM) NO. 1118/25 Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Page No. 10 of 20 SISODIA 2026.04.17 15:29:44 +0530 and 10C bills along with copy of schedule F which have also not been disputed by the defendant. It is submitted that plaintiff further filed the GST invoices which have been duly exhibited by PW-1. He argued that once the defendant has accepted and passed the running bills and payments have been made, it shows that defendant had accepted the work done by the plaintiff and it cannot be said that the suit of the plaintiff is pre-mature. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Barahi Construction RFA (COMM) 6/2021 (Neutral citation: 2021/DHC/958-D) and Mr. Rajnish Yadav proprietor of M/s. Bharat Construction Company Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, RFA (OS) (COMM) 1/2021 (Neutral citation: 2023/DHC/000174) to argue that once the defendants had accepted the execution of the work by the plaintiff, the defendants were under the liability to pay the amount to the plaintiff and the mere fact that plaintiff has not sought extension of time for completion of work, cannot be a ground to deny the payment as MCD had not raised any claim on account of alleged delay in completion of works.
19. Perusal of clause 7 of GCC shows that in the event of failure of the contractor to submit the bills, Engineer-in-Charge shall prepare or cause to be prepared such bills in which event no claims whatsoever due to delays on payment including that of interest shall be payable to the contractor. This clearly shows that non submission of the interim or final bills cannot be a ground to deny the payment to the contractor where the work has been completed by the contractor. In such cases, the contractor cannot claim interest for the delayed payments.
In the present case, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff had completed the work orders. Although there has been a delay in completing the work order but defendant itself had given provisional Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA CS (COMM) NO. 1118/25 Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Page No. 11 of 20 SISODIA Date:
2026.04.17 15:29:53 +0530 extension of time to the plaintiff. It is also pertinent to note here that in the affidavit of admission denial of documents filed by the defendants, defendants have admitted the copies of running bills as well as the bills submitted by the plaintiff including GST invoices submitted in the office of defendant no.2 vide letter dated 08.10.2025.
20. Perusal of testimony of DW-1 Bhavya Jain as well as DW-2 Sethi Lal Meena would show that the plaintiff has completed the work as per NIT. DW-2 also admitted that plaintiff had submitted the final bill Ex.PW-1/18 in respect of civil work and 10CA and 10C bill Ex.PW-1/18 in respect of civil work besides tax invoices Ex.PW-1/20 in respect of material used.
21. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the considered opinion that defendants have failed to discharge the onus cast on it. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO. 2:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount of Rs. 61,27,526/- as prayed for? (OPP)
22. The onus to prove this issue has been cast on the plaintiff. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 43,76,804/- towards the withheld amount against the running bills passed by the defendants besides security/earnest money in the 4 th running bill (civil) and 1st running bill (electrical). The plaintiff has also claimed 10CA and 10C bill submitted to the defendants. The details of the bills submitted by the plaintiff as mentioned in para 8 of the plaint is as under:-
Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR SISODIA KUMAR Date:
CS (COMM) NO. 1118/25 Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Page No. 12 of 20 SISODIA 2026.04.17 15:30:01 +0530 S. No. Work order No. Amount of bills Date of Amount of 07 submitted by passing of security/Earnest contractor in bill by the deposit in Rs.
Rs. defendant
1. 1st Running Bill 24,30,590.00 25.02.2021 -
Withheld amount 50,000.00 - -
2. 2nd Running Bill 9,29,142.00 30.07.2021 -
Withheld amount 25,000.00 - -
3 3rd Running bill 57,74,743.00 31.03.2022 -
4 4th Running bill 27,17,779.00 05.09.2022 13,44,777.00
Withheld amount 50,000.00 - -
5 5th & Final bill 69,428.00 - -
6 1st Running bill 11,24,481.00 23.09.2025 1,23,299.00
(Electrical)
Withheld amount 1,45,492.00 - -
7 10CA Bill 10,52,304.00 - -
8 10 C Bill 3,92,023.00 - -
Total 1,47,60,982.00 14,68,076.00
Grand Total of passed 1,47,60,982.00 + 14,68,076.00 = 1,62,29,058.00 bills and security amounts
23. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the defendants released certain amounts against first to fourth running bill (civil) in favour of the plaintiff but remaining amount of Rs. 43,76,804/- was not released by the defendants. The details of the outstanding amount were tabulated in para 9 of the plaint as under:-
S.No. Work Order no.07 Unpaid amount or amount not released by the defendants in Rs.
