Delhi District Court
Metalman Auto Ltd vs Shri Ram Mehar Prop. M/S Neeraj ... on 14 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR:
DISTRICT JUDGE, (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01,
DWARKA COURTS (S/W): DELHI.
CS (COMM) NO. 263/2021
ID No. DLSW01-009692-2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
Metalman Auto Limited
First Floor, JMK Tower, NH-8,
44/5, Kapashera, Delhi-Gurugram Border,
New Delhi-110027 ...........PLAINTIFF
Versus
Ram Mehar
Proprietor M/s Neeraj Enterprises,
A-35, Jain Park, Main Matiala Road,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi - 110059 ...........DEFENDANT
AND
CS (COMM) NO. 363/2021
ID No. DLSW01-012631-2021
Ram Mehar (Proprietor)
M/s Neeraj Enterprises
Registered Office at
A-35, Jain Park,
Main Matiala Road,
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi - 110055
Mob: 9212779988
Email: [email protected] ...........PLAINTIFF
Digitally
signed by
RAJ
RAJ KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.08.14
15:45:08
+0530
Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 1 of 47
CS (Comm) No. 263/2021
Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021
Versus
M/s Metal Man Industrial Pvt. Ltd.
Having its office at:
1st Floor, JMK Tower,
NH-8, 44/5, Kapashera Border
New Delhi-110037
Through its Director / CEO ...........DEFENDANT
Date of Institution (Suit No. 263/2021) : 06.10.2021
Date of Institution (Suit No. 363/2021) : 17.12.2021
Date when the case reserved
for Judgment : 28.07.2025
Date of Judgment : 14.08.2025
JUDGMENT
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF
1. Vide this common judgment, I shall dispose off the suit bearing no. 263/2021 titled as Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar, Proprietor of M/s Neeraj Enterprises and suit bearing no. 363/2021 titled as Ram Mehar, Proprietor of M/s Neeraj Enterprises Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd. as the factual gamut, issues involved and the evidence led by the parties is verbatim the same in both the suits.
2. The facts in brief, necessary for the disposal of the suit bearing no. 263/2021 for recovery of the amount of Rs.77,59,621/- together with the interest @ 12% per annum, as disclosed by the plaintiff in the plaint are that the plaintiff Metalman Auto Ltd. is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at - JMK Tower, First floor, RAJ NH-8, 44/5, Kapashera, Delhi-Gurugram Border, New Delhi. It KUMAR Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 2 of 47 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Date: 2025.08.14 15:45:17 +0530 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021has been further stated that the plaintiff Metalman Auto Ltd. is engaged in the manufacturing of Sheet Metal and Tubular Fabricated Assemblies and Sub-Assemblies with in house Surface Treatment Facilities such as Ni-Cr Plating, Cataphoresis Electrolysis Deposition (CED) Painting, Epoxy Powder Coating & Phosphating. It has been further stated that the plaintiff acts as a one stop shop for all fabrication needs and is currently catering to Global Automotive Companies, Heavy Fabrication & Construction Equipment Industry, Off Road Vehicles & White Goods Industry. It has been further stated that all the plants of the plaintiff are ISO-TS 16949:2009 Certified which means supplying of defect free parts at a competitive price and at right time is mandatory.
3. The plaintiff Metalman Auto Ltd., in the plaint, has asserted that Dr. Ajay Dubey, is its authorized signatory and General Manager - Finance of the plaintiff, who has instituted, signed, verified the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff vide resolution dated 10.12.2019 passed by the plaintiff in his favour.
4. As per the plaintiff Metalman Auto Ltd., the defendant Ram Mehar is the proprietor of M/s Neeraj Enterprises and is engaged in the manufacturing and export of Roll Framing Machines for Wheel Rim and Fender Sheet, Cold Rolling Machine, Hydraulic Presses, Construction Machines and SPMs RAJ etc. KUMAR Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 15:45:24 +0530 Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 3 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/20215. The plaintiff Metalman Auto Ltd., in the plaint, has further stated that Letter of Intent dated 26.09.2017 was issued to the plaintiff by one of its client namely Royal Enfield, whereby, the plaintiff was nominated as the Strategic Supply Partner to undertake the development and supply of various parts mentioned in the LOI. The plaintiff shared the drawings for Mudguard Mill Quotation & Feasibility in October, 2017 with the defendant and accordingly, the defendant gave the quotations to the plaintiff on 18.10.2017. In pursuance to the same, the plaintiff Metalman Auto Ltd. issued the purchase order bearing no. PRORD/1718/002646 dated 07.02.2018 to the defendant Ram Mehar, Proprietor of M/s Neeraj Enterprises, for carrying out the work specified therein at a value of Rs. 36 lacs and the purchase order was duly accepted by the defendant. It has been further stated that the work, as mentioned in the purchase order, was to be completed within the stipulated time limit of four months i.e. on or before 06.06.2018 and the time period was to be reckoned from the date of acceptance of the said purchase order.
6. It has been further stated by the plaintiff Metalman Auto Ltd. in the plaint that as per the terms and conditions of the Purchase Order, 30% payment was to be paid in advance by the plaintiff to the defendant; 60% was to be paid against the Performa Invoice and the rest 10% was to be paid after successfull commissioning. The date of providing the first sample of the Mudguard was 30.03.2018 - 200 samples each; the date of providing tooled-up samples was 20.04.2018 - 200 samples each RAJ and the machinery was required to be ready for final trial and KUMAR Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 4 of 47 Digitally signed CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd. 15:45:31 +0530 CS (Comm) No. 363/2021 dispatch of the machinery was to be done by 08.05.2018, as per the terms and conditions of the Purchase Order. The installation and commissioning at the Plant/Site of the defendant situated at Chennai and Hosur was to be done by the plaintiff. As per the case of the plaintiff, the defendant had undertaken that he would provide the Material Test Certificate (MTC), Roller D3, Internal Inspection Report (IIR) before the supply of the machinery. Successful onsite trial for about 8 hours of continuous production for each part in auto mode was also to be carried out by the defendant. It was also agreed by the defendant that all the parts were to be as per 2D / 3D drawings and inspection method was to be CMM / Profile Projector / Conventional Instruments / Scanning / Gauges. The plaintiff has further stated that the defendant had also agreed to the training of people onsite for E.G. Programming Production, Machine Running and Maintenance etc.
7. The plaintiff Metalman Auto Ltd. has further stated it paid an advance of Rs.10.80 lacs on 16.02.2018 to the defendant Ram Mehar, Proprietor of M/s Neeraj Enterprises and further payment was to be done as per the terms and conditions of the Purchase Order. The plaintiff has alleged that however, the defendant, on his own, changed the sample finalization date from 30.03.2018 to 24.04.2018 and the dispatch date of the machine from 08.05.2018 to 30.06.2018, while sending an email dated 06.03.2018, wherein, RAJ micro plan for delivery was disclosed. The plaintiff has further KUMAR alleged that the defendant kept on delaying the matter despite the Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 15:45:41 +0530 continuous follow-up by the plaintiff and further extended the date of sample finalization from 24.04.2018 to 25.06.2018 and this fact Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 5 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021was recorded in the Minutes of Meeting (MOM) dated 01.06.2018. It has been further stated that an email dated 29.06.2018 was duly sent by the plaintiff to the defendant, wherein, the aforesaid MoM was duly attached, categorically informing the defendant that he had failed to submit the required samples in terms of the Purchase Order and the drawings till date.
8. The plaintiff Metalman Auto Ltd., in the plaint, has further alleged that the defendant Ram Mehar, Proprietor of M/s Neeraj Enterprises, is solely responsible for the delay because the design of the machine was faulty and was unable to meet the Mudguard Rolling drawings requirements. It has been alleged that there had been continuous failures in terms of cracks and breakages of Rollers, Bearings and Shafts etc, which led to the re-work and re- design of the machine by the defendant, multiple times. It has been alleged that however, the defendant failed to produce the desired results and ultimately on 18.09.2018, the defendant had sent an email to make the arrangments for picking up of part of the machine. The plaintiff replied vide email dated 19.09.2018, categorically mentioning therein that accuracy of the part of the machine was to be improved. It was also informed that Royal Enfield, the client of the plaintiff, was continuously following for the same.
9. The plaintiff Metalman Auto Ltd., in the plaint, has further RAJ stated that despite the receipt of the advance payment of 30%, KUMAR Digitally signed defendant Ram Mehar, Proprietor of M/s Neeraj Enterprises, kept by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 15:45:50 +0530 on demanding more money and the plaintiff was constrained to Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 6 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021pay Rs. 1,65,300/- on 20.03.2018; Rs. 4,29,780/- on 17.04.2018 and Rs. 10,80,000/- on 03.12.2018.
10. It has been further stated that by executing / signing the Minutes of the Meeting (MOM) dated 03.12.2018, the defendant Ram Mehar, Proprietor of M/s Neeraj Enterprises, had agreed to give the final sample of front Mudguard to the plaintiff by 10.12.2018 and of the rear Mudguard by 13.12.2018. The defendant had also agreed to provide auto-cutting for the front Mudguard by 30.12.2018 and for the rear Mudguard by 25.12.2018. It has been further stated that the defendant had further agreed that the machine for the front Mudguard would be ready by 30.12.2018 and for the rear Mudguard by 31.12.2018. The defendant had further agreed that the plaintiff will cancel the Purchase Order, in case, the defendant failed to adhere the above said time line as mentioned in the above said MOM and all the money received by the defendant would be refunded to the plaintiff.
11. The plaintiff Metalman Auto Ltd. has further stated that Royal Enfield, the client of the plaintiff, cancelled the LOI dated 26.09.2017 vide email dated 03.12.2018 but still the plaintiff continued to follow up the matter with the defendant in the hope that the defendant would complete the Purchase Order and in any case, the plaintiff had already invested a lot of money in the project.
RAJ KUMAR Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14
12. The plaintiff Metalman Auto Ltd. has alleged that the 15:46:00 +0530 Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 7 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021defendant Ram Mehar, Proprietor of M/s Neeraj Enterprises, failed to complete the machine as he kept on engaging himself in hit and trial methods as is evident from the joint visit of the Development and Purchase on 06.03.2019. It has been further stated that the plaintiff duly sent an email on 06.03.2019 to the defendant categorically mentioning the above said fact and attaching the MOM as well but the defendant had refused to sign the MOM. It has been alleged that despite the receipt of the amount of Rs.27,55,080/-, defendant failed to complete the project in time inspite of various reminders and emails sent by the plaintiff and as such, the plaintiff suffered losses to the tune of Rs. 72,88,013.00/- on account of the rejection of the LOI by Royal Enfield. It has been further stated that the said amount has been calculated on the basis of average profit at the rate of 8% for one year for the proposed sales agreed with the client i.e. Royal Enfield in the LOI. However, the plaintiff has claimed only the 50% of the above said amount of Rs. 36,44,006/- towards loss of profit for one year only. The plaintiff has stated that this is a step towards mitigation of loss. The plaintiff has also claimed the interest amounting to Rs. 13,60,535/- till 05.10.2021. The plaintiff has further stated that 50% of the damages shall be claimed by it from another vendor namely Deva Enterprises, since it was also part of the same project and it also failed to execute the same.
13. It has been further stated by the plaintiff Metalman Auto Ltd. that the defendant Ram Mehar, Proprietor of M/s Neeraj RAJ KUMAR Enterprises, sent a false and frivolous legal notice dated Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 07.05.2019 which was duly replied by the plaintiff vide reply dated 15:46:07 +0530 Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 8 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/202129.07.2019.
14. On the basis of above said allegations as contained in the plaint, the plaintiff Metalman Auto Ltd. has prayed for a decree for a sum of Rs.77,59,621/- together with the interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of the present suit till the date of realization of the decreetal amount. The plaintiff has also prayed for the costs of the suit.
DEFENCE OF THE DEFENDANT
15. Written Statement has been filed on record by the defendant taking various preliminary objections such as that the present suit is without any cause of action and the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from the Court. However, the defendant has admitted the placing of the Purchase Order dated 07.02.2018 by the plaintiff upon the defendant and the receipt of the advance payment of 30% of the total amount amounting to Rs.10.80 lacs. The defendant has admitted that the purchase order was placed by the plaintiff upon the defendant for manufacturing of front and rear Fender Roll forming machine vide purchase order dated 07.02.2018 but defendant has taken the stand that it was the plaintiff, who was solely responsible for the delay in completion of assigned work by the defendant and the delay cannot be attributed to the defendant at all. Amongst others, the defendant has mainly raised four pleas in order to rebut the stand of the plaintiff to the effect that the delay was on the part of the defendant.
Digitally
signed by
RAJ KUMAR
RAJ Date:
KUMAR 2025.08.14
15:46:13
+0530
Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 9 of 47
CS (Comm) No. 263/2021
Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/202116. The first plea of defence as raised by the defendant in the Written Statement is that Mr. S.G. Mundada, the CEO of the plaintiff and his associates namely Mr. Arun Prajapati and Mr. Sagar Chaudhary, urgently asked the defendant to visit and resolve the issue pertaining to Wheel rim of size 1.85 x 19 at the Aurangabad Plant of the plaintiff. The defendant has taken the stand that the defendant verbally denied to rectify the defects in the manufacturing of the Wheel Rim at the Aurangabad Plant of the plaintiff because the Purchase Order dated 07.02.2018 of the plaintiff was bound to be delayed but after the visit by the defendant of the Aurangabad Plant of the plaintiff, the plaintiff placed a Purchase Order bearing no. PRORD/1718/002951 dated 13.03.2018 upon the defendant. The defendant has taken the stand that it analysed the problem in the manufacturing machine of the motorcycle wheel rim at the Aurangabad Plant of the plaintiff on 12.02.2018 during the subsistence of the Purchase Order dated 07.02.2018. The defendant has again stated that the plaintiff had verbally agreed for the delay which was going to be caused in completion of the project under the Purchase Order dated 07.02.2018, in case, the defendant would carry out the work under the project for Aurangabad Plant. It has been further stated that the defendant first supplied the tools and die approximately after a delay of 40-45 days from the date of the Purchase Order for the project at Aurangabad. The defendant has taken the stand that he solved the existing problem of the plaintiff at its Aurangabad Plant RAJ and this was done by the defendant only in good faith as both the KUMAR Digitally signed projects were belonging to the plaintiff only. by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 15:46:21 +0530 Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 10 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/202117. The second plea of defence, as raised in the Written Statement by the defendant, is that the plaintiff provided wrong drawings for the front and rear Mudguard on account of which the project got delayed. The defendant has taken the plea that all the parts were to be manufactured as per 2D / 3D drawings to be provided by the plaintiff but Mr. Pradeep Kumar of the plaintiff only provided the drawing by email sent on 26.10.2017 at 12.21 PM of rear Fender only. It has been further stated that the hard copy of the old revised drawing for the size of 138 mm for the front Fender was wrongly provided by the plaintiff and Mr. Sagar Chaudhary of the plaintiff sent an email for final drawing for the front Fender of the same size measuring 138 mm on 21.08.2018 at 2.02 PM. It has been further stated that Mr. Harish Gangwal of the plaintiff sent the new drawings of the new size 143.2 mm on 16.11.2018 to the defendant for the front Fender, which was different from the drawings provided by Mr. Pradeep and reconfirmed by Mr. Sagar Chaudhary on 21.08.2018 at 2.02 PM. The defendant has stated that he has video proof to show that Mr. Harish Gangwal clearly accepted that Mr. Pradeep of the plaintiff had sent two drawings including the old revised drawing of the size of 138 mm for the front Mudguard.
18. The third plea of defence as raised by the defendant in the Written Statement is that the plaintiff, first, provided wrong trial material of soft composition CAU 212-181521464 which resulted into breakage of the Rolls, Shafts and bearing blocks in place of RAJ the correct trial material CR4IS513-2008 which was later on KUMAR Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR supplied only on 29.11.2018 by M/s Khandelwal Metal Date: 2025.08.14 15:46:32 +0530 Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 11 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021Corporation, the supplier of the plaintiff. The defendant has alleged that the plaintiff took more than six months to provide the correct trial sample material which caused a lot of hardship to the defendant in terms of time and money both.
19. The fourth plea of defence as taken by the defendant in the Written Statement is to the effect that Mr. Arun Prajapati of the plaintiff and Royal Enfield team requested and forced the defendant to check the feasibility to make J1 Fender Model of the height of size 109.5 mm, which was bigger then the existing model, on the existing Fender Rolling machine, prior to the completion of the project pertaining to Royal Enfield, the customer of the plaintiff. The defendant has stated that much of the time was consumed in explaining to the plaintiff that the J1 Model could not be made on the same machine because the height and width were too big.
20. The defendant, in the Written Statement, has also taken the plea that he had made clear to the plaintiff prior to the placement of the orders that the date of the delivery shall be 120 working days or 140 days approximately from the date of placement of the orders. It has been further stated that on account of the above said reasons and on account of the fact that the correct material as per specification CR41S513-2008 was supplied by M/s Khandelwal Metal Corporation on behalf of the plaintiff only on 29.11.2018, the delay occurred. It has been further stated that the plaintiff took Digitally more than six months to provide correct trial sample material to the signed by RAJ RAJ KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.08.14 defendant causing loss of much of the time. It has been further 15:46:47 +0530 Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 12 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.CS (Comm) No. 363/2021
stated that after the supply of the correct trial material by M/s Khandelwal Metal Corporation vide invoice no. FBD/18/19-245 dated 29.11.2018, the defendant submitted 11 pieces of the samples as per the new drawing of the size of 143.2 mm after modifications. The defendant has alleged that the plaintiff committed a blunder from the very beginning as it supplied the size of the front fender as 138 mm but the drawing which was provided to Deva Associates, Manesar was 143.2 mm and therefore, the parts which were supplied by the plaintiff did not fit into the tools and die of Deva Associates. It has been further stated that the modifications done by the plaintiff in the drawings required some more time to manufacture all the new rollers, beading rollers and auto cutting tools for the size of 143.2 mm of the front fender and as such, after 16th of November 2018, the defendant sought some extra time and some more funds to acceed to the request of the plaintiff. It has been further stated that thus, the defendant cannot be blamed for not completing the work in time.
21. The defendant has also taken up the plea that he had supplied various samples to the plaintiff such as the front and rear samples were sent on 04.11.2018 vide challan no. 064; samples were sent through Riya Logistics Bilty to Deva Associates vide challan no. 064 on 15.11.2018; samples were sent to Deva Associates vide challan no. 065 to Riya Logistics on 23.11.2018; samples were again sent to Harish Gangwal of the plaintiff vide Digitally signed by RAJ challan no. 179 dated 13.12.2018; samples were sent vide challan RAJ KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.08.14 15:46:55 +0530 no. 180 to Riya Logistics on 02.01.2019, and final samples for the Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 13 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.CS (Comm) No. 363/2021
rear Mudguard were sent to Mr. Anurag and Mr. Kishan on behalf of the plaintiff on 28.01.2019. The defendant has alleged that the plaintiff is the guilty of the criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the IPC, mischief under Section 425 IPC, criminal intidimation under Section 503 IPC and for false evidence under Section 191 & 192 IPC etc.
22. In the reply on merits to the plaint of the plaintiff as well, the defendant has reiterated the above said stand as taken by the defendant in the preliminary objections / submissions. The defendant has submitted that it received the 60% of the amount from the plaintiff on account of the purchase order dated 07.02.2018. However, the defendant has denied that the payment of Rs. 1,65,300/- on 20.03.2018; the payment of Rs. 4,29,780/- on 17.04.2018 was done by the plaintiff on account of the purchase order dated 07.02.2018. The defendant has taken the plea that the plaintiff has mixed up the payments which were done by it on account of Purchase Order dated 07.02.2018 and 13.03.2018. It has been further stated that the total value of the Purchase Order dated 13.03.2018 was Rs. 5,51,000/- and 30% thereof comes to Rs.1,65,300/- which was paid by the plaintiff on 20.03.2018 and the balance amount of Rs. 4,29,780/- was paid on 17.04.2018.
23. The defendant, in the Written Statement, has further stated that the plaintiff has failed to place on record the full Minutes of RAJ the Meeting dated 03.12.2018. It has been alleged that on KUMAR Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR 06.03.2019 the plaintiff has tried to write down the wrong Minutes Date: 2025.08.14 15:47:03 +0530 of Meeting (MOM) and forced the defendant to sign the same. It Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 14 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021has been alleged that the plaintiff visited the premises of the defendant 30 days after cancelling the Purchase Order and forcibly entered therein without any permission from the side of the defendant. It has been alleged that the plaintiff started capturing the videoes and taking photos of the machines, which were not in a running condition at that time, without the permission of the defendant. It has been alleged that the plaintiff provided the wrong drawings of the front fender and never came forward to resolve the dispute. It has been alleged that the plaintiff never replied the emails dated 16.11.2018, 01.02.2019, 02.02.2019, 07.02.2019, 12.02.2019, 04.03.2019, 07.03.2019 and 12.03.2019 of the defendant.
24. The defendant has reiterated that Mr. Sagar Chaudhary of the plaintiff provided the drawing of the size of 138 mm of the front fender on 21.08.2018 and even the front samples which were manufactured by the defendant were confirmed by Mr. Sagar chaudhary of the plaintiff firm on 21.08.2018 at 11.30 AM by email but the real twist came, when, Mr. Harish Gangwal of the plaintiff shown altogether different new drawings on 16.11.2018 to the defendant.
25. It has been further stated that left with no option, the defendant sent a legal notice dated 07.05.2019 to the plaintiff requesting the plaintiff to clear all the dues, to make the balance payment and to receive the consignment completed by the defendant. It has been further stated that the defendant sent the RAJ KUMAR reminder dated 01.07.2019 in continuation of the legal notice Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 15 of 47 Date: 2025.08.14 15:47:14 +0530 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021dated 07.05.2019. Rest of the contents of the plaint have been denied and it is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with heavy costs.
REPLICATION
26. Replication has been filed on record by the plaintiff reiterating and reaffirming the stand as taken by the plaintiff in the plaint and denying the contents of the written statement.
27. In the replication, the plaintiff has admitted the placing of the Purchase Order dated 13.03.2018 upon the defendant for the Aurangabad Wheel Rim plant but the plaintiff has taken the stand that it never verbally agreed for the delay in respect of the Purchase Order 07.02.2018. The plaintiff has again stated that the defendant could have refused to accept the work at Aurangabad Plant, if he knew that he would not be able to complete the Mudguard project. It has been alleged that a false and frivolous story has been concocted by the defendant with a view to wriggle out of his failures.
28. In respect of the alleged late supply of the correct drawings as stated by the defendant in the Written Statement, the plaintiff, in the replication has controverted the allegations of the defendant and has taken the stand that in pursuance to the quotations sent by the defendant vide email dated 26.10.2017, the defendant has sent Digitally an email dated 22.01.2018, wherein, he had attached a file signed by RAJ disclosing the comparison of the technology of the defendant of RAJ KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.08.14 15:47:43 +0530 the machine to be manufactured with the Royal Enfield existing Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 16 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.CS (Comm) No. 363/2021
machines i.e. the Rolling Mill with a view to show that the technology of the defendant was much better, if the machine was purchased from the defendant. It was specifically disclosed that the defendant would provide the latest CNC Auto Cutting Die, High Technology Mill, Wrinkle Free Fender with a heavy base amongst other self appreciation by the defendant. It has been further stated that the machine was comprised of 9 steps including the automatic Mudguard Cutting Process, Auto Cutting Die Mould, Auto Cutting Blade and the defendant was also required to manufacture Auto Cutting Machine so that the two sizes of the Mudguards could be manufactured. The plaintiff has alleged that Auto Cutting Process was never completed by the defendant.
29. The plaintiff, in the replication, has further stated that there has been no issue with respect to the size of the rear Mudguard which was of the size of 157 mm and the size of the front Mudguard as 143 mm was also clear right from the quotation sent by the email dated 26.10.2017. The sizes of the front and rear Mudguard had been categorically disclosed at the time of Purchase Order dated 07.02.2018 which was placed on 13.02.2018. The plaintiff has admitted that on 28.10.2017 at 12.01 PM, Mr. Pradeep had sent the drawing. It has been further stated that however discussion in respect of the manufacturing of different sizes of the RAJ Mudguard on the same machine, which was already in the process KUMAR Digitally signed of manufactuing by the defendant, also commenced on 18.07.2018 by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 15:47:51 +0530 for J1 Project and on account of inadvertence, a Mudguard drawing was shared by Mr. Sagar Chaudhary on 21.08.2018 instead of the drawing which was to be sent for J1 Project. It has Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 17 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021been stated that none other but the defendant herein confirmed that the drawing shared by email dated 21.08.2018 was not as per the specification of the Purchase Order 07.02.2018 but the defendant has cleverly tried to mix up the two different sizes of the Mudguards and has also tried to rely upon the emails as per his own choice.
30. The plaintiff, in the replication, has further denied the submission of the defendant that correct trial material of soft composition was not supplied by the plaintiff and the same was supplied at a later date by M/s Khandelwal Metal Corporation only on 29.11.2018 as per Royal Enfield Specification CR4IS513-2008. The plaintiff has taken the stand that first of all, as per the quotation, the CRC material was to be used and both the materials CR4 & CAU212 are CRC only and therefore, the submission of the defendant is misplaced. It has been further stated that the plaintiff got tested the composition of the material through the third party namely "Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd." and the report was duly shared with the defendant vide email dated 15.11.2018.
31. The plaintiff has further denied that it forced the defendant to check the feasibility of making the J1 Fender Model of the height of size 109.5 on the existing Roll Forming Machine. The RAJ KUMAR plaintiff has taken the stand that the defendant could have refused Digitally signed at any point of time that the same was not possible but he even by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 15:48:04 +0530 gave the quotation for J1 project while informing that J1 could not be feasible on the same machine.
Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 18 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/202132. The plaintiff, in the replication, has admitted that Deva Associates Manesar Tools was having the drawing of 143.2 mm but the plaintiff has taken the stand that the requirement of the front Mudguard / Fender was 143 mm only and it proves the case that the defendant failed to provide the correct samples. The plaintiff has admitted the receipt of the email dated 24.11.2018 but it has taken the stand that the defendant failed to annexe the email dated 24.11.2018 which was sent by way of reply by Mr. Pradeep Kumar of the plaintiff by categorically denying the issuance of the said drawing. Rest of the contents of the Written Statement have been denied and it has been prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be decreed.
ISSUES
33. From the pleadings of the parties, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, vide orders dated 05.01.2023 framed the following issues in the present matter:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount claimed ? OPP ?
2. If answer to issue no. 1 is in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and Digitally signed by RAJ RAJ KUMAR KUMAR Date:
for which period ? OPP 2025.08.14 15:48:11
3. Relief.
+0530 PLEADINGS OF THE PARTIES IN SUIT NO. 363/2021 PLAINT
34. The suit bearing no. 363/2021 was instituted by the plaintiff (defendant in suit no. 263/2021) against the defendant Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 19 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021(plaintiff in suit no. 263/2021) after the institution of the suit bearing no. 263/2021. The present suit is essentially in the nature of a counter-claim.
35. The plaintiff, in the plaint in suit no. 363/2021 has reiterated and reproduced his averments verbatim as is the defence of the defendant in suit no. 263/2021 and as such, for the sake of brevity, the factual gamut is not being reproduced herein. The plaintiff in suit no. 363/2021 has stated that the defendant has witheld his legally recoverable dues for the amount of Rs.34,29,400/- and the defendant is also liable for the interest @ 24% per annum on the above stated principal amount w.e.f 08.02.2018 till 30.11.2018. The plaintiff, in suit no. 363/2021, has prayed that a decree for a sum of Rs. 34,29,400/- together with the pendente lite interest @ 24% per annum and future interest @ 18% per annum be passed in his favour. The plaintiff has also prayed for the costs of the suit.
WRITTEN STATEMENT IN SUIT NO. 363/2021
36. The defendant in suit no. 363/2021 is the plaintiff in suit no. 263/2021 (previously instituted suit). The plea of defence of the defendant in suit no. 363/2021 is also verbatim the same as are the pleadings of the plaintiff in the plaint in suit no. 263/2021 and as such, the same are not being reproduced herein, for the sake of brevity. The defendant, in the written statement in suit no. RAJ KUMAR 363/2021, has prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 15:48:19 +0530 costs.
Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 20 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021REPLICATION IN SUIT NO. 363/2021
37. The plaintiff in suit no. 363/2021 has also filed the replication to the written statement of the defendant, reiterating and reaffirming the stand as taken by the plaintiff in the plaint and denying the contents of the written statement.
ISSUES IN SUIT NO. 363/202138. From the pleadings of the parties, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, vide orders dated 03.05.2023 framed the following issues in the matter:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount claimed ? OPP ?
2. If answer to issue no. 1 is in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for which period ? OPP
3. Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN SUIT NO. 263/2021
39. The plaintiff company has examined its General Manager- Finance & Authorized Signatory Sh. Ajay Dubey as PW-1 and in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A, the plaintiff has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the plaintiff in the plaint. The plaintiff has filed on record the Board Regulation as RAJ Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR); Summary of payment / claim amount as Ex. KUMAR Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 PW-1/2 and copy of legal notice issued by the defendant as well as 15:48:26 +0530 reply of plaintiff as Ex. PW-1/3 (Colly). PW-1 has also relied upon the documents Ex. PW-2/1, Ex. PW-2/2, Ex. PW-2/5 and Ex. PW-2/17, which were exhibited during the recording of the Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 21 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021testimony of PW-2, Mr. Pradeep Kumar.
40. In the cross-examination, PW-1 has denied the suggestion that the period of 5 months lapsed in between the LOI (Letter of Intent) dated 26.09.2017 and PO (Purchase Order) dated 07.02.2018 because of the fault of the defendant. PW-1 has denied the suggestion that defendant pressurized the plaintiff to complete the work within three months, though, the period of completion of work was four months. PW-1 has denied the suggestion that the defendant has not provided all Press Tools, Gauge, Fixture, Inspection Report in terms of the LOI. PW-1 has denied the suggestion that the defendant delayed in execution of the subject project, because in the meantime, the plaintiff handed over another project to the defendant i.e. Aurangabad Project. PW-1 has denied the suggestion that the plaintiff has not provided the correct material to the defendant in terms of the LOI dated 26.09.2017 and PO dated 07.02.2018.
41. The plaintiff company has also examined its Manager Engineering Sh. Pradeep Kumar as PW-2 and in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-2/A, PW-2 has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the plaintiff in the plaint. PW-2 has relied upon the Letter of Intent as Ex. PW2/1; Quotation dated 18.10.2017 as Ex. PW-2/2; copy of e-mail dated 22.01.2018 as Ex. RAJ PW-2/3; copy of e-mails as Ex. PW-2/4 (Colly); copy of purchase KUMAR Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR order dated 07.02.2018 as Ex. PW-2/5; copy of e-email dated Date: 2025.08.14 29.06.2018 as Ex. PW-2/6; copy of e-mails dated 18.09.2018 and 15:48:33 +0530 19.09.2018 as Ex. PW-2/7 (Colly); copy of e-mail dated Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 22 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/202117.12.2018 along with MOM dated 03.12.2018 as Ex. PW-2/8 (Colly); copy of e-mail dated 10.10.2018 as Ex. PW-2/9; copy of e-mails dated 06.03.2019 as Ex. PW-2/10 (Colly); copy of MOM dated 06.03.2019 as Ex. PW-2/11; copy of e-mail dated 06.03.2018 as Ex. PW-2/12; copy of e-mails dated 16.11.2018 as Ex. PW-2/13 (Colly); copy of e-mail dated 24.11.2018 as Ex. PW-2/14; copy of e-mail dated 15.01.2019 as Ex. PW-2/15; copy of e-mail dated 01.02.2019 as Ex. PW-2/16 and certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act filed by Sh. Ajay Dubey, General Manager Finance along with the plaint as Ex. PW-2/17.
42. In the cross-examination done by Ld. counsel for the defendant in suit no. 263/2021, PW-2 has admitted it to be correct that plaintiff used to provide the drawings to the supplier before placing the orders upon supplier and thereafter, the supplier used to provide the quotations as per the purchase order. PW-2 has denied the suggestion that the plaintiff did not provide the front fender drawing of 143.2 mm to the defendant. PW-2 has stated that in the second week of October, 2017, the plaintiff provided the front fender drawing of 143.2 mm to the defendant. PW-2 admitted it to be correct that the plaintiff sent the rear fender drawing of size 157.2 mm to the defendant through email. PW-2 has denied the suggestion that plaintiff sent all the drawings to the defendant only through email. PW-2 has denied the suggestion that the defendant sign both the drawings of front fender of the size 138 mm and rear RAJ KUMAR fender drawing of the size 157.2 mm at the office of the plaintiff at Digitally signed Kapashera. PW-2 has denied the suggestion that the plaintiff by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 15:48:40 +0530 refused to provide the hard copy of both the drawings to the Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 23 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021defendant. PW-2 has further stated that on 14.02.2018, the plaintiff placed the purchase order of the front fender. By way of volunteer, PW-2 has stated that the plaintiff placed the purchase order for both, front and rear fender together. PW-2 has admitted that in the year 2018, Mr. Sagar Chaudhary was working as the Assistant Manager with the plaintiff company and that on 21.08.2018, he had given confirmation regarding the drawing of 138 mm through email. By way of volunteer, PW-2 has stated that the said email had no text message and was sent by default by Sagar Chaudhary. PW-2 has further stated that in response to email dated 21.08.2018, the defendant replied vide email dated 21.08.2018 that these drawings did not suit. PW-2 has denied the suggestion that defendant started manufacturing all the parts of the machine of the drawing 138 mm. PW-2 does not remember whether Mr. Harish Gangwal was the Senior Engineer or the Engineer in the plaintiff company in the year 2018. PW-2 does not remember whether the defendant sent the sample of front fender size of 138 mm to the Manager of the plaintiff company i.e. to Mr. Harish Gangwal. PW-2 has denied the suggestion that on 16.11.2018, Mr. Harish Gangwal changed the drawing of front fender and sent a new revised drawing of the size of 142 mm to the defendant. PW-2 has admitted that in the year 2018, he was the Deputy Manager with the plaintiff company. PW-2 has denied the suggestion that in the year 2018, he and his team were not aware of the revised drawing of 143.2 mm. PW-2 has again stated that there was only one drawing of the size of 143.2 mm and there was no revised drawing. RAJ KUMAR Digitally signed PW-2 has admitted it to be correct that after receiving the by RAJ KUMAR information from the plaintiff, the defendant submitted the Date: 2025.08.14 15:48:49 +0530 Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 24 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021quotation to the plaintiff through email. PW-2 has denied the suggestion that the defendant requested for correct drawing of the front fender of 143.2 mm from the plaintiff on several occasions but the plaintiff did not send the same and rather sent the drawing of 157 mm only.
43. In the next cross-examination done on 14.12.2023, PW-2 has admitted it to be correct that the plaintiff had placed the order of fender on 13.02.2018 and thereafter on 13.03.2018, plaintiff placed another order for 1.85 x 19 Wheel Rim Rolls and parts for Aurangabad. By way of volunteer, PW-2 has stated that both the projects were different in nature. PW-2 has admitted it to be correct that Mr. Sagar Chaudhary, the Manager sent the mail for J1 project to the defendant on 19.07.2018. PW-2 has admitted it to be correct that the plaintiff shared a mail with the defendant on 29.09.2018 and also sent a quotation for UCE and J-1A Model and front side 158.7 x 77 and rear 175 x 109.5, J-1 fender. PW-2 has again stated that the quotation was only for J-1 fender. PW-2 does not know whether the Project Manager Mr. Arun Prajapati and Customer Royal Enfield orally informed the defendant to hold the project of Fender Roll Forming. PW-2 has denied the suggestion that due to constant communication in between the plaintiff and the defendant from 19.07.2018 to 29.09.2018 regarding New Project J-1 Model, the plaintiff's existing Fender Roll Forming RAJ Project was delayed. PW-2 has denied the suggestion that the KUMAR Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 plaintiff sent the wrong trial sheet CAU212 to the defendant in 15:48:58 +0530 place of correct sheet requirement CRIV as per the drawing of Royal Enfield. PW-2 has admitted it to be correct that the Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 25 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021defendant sent the email dated 12.11.2018 to the plaintiff and thereafter, the plaintiff sent the correct testing material to the defendant. PW-2 has denied the suggestion that the defendant, multiple times, asked the plaintiff for Inspection Report of front and rear Fender Sample, which trial sample was submitted by the defendant with the plaintiff. PW-2 has denied the suggestion that the plaintiff had not given the first trial sheet according to the customer Royal Enfield drawing i.e. CRIV to the defendant due to which, the breakage took place in the Roll Bearing and Shafts. PW-2 has denied the suggestion that at the bottom of MOM Ex. PW-2/8, the son of the defendant namely Dinesh had written a footnote in his handwriting but the plaintiff had torn the said portion and filed the said MOM on Court record.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE IN SUIT NO. 263/2021
44. The defendant Mr. Ram Mehar, the proprietor of Neeraj Enterprises has examined himself as DW-1 and in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-1/A on record, the defendant has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the defendant in its written statement. DW-1 has relied upon the copy of purchase order dated 07.02.2018 as Ex. DW1/1; copy of front fender 143.2 mm product inspection report as Ex. DW1/7 (Colly)(OSR); copy of delivery of challan as Ex. DW1/8 (Colly)(page no. 96 to 106) RAJ (OSR); copy of legal notice dated 07.05.2019 as Ex. DW1/11 KUMAR Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR (Colly); copy of reply of legal notice dated 29.07.2019 as Ex.
Date: 2025.08.14 15:49:07 +0530DW-1/14 (Colly). DW-1 has also relied on the copy of summary of account of ICICI Bank as Mark A; copy of test certificate dated 17.11.2018 alongwith comparison chart as Mark B; copy of Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 26 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021tracking report as Mark C; copy of drawing of rear fender 157.2 mm and front fender 143.2 mm as Mark D; copy of final vendor information as Mark E; copy of e-mails as Mark F; copy of reason of delay as Mark G; copy of reminder dated 01.07.2019 to the legal notice dated 07.05.2019 as Mark H; copy of reminder dated 01.07.2019 to the legal notice dated 28.05.2019 as Mark I.
45. In the cross-examination, DW-1 has stated that he has studied upto 8th standard. DW-1 has further stated that he can read and write English language but he cannot understand English language unless and until someone explains the same. DW-1 has further stated that he can read the contents of his affidavit Ex. DW-1/A but he cannot understand the contents of the same, unless, someone explains the same to enable him to refresh his memory.
46. The defendant Sh. Ram Mehar has examined his son Mr. Dinesh Kumar, the Marketing and Engineering Head and AR of Neeraj Enterprises, as DW-2 and in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-2/A on record, DW-2 has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the defendant in his written statement. DW-2 has relied upon the documents which have been tendered by DW-1 during his testimony.
47. In the cross-examination, DW-2 has admitted it to be correct that the project of Aurangabad Wheel Rim and Royal Enfield Mudguard Project were independent of each other. DW-2 RAJ KUMAR has admitted it to be correct that the Purchase Orders of both the Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 15:49:22 +0530 above said projects were separate. DW-2 has admitted it to be Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 27 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021correct that the defendant used to work on more than one project at one point of time. DW-2 has denied the suggestion that the plaintiff had not pressurized or forced to work on both the projects simultaneously. DW-2 has denied the suggestion that the defendant had not declined to accept the Aurangabad project because the defendant was already doing Royal Enfield Mudguard project of the plaintiff. DW-2 has stated that the defendant had orally declined to accept the Aurangabad project because he was already doing Royal Enfield Mudguard Project of the plaintiff. DW-2 has admitted it to be correct that the Purchase Order dated 07.02.2018 Ex. DW-1/1 was not pertaining to J-1 Project. DW-2 has admitted it to be correct that the Purchase Order dated 07.02.2018 Ex. DW-1/1 and J-1 Project were for manufacturing Mudguards only. DW-2 has denied the suggestion that the size of front Mudguard was 143.2 mm or that since, the defendant failed to make the Mudguard of size 143.2 mm, hence, to cover up his mistake, the defendant raised the dispute in respect of the size to the effect that the size was 138 mm. DW-2 has admitted it to be correct that the size of the rear Mudguard was 157 mm. DW-2 has admitted it to be correct that he has not filed any drawing of front fender of size 138 mm under his signatures as mentioned in para no. 5 of his affidavit. DW-2 has denied the suggestion that till September, 2018, the defendant did not send any samples to the plaintiff. DW-2 cannot admit or deny that the samples supplied by the defendant after September 2018 were proper or not. DW-2 RAJ cannot say whether Royal Enfield cancelled the Subject Project. KUMAR Digitally signed By way of volunteer, DW-2 states that the plaintiff had not by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 15:50:06 +0530 intimated the defendant in this respect. DW-2 has denied the Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 28 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021suggestion that the Auto Cutting Machine was not prepared by the defendant.
EVIDENCE IN SUIT NO. 363/202148. The order-sheet dated 20.09.2024 and subsequent order- sheets as well passed in suit no. 363/2021 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court reveal that both the suits bearing no. 263/2021 and 363/2021 were clubbed together for the purposes of the evidence and the certified copies of the evidence, which was led in suit no. 263/2021, were filed in suit no. 363/2021 as well.
FINAL ARGUMENTS ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES
49. Both the parties have filed on record their respective final arguments in writing and both the parties have addressed the arguments orally as well.
50. In the written arguments placed on record by Metalman Auto Ltd., it has been argued that the defendant consistently failed to adhere to the agreed timelines and the delay is absolutely attributable to M/s Neeraj Enterprises, the proprietorship concern of Mr. Ram Mehar. It has been further argued that M/s Neeraj Enterprises failed to comply with the contractual obligations and to deliver the machine in time, resulting in financial losses to Metalman Auto Ltd. It has been further argued that M/s Neeraj Enterprises has categorically admitted the receipt of the correct RAJ KUMAR drawings pertaining to the rear fender of the size of 157.2 mm but Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Date: even the machine pertaining to the rear fender was not prepared. It 2025.08.14 has been further argued that M/s Neeraj Enterprises has falsely 15:50:13 +0530 Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 29 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021taken the stand that a wrong drawing was sent by Metalman Auto Ltd. on 21.08.2018 as the drawing was not containing any text and M/s Neeraj Enterprises, had himself replied that the said drawing was not as per the specifications and requirement of 109.5 mm x 175 mm because in fact the said drawing was pertaining to the J1 project only. It has been alleged that M/s Neeraj Enterprises has deliberately tried to mix up the drawings in order to shift the blame upon the Metalman Auto Ltd. It has been further argued that DW-2 has categorically admitted the case of Metalman Auto Ltd. to the effect that the Aurangabad project was altogether a different project and the present project under the Purchase Order dated 07.02.2018 was also entirely different from J1 Project. It has been further argued that M/s Neeraj Enterprises has also tried to put up the blame upon Metalman Auto Ltd., though unsuccessfully, by stating that the correct trial material was not supplied. It has been further argued that as per the Purchase Order dated 07.02.2018 Ex. PW-2/5 on record (also exhibited as Ex. DW1/1) the trial material had to be of CRC composition and both the trial materials CAU-212 and CR4 were of CRC only. It has been further argued that the email dated 15.01.2019 sent by M/s Neeraj Enterprises states as under:
"this is sorry to inform you that as we trialled rear samples, we had found some issues such light wrinkle than we need to improve the wrinkle marks and need to some correction in roll set, so we RAJ request you to please allow us some time to resolve KUMAR Digitally signed this issue asap".by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 15:50:19 +0530
Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 30 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/202151. Metalman Auto Ltd, in the written arguments has further argued that the above said email clearly states that the machine was not ready for dispatch even by 15th of January 2019. It has been argued that Royal Enfield, the customer of Metalman Auto Ltd. Already cancelled the LOI on 10.10.2018 as is clear from the email Ex. PW-2/9 on record and since M/s Neeraj Enterprises even failed to rectify the defects and to manufacture the desired machine even as per the MOM dated 03.12.2018 and failed to adhere to the timelines even for the extended period, Metalman Auto Ltd. rightly cancelled the Purchase Order vide email dated 01.02.2019 Ex. PW-2/16 on record. It has been further argued that M/s Neeraj Enterprises had already received an amount of Rs. 27,55,080/- under the Purchase Order dated 07.02.2018 and M/s Neeraj Enterprises is liable to refund the above said amount to Metalman Auto Ltd. Metalman Auto Ltd. has also claimed the 50% amount of the losses on account of cancellation of the project by its customer Royal Enfield amounting to Rs. 36,44,006/- and thus it has claimed the total amount of Rs. 77,59,621/- together with the interest @ 12 % per annum.
52. Whereas, on the other hand, in the written arguments filed on record by M/s Neeraj Enterprises, it has been argued that an amount of Rs. 21,60,000/-, out of the total consideration amount of Rs. 36 Lacs against the Purchase Order dated 07.02.2018 was received from Metalman Auto Ltd. It has been further argued that RAJ the drawings of the rear fender of the size of 157.2 mm were KUMAR Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR received through email on 28.10.2017 but Metalman Auto Ltd.
Date: 2025.08.14sent the wrong drawing of the size of 138 mm for the front fender 15:50:26 +0530 Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 31 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021vide email dated 21.08.2018. It has been further argued that the correct drawings of the size of 143.2 mm were sent through email by Metalman Auto Pvt. Ltd on 16.11.2018 only and thus, the delay is solely attributable to the Metalman Auto Ltd. It has been further argued that Metalman Auto Ltd. pressurized M/s Neeraj Enterprises to resolve the issue at its Aurangabad Plant. It has been further argued that thereafter Metalman Auto Ltd. asked M/s Neeraj Enterprises to check the feasibility of making the front fender of the size of 158.7 mm x 77 mm and the rear fender of the size of 109.5 mm x 175 mm for its J1 Project on the same existing machine. It has been further argued that the delay occurred in the project on account of the above said interventions by Metalman Auto Ltd. It has been further argued that the correct trial material CR4 was supplied to M/s Neeraj Enterprises only on 29.11.2018 and since the machine for the front and rear fender was to be prepared / manufactured within a period of four months thereafter, M/s Neeraj Enterprises was able to manufacture the machine within the specified time period but in the meantime Metalman Auto Ltd. cancelled the project on 01.02.2019. It has been argued that thus, Metalman Auto Ltd. violated the terms and conditions of the LOI dated 26.10.2017 and of the Purchase Order dated 07.02.2018. In the written arguments, M/s Neeraj Enterprises has relied upon the cross-examination of PW-2 and has argued that Metalman Auto Pvt. Ltd has admitted that it used to provide the drawings to the suppliers before placing the orders and thereafter, the suppliers used to provide the quotation placed upon. It has been RAJ KUMAR Digitally signed further argued that M/s Neeraj Enterprises through various emails by RAJ KUMAR asked Metalman Auto Ltd. provide the correct drawing of the right Date: 2025.08.14 15:50:32 +0530 Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 32 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021size for the front fender instead of the drawing of the size of 138 mm but Metalman Auto Ltd. failed to do so. M/s Neeraj Enterprises has argued that it is entitled for an amount of Rs. 34,29,400/- together with the interest @ 24% per annum from Metalman Auto Ltd.
53. I have carefully gone through the entire material available on record and heard the submissions of Ld. counsel for the parties. I have also meticulously perused the written arguments as well placed on record by both the parties.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Issues no. 1 & 2 in Suit No. 263/2021 and Issues No. 1 & 2 in Suit No. 363/2021
54. All these issues are being taken up together for disposal as the same are connected inter-se and overlap each other. Issues No. 1 & 2 framed in suit no. 263/2021 pertain to the prayer clause of the said suit and onus to prove the said issues has been placed upon Metalman Auto Ltd. Issues No. 1 & 2 framed in suit no. 363/2021 also pertain to the prayer clause of the said suit and the onus to prove the said issues has been placed upon M/s Neeraj Enterprises.
RAJ M/S NEERAJ ENTERPRISES'S PLEA THAT THE DELAY KUMAR Digitally signed WAS CAUSED BECAUSE OF THE INSISTENCE OF THE by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 15:50:40 +0530 METALMAN AUTO LIMITED TO RECTIFY THE DEFECTS IN THE AURANGABAD PROJECT AND ALSO BECAUSE OF J1 PROJECT
55. Certain facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that Metalman Auto Ltd. received the LOI dated 26.09.2017 from its Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 33 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021customer Royal Enfield for the development and supply of various parts such as Mudguard, frame, sub-frame etc. for its UCE Project as mentioned in the LOI exhibited as Ex. PW-2/1 on record in suit no. 263/2021. It is also not in dispute that M/s Neeraj Enterprises shared the quotation dated 18.10.2017 with Metalman Auto Ltd. for manufacturing of Front and Rear Fender Cassettee Rolling Machine with online Auto Cutting Machine for Royal Enfield exhibited as Ex. PW-2/2 in suit no. 263/2021. The Purchase Order bearing no. PRORD/1718/002646 dated 07.02.2018 for manufacturing of the above said machine placed upon M/s Neeraj Enterprises by Metalman Auto Ltd. exhibited as Ex. PW-2/5 is also the admitted document. It is also not in dispute that vide email dated 01.02.2019 Ex. PW-2/16 on record, Metalman Auto Ltd. cancelled the Purchase Order dated 07.02.2018.
56. Coming to the evidence led by the parties, as stated herein above, the plaintiff Metalman Auto Ltd. in suit no. 263/2021 has examined its General Manager (Finance) and its Authorized Signatory Mr. Ajay Dubey as PW-1 and Mr. Pradeep Kumar, its Manager (Engineering) as PW-2. The defendant M/s Neeraj Enterprises is the proprietorship concern of Mr. Ram Mehar and Mr. Ram Mehar has examined himself as DW-1 in suit no.
RAJ 263/2021 but in the cross-examination he states that he cannot KUMAR Digitally signed understand the contents of his affidavit Ex. DW-1/A and therefore, by RAJ KUMAR he was not cross-examined further. DW-2 is Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Date: 2025.08.14 15:50:48 +0530 the son of Mr. Ram Mehar and in his evidence by way of affidavit, he has stated that he is the authorized signatory of M/s Neeraj Enterprises.
Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 34 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/202157. The material aspects of the testimonies of all the abovesaid witnesses have already been reproduced hereinabove and the same shall be discussed under relevant heads, in this common judgment.
58. The Purchase Order dated 07.02.2018 Ex. PW-2/5 on record (also exhibited as Ex. DW-1/1) is a detailed and written document which constitutes the basis of the contract in between Metalman Auto Ltd. and M/s Neeraj Enterprises and the above said contract is the admitted document. As such, the above said contract is the vital document which unfolds the terms and conditions, which were to be complied with by both the parties. As per the above said contract Ex. PW-2/5, amongst others, some of the conditions were to the effect that 30% of the total amount was to be paid as an advance amount, 60% was to be paid against the proforma invoice and 10% amount was to be paid after successfull commissioning from the date of Purchase Order confirmed by Metalman Auto Ltd. to M/s Neeraj Enterprises. Ex. PW-2/5 further states and stipulates that first sample of the Mudguard was to be finalised by 30.03.2018; final tooled up sample was to be ready by 20.04.2018; the machine was to be ready for final trial and dispatch by 08.05.2018; all the parts were to be prepared as per 2D/3D drawings, and the sheet thickness i.e. the trial material was to be of CRC composition. The total consideration amount was Rs.
RAJ 36 Lacs. KUMAR Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 15:50:55 +0530
59. It is not in dispute that Metalman Auto Ltd. paid an amount of Rs. 10.80 lacs to M/s Neeraj Enterprises as 30% of the contract price. In fact, M/s Neeraj Enterprises, in the written Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 35 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021arguments, has admitted the receipt of the amount of Rs. 21.60 lacs from Metalman Auto Ltd.
60. The vital question to be considered and decided by this court, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances, is as to whether the delay in manufacturing the machine is attributable to Metalman Auto Ltd. or as to whether the delay is attributable to M/s Neeraj Enterprises.
61. It is not in dispute that M/s Neeraj Enterprises shared the micro plan for completion of the machine with Metalman Auto Ltd. vide email dated 06.03.2018 exhibited as Ex. PW-2/12. M/s Neeraj Enterprises, vide above said email dated 06.03.2018, unilaterally changed the sample finalisation date from 30.03.2018 to 24.04.2018 and the dispatch date of the machine from 08.05.2018 to 30.06.2018. Metalman Auto Ltd. sent an email to M/s Neeraj Enterprises complaining therein that M/s Neeraj Enterprises failed to adhere to the timeline vide email dated 29.06.2018 exhibited as Ex. PW-2/6. I am of the opinion that the above said email dated 29.06.2018 and the terms and conditions of the Purchase Order dated 07.02.2018 clearly establish on record that time was of the essence of contract, in between the parties to the present lis.
RAJ KUMAR Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 15:51:04 +0530
62. M/s Neeraj Enterprises has tried to explain the delay in manufacturing the machine by stating that Metalman Auto Ltd. pressurized M/s Neeraj Enterprises to rectify the issue at its Aurangabad Plant and that it also asked M/s Neeraj Enterprises to Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 36 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021check out the feasibility of the manufacturing of the Front and Rear Fender of different sizes for its J1 Project on the same machine. M/s Neeraj Enterprises has also taken the stand that Metalman Auto Ltd. had orally agreed that naturally delay would occur in completion of the project under the Purchase Order 07.02.2018 and that it had consented to the delay verbally.
63. I am of the opinion that the above said submissions of M/s Neeraj Enterprises are not tenable and sustainable at all. It has to be seen that there is nothing on record to prove that Metalman Auto Ltd. had consented for the delay for the present project. It has to be seen that DW-2, Sh. Dinesh Kumar has categorically admitted in the cross-examination that Aurangabad Project was entirely different from the present project under the Purchase Order Ex. PW-2/5. DW-2 has admitted that M/s Neeraj Enterprises used to do more than one project at one point of time and Purchase Order dated 07.02.2018 was not pertaining to J1 Project. DW-2 has again admitted that Ex. PW-2/5 and J1 Project were altogher different projects. As such, going by the cross-examination of DW-2 and the evidence led by the plaintiff in the form of PW-1 and PW-2, I have not hesitation to hold that the submissions of M/s Neeraj Enterprises to the effect that on account of the Aurangabad Project and on account of the J1 Project, the delay occured, are not RAJ KUMAR sustainable and plausible at all.
Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 15:51:11 +0530M/S NEERAJ ENTERPRISES'S PLEA THAT THE DELAY OCCURRED BECAUSE OF NON SUPPLY OF CORRECT DRAWING IN TIME
64. The defendant (M/s Neeraj Enterprises), in the written Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 37 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021arguments, has taken the stand that the correct drawing of the Front Fender of the size of 143.2 mm was supplied through email only on 16.11.2018 by the plaintiff (Metalman Auto Ltd.) and therefore, the delay occurred.
65. It has to be seen that DW-2 in the cross-examination has categorically admitted that the size of the rear Mudguard was 157 mm. Even in the written arguments, the defendant (M/s Neeraj Enterprises) has admitted that the plaintiff (Metalman Auto Ltd.) sent the drawing of rear Fender of the size of 157.2 mm on 27/28.10.2017 through email. The defendant (M/s Neeraj Enterprises) has heavily relied upon the email dated 21.10.2018, whereby, allegedly wrong drawing of the size of 138 mm for the Front Fender was sent by Mr. Arun Prajapati of the plaintiff (Metalman Auto Ltd.).
66. In this context, it has to be seen that the email dated 21.08.2018 sent by Mr. Arun Prajapati does not contain any text message attached to the above said email. The sending of above said email is admitted by the plaintiff (Metalman Auto Ltd.) but the plaintiff (Metalman Auto Ltd.) has taken the stand that the above said email was sent on account of inadvertence and the defendant (M/s Neeraj Enterprises) himself vide email dated RAJ 21.08.2018 Ex. PW-2/4 sent at 23.13 informed the plaintiff KUMAR Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR (Metalman Auto Ltd.) that the said drawing was not suitable with Date: 2025.08.14 the requirement of 109.5 mm x 175 mm Mudguard. It has to be 15:51:19 +0530 seen that the above said size of the Mudguard was pertaining to J1 Project only and the above said size of the Fender was not Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 38 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021pertaining to the Project under the Purchase Order dated 07.02.2018.
67. Furthermore, it has to be seen that the defendant (M/s Neeraj Enterprises), in para no. 11 of the written arguments, has relied upon the cross-examination of PW-2, wherein, PW2 has admitted that the plaintiff (Metalman Auto Ltd.) used to provide the drawings to supplier before placing the orders and thereafter, the supplier used to provide the quotation. I am of the opinion that the above said suggestion given by the defendant (M/s Neeraj Enterprises) to PW-2 goes against the case of the defendant (M/s Neeraj Enterprises) itself because in the case in hand as well, the defendant (M/s Neeraj Enterprises) shared the quotation dated 18.08.2017 vide email Ex. PW-2/2 on record and as such, I am of the opinion that the submission of the plaintiff (Metalman Auto Ltd.) appears to be sustainable, plausible and credit worthy, when it is argued that the quotation was shared by the defendant (M/s Neeraj Enterprises) only after the supplying of the drawings by the plaintiff (Metalman Auto Ltd.) to the defendant (M/s Neeraj Enterprises). To my mind, if the submission of the defendant (M/s Neeraj Enterprises) to the effect that the correct drawings for the front Fender was supplied by the plaintiff (Metalman Auto Ltd.) only on 16.11.2018 is taken to be prima facie correct for the sake of arguments only, then, it does not go down the throat of the Court as RAJ to what the defendant (M/s Neeraj Enterprises) was doing till KUMAR Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR 21.08.2018 or till 16.11.2018 when the machine was to be ready Date: 2025.08.14 15:51:27 +0530 for dispatch by 08.05.2018 in terms of the Purchase Order dated 07.02.2018 Ex. PW-2/5. This Court cannot loose sight of the fact Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 39 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021that there is not even a single communication on behalf of the defendant (M/s Neeraj Enterprises) asking the plaintiff (Metalman Auto Ltd.) to provide the correct drawings for the front fender prior to 21.08.2018 or 16.11.2018, in case, the correct drawing for the front fender was not supplied by the plaintiff (Metalman Auto Ltd.) prior to sharing of the quotation by the defendant (M/s Neeraj Enterprises) with the plaintiff (Metalman Auto Ltd.) on 18.10.2017.
68. It has to be seen that DW-2 in the cross-examination has categorically admitted that he has not filed any drawing of Front Fender of the size of 138 mm under his signatures as mentioned in para no. 5 of his affidavit. In para no. 5 of his affidavit, DW-2 has taken the stand that he had signed the drawing of Front Fender of the size of 138 mm and of the Rear Fender of the size of 157.2 mm at the office of Metalman Auto Ltd. at Kapashera, New Delhi before the commencement of the work. To my mind, the cross- examination of DW-2 is diameterically opposite to his stand as contained in para no. 5 of his affidavit and the same is sufficient to demolish the stand of M/s Neeraj Enterprises pertaining to the non- supply of the correct drawing for the Front Fender by Metalman Auto Ltd.
69. I am of the opinion that it has been rightly argued by RAJ KUMAR Metalman Auto Ltd. that M/s Neeraj Enterprises has chosen to mix Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 up the emails only with a view to cover up the delay caused by him 15:51:34 +0530 in completion of the project. This Court also finds weight in the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the Metalman Auto Ltd. that Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 40 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021there was no fun in not providing the correct drawing for the Front Fender to M/s Neeraj Enterprises, in case, admittedly, the correct drawing for Rear Fender was provided by Metalman Auto Ltd. to M/s Neeraj Enterprises prior to sharing of the quotation by M/s Neeraj Enterprises with Metalman Auto Ltd.
70. As such, I am of the opinion that the submission of M/s Neeraj Enterprises that the delay occurred in completion of the project because of the non-supply of the correct drawing of the Front Fender by Metalman Auto Ltd. does not hold much water.
M/S NEERAJ ENTERPRISES'S PLEA THAT CORRECT TRIAL MATERIAL WAS NOT PROVIDED BY METALMAN AUTO LTD.
71. M/s Neeraj Enterprises, in the written arguments, has also taken up the plea that wrong trial material of the composition of CAU-212 was supplied by Metalman Auto Ltd. and correct trial material CR4 was supplied only on 29.11.2018 and therefore, the delay occurred. I am of the opinion that the above said submission is also not tenable and sustainable at all because as per the terms and conditions of the Purchase Order Ex. PW-2/5, the trial material was to be of the CRC composition. There is no rebuttal to the submission of the Metalman Auto Ltd. that both the above said materials were of CRC only and M/s Neeraj Enterprises has tried RAJ KUMAR to take up a false plea on the above said aspect of the matter only Digitally signed with a view to cover up the delay.
by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 15:51:46 +0530Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 41 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021M/S NEERAJ ENTERPRISES'S PLEA THAT SAMPLES WERE SENT TO METALMAN AUTO LTD. A NUMBER OF TIMES
72. In the written arguments and in the pleadings as well, M/s Neeraj Enterprises has taken up the plea that samples were supplied to Metalman Auto Ltd. a number of times but Metalman Auto Ltd. failed to submit the report on the samples so submitted. In this context, it has to be seen that none other but DW-2 himself in the cross-examination has stated that he cannot admit or deny that the samples supplied by M/s Neeraj Enterprises after September 2018 were proper or not. As such, I am of the opinion that no cogent evidence has been led by M/s Neeraj Enterprises to show that the samples of the various parts of the machine were supplied by it to Metalman Auto Ltd. in time.
WHETHER METALMAN AUTO LTD. IS JUSTIFIED IN TERMINATING THE CONTRACT VIDE EMAIL DATED 01.02.2019 EX. PW-2/16
73. As per the contract placed by Metalman Auto Ltd. upon M/s Neeraj Enterprises vide Purchase Order dated 07.02.2018 Ex. PW-2/5 on record, the final dispatch of the machine was to be done on 08.05.2018 but M/s Neeraj Enterprises unilaterally extended above said dated from 08.05.2018 to 30.06.2018. However, the machine could not be manufactured by M/s Neeraj Enterprises even till 15.01.2019. In this context, the email dated 15.01.2019 Ex. PW-2/15 on record assumes significance. By way of above said email dated 15.01.2019, M/s Neeraj Enterprises requested RAJ KUMAR Metalman Auto Ltd. to extend the time further and requested some Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 15:51:51 +0530 more time to resolve the issue as during trial, some light wrinkles Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 42 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021were still there on the Mudguard. Letter of Intent issued by the Royal Enfield to Metalman Auto Ltd. was cancelled by the Royal Enfield vide email dated 10.10.2018 Ex. PW-2/9 on record. Metalman Auto Ltd. shared MOM dated 03.12.2018 with M/s Neeraj Enterprises vide email dated 17.12.2018 Ex. PW-2/8 on record where the final timelines were recorded. The final timelines state that the project was to be cancelled if the machine was not ready for dispatch on 30.12.2018. Though, M/s Neeraj Enterprises has disputed the correctness of the above said MOM, I am of the opinion that the Metalman Auto Ltd. has been able to prove the above said email.
74. It has to be seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Swarnam Ramachandran & Another Vs. Aravacode Chakungal Jayapalan in Appeal (Civil) 4527/2000 dated 25.08.2004, has held as under:
".............According to Pollock & Mulla's Indian Contract & Specific Relief Acts \026 [(2001) 12th Edition page 1086], the intention can be ascertained from:
i) the express words used in the contract;
ii) the nature of the property which forms the subject matter of the contract;
iii) the nature of the contract; and
iv) the surrounding circumstances.
That time is presumed not to be of essence of the contract relating to immovable property, but it is of essence in contracts of reconveyance or renewal of lease. The onus to plead and prove that time was the essence of the contract was on the person alleging it, thus giving an opportunity to the other side to adduce rebuttal evidence that time was not of essence. That when RAJ the plaintiff pleads that time was not of essence and the defendant KUMAR Digitally signed does not deny it by evidence, the Court is bound to accept the plea by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 of the plaintiff. In cases where notice is given making time of the essence, it is duty of the Court to examine the real intention of the 15:51:58 +0530 party giving such notice by looking at the facts and circumstances of each case. That a vendor has no right to make time of the Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 43 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021essence, unless he is ready and willing to proceed to completion and secondly, when the vendor purports to make time of the essence, the purchaser must be guilty of such gross default as to entitle the vendor to rescind the contract............"
75. Going by the facts and circumstances and the ratio of the above said judgment, though Metalman Auto Ltd. extended the time for completion of project by M/s Neeraj Enterprises time and again, yet, I am of the opinion that time was of the essence of the contract. Metalman Auto Ltd. lodged its resentment with M/s Neeraj Enterprises for non-completion of the Project even by the email dated 29.06.2018 Ex. PW-2/6 on record. The email dated 15.01.2019 Ex. PW-2/15 sent by M/s Neeraj Enterprises to Metalman Auto Ltd., does not leave even any iota of doubt in the mind of the Court to the effect that the project i.e. Mudguard was RAJ KUMAR still having wrinkles and M/s Neeraj Enterprises had requested for Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 15:52:05 +0530 some more time to rectify the issue. I have no hesitation to hold that in the above said facts and circumstances, Metalman Auto Ltd. was justified in cancelling the contract vide email dated 01.02.2019 Ex. PW-2/16 on record and M/s Neeraj Enterprises was at fault for non- completion of the project in time.
76. If weighed on the scale of preponderance of probabilities, which is the litmus test applied in civil cases, the testimonies of PW-1 & PW-2 appear to the Court