1 Withheld amount in 1st Running Bill 50,000.00 (Civil) Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA SISODIA Date:
CS (COMM) NO. 1118/25 Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Page No. 13 of 20 2026.04.17 15:30:10 +0530 2 Withheld amount in 2nd Running Bill 25,000.00 (Civil) 3 Withheld amount in 4th Running Bill 50,000.00 (Civil) 4 Security/Earnest money in 4th 13,44,777.00 Running bill (Civil) 5 5th & Final bill (Civil) 69,428.00 6 1st Running bill (Electrical) 11,24,481.00 7 Withheld amount in 1st Running bill 1,45,492.00 (Electrical) 8 Security/Earnest money in 1st 1,23,299.00 Running bill (Electrical) 9 10 CA bill 10,52,304.00 10 10 C bill 3,92,023.00 Total outstanding amount not released till 43,76,804.00 date
24. Counsel for the plaintiff further argued that the defendants in their WS have not disputed the passing of the running bills for electrical and civil work and withholding of security deposits. It was also argued that in the affidavit of admission denial documents filed by the defendants, defendants have admitted the bills supplied by the plaintiff to the defendants against the work done by the plaintiff. It was argued that once the plaintiff has completed the work, there is no reason to withhold the amount due to the plaintiff.
25. Per contra, counsel for the defendants has argued that the plaintiff delayed the completion of work and the work regarding the electrical part was completed only in the year 2025. He argued that no extension was sought by the plaintiff for completion of electrical work and only provisional extension for 338 days was granted in respect of the civil work. He argued that PW-1 in his cross examination admitted that the work order was divided into two parts i.e. civil and electrical. He also Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA CS (COMM) NO. 1118/25 Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Page No. 14 of 20 SISODIA Date:
2026.04.17 15:30:18 +0530 admitted that the entire work including civil and electrical was completed on 22.07.2025, whereas the stipulated time for completion of work was 15 months as per the work order Ex.PW-1/6. It was argued that the 4 th running bill Ex.PW-1/15 shows that work was in progress and this bill was duly accepted by the plaintiff. Similarly, the first and final electrical bill Ex.PW-1/16 shows that the actual date of completion of work was 22.07.2025. He argued that in the absence of extension of time being sought and granted by the plaintiff, the entire delay in execution of work is attributable to the plaintiff firm and plaintiff is not entitled to claim any benefit under clause 10 CA and 10C of the agreement and there is no question for the defendant corporation to process or approve the plaintiff's claim.
26. Perusal of clause 10CA provides for payment due to increase/decrease in the prices of cement and steel reinforcement bars after receipt of the tender. However, such variations have to be effected for stipulated period of contract including the justified period extended under the provisions of clause 5 of the contract without action under clause 2.
27. In the present case, from the perusal of the documents and evidence on record, it is evident that plaintiff has filed 10CA and 10C bills for payment vide letter Ex.PW-1/18 (colly). Perusal of the bills would show that the same pertain to the civil part of the work order. It is also pertinent to note here that DW-2 has admitted in his cross examination that provisional extension of time was granted up to 30.09.2022 by the defendants. Further defendants have failed to place on record any show cause notice issued to the plaintiff or penalty imposed upon the plaintiff for causing the delay in execution of the work. Therefore, defendants Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA CS (COMM) NO. 1118/25 Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Page No. 15 of 20 SISODIA Date:
2026.04.17 15:30:25 +0530 have impliedly acquiesced to the delay in the execution of the work done by the plaintiff and deemed to have condoned the same and now defendants cannot be permitted to withhold 10CA and 10C bills when the said bills have been admitted by the defendants in their affidavit of admission denial of documents.
28. Similarly, once both DW-1 and DW-2 have admitted that plaintiff has completed the civil and electrical part of the work order, there is no reason as to why the defendant should not release the withheld amount of Rs. 29,08,728/- against the running bills as detailed hereinabove.
29. As regards the release of security deposit, there is no labour complaint pending against the plaintiff nor there is any evidence that the work done by the defendant was unsatisfactory or that it was not up to the mark. Hence, the plaintiff is also entitled for the release of security amount of Rs. 14,68,076/-.
30. The plaintiff has further claimed interest @ 12% per annum from the date of completion of work i.e. from 08.06.2022 till realization on the sum of Rs. 43,76,804/- amounting to Rs. 17,50,722/- from 08.06.2022 to 13.10.2025 on the ground that the entire work was completed on 08.06.2022. However, from the admissions made by PW-1 in his cross examination, it is clear that work order no. 7 Ex.PW-1/6 consisted of two parts i.e. electrical work and civil work. PW-1 further admitted that the civil work was completed on 22.06.2022 but the electrical work was completed only on 22.07.2025. Therefore, it cannot be said that the entire work of work order no. 7 was completed on 22.06.2022. The work order will be considered to be completed only when both the parts of the work order have been completed. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff for Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA CS (COMM) NO. 1118/25 Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Page No. 16 of 20 SISODIA Date:
2026.04.17 15:30:32 +0530 interest from 08.06.2022 till 13.10.2025 is misconceived and is accordingly declined.
31. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has discharged the onus cast on it and plaintiff is held entitled for recovery of Rs. 43,76,804/- from the defendants. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.ISSUE NO. 3
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the pendente lite and future interest on the principal amount of Rs. 43,76,804/-, if so, at what rate and for which period?(OPP)
32. The onus to prove this issue has been cast on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs. 43,76,804/-. It has been argued on behalf of the defendants that in terms of circular no. D/EE(P)-III/27/2006-07 dated 19.05.2006 as mentioned in clause 9 (as amended from time to time) of the General Conditions, there is no such provision for interest and as such the claim of interest is unwarranted.
33. I do not find any strength in the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the defendants. In the case of Varinder Jeet Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr., 2013 (134) DRJ 284, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli interalia held that :-
"15. It is settled law that if a person is deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled, he has a right to be monetarily Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA CS (COMM) NO. 1118/25 Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Page No. 17 of 20 SISODIA Date:
2026.04.17 15:30:40 +0530 compensated for the said deprivation. [Ref: (1992) 1 SCC 508: Secretary, Irrigation Deptt.
Govt. of Orissa v. G.C. Roy; (2004) 5 SCC 65 :
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, and (2009) 8 SCC 507 : Sri Venkateswara Syndicate v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.] The object behind awarding interest to a party, who has suffered loss, due to a legitimate deprivation of the enjoyment of the use of money that he was entitled to rightfully, is to balance the equities and while doing so, the facts involved in each case must be examined by the Court.
16. The statutory provisions with regard to payment of interest are laid down in Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978, that provides that in any proceedings for the recovery of any debt or damages or in any proceedings in which a claim for interest in respect of any debt or damages already paid is made, the court may, if it thinks fit, allow interest to the person entitled to the debt or damages or to the person making such claim, as the case may be, at a rate not exceeding the current rate of interest, if the proceedings do not relate to a debt payable by virtue of a written instrument at a certain time, from the date mentioned in this regard in a written notice given by the person entitled or the person making the claim to the person liable, then interest will be claimed, till the date of institution of the proceedings."
34. Reliance is also placed upon the case of NDMC & Others Vs. Shish Pal MANU/DE/1200/2018 wherein it was observed,
45. In the present case, the combined effect of the Clauses and the Circular and amendments, set out above, is that if the Corporation does not procure funds, it is not liable to even pay the Contractor any interest and the Contractor has no remedy. This by itself would mean that such a Clause could be read as leading to a contract without Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR SISODIA KUMAR Date:
CS (COMM) NO. 1118/25 Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Page No. 18 of 20 SISODIA 2026.04.17 15:30:47 +0530 consideration and hence unlawful under Section 23 of the Contract Act. The Corporation being an instrumentality of State, such a contract would also be opposed to public policy under Section 23 of the Contract Act. Section 46 of the Contract Act is also clear that if no time for performance of a contract is specified, it has to be performed within a reasonable time. Reading these provisions together, it is clear that an open ended Clause which in effect says that the payment shall be made at an undetermined time in the future, subject to availability of funds, in a particular head of accounts is wholly unreasonable and such a term would also be unfair.....
71. A conjoint reading of Clauses 7 & 9 along with the amendment dated 19th May, 2006, clearly shows that for the payment of bills, the Contractors have to follow the queue basis and as and when the amount is available under the particular head of account, the amount would be payable. The amendment does not, however, have a condition that no interest is payable for delayed payment. Such a condition exists only in Clause 7.
Clause 9, therefore, when read with the amendment has to mean that the Corporation itself considers 6 months and 9 months to be the reasonable periods for which the payments of the final bills can be held back. Obviously, therefore, if payments are made, whether on a queue basis or otherwise, beyond the period of 6 months and 9 months, interest is payable.
72. In view of the question of interest having been gone into detail and non-payment having been held to be illegal by various Single Judges of this Court, in cases involving the Corporations, it is held that non-payment of interest beyond the period of 6 months and 9 months, as stipulated in Clause 9 of the General Conditions of Contract, would be contrary to law. Hence, the Contractors are entitled for payment of interest after a period of 6 months - 9 months respectively.
Digitally
signed by
ANIL ANIL KUMAR
SISODIA
CS (COMM) NO. 1118/25 Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Page No. 19 of 20 KUMAR Date:
SISODIA 2026.04.17
15:31:02
+0530
35. The award of interest is discretionary as the contract nowhere mentions about the rate of interest, each case has to be adjudged on its own merit.
36. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the interest of justice would be subserved if the plaintiff is awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.43,76,804/- from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. Issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Relief
37. In view of my findings on the issues hereinabove, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. A decree of Rs.43,76,804/- is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The plaintiff shall also be entitled for simple interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing of suit till its realization. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to the cost of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. ANIL by ANIL KUMAR Digitally signed SISODIA KUMAR Date:
SISODIA 2026.04.17 15:31:08 +0530 (ANIL KUMAR SISODIA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-04 Central/Delhi Announced in open court on 17.04.2026 CS (COMM) NO. 1118/25 Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Page No. 20 of 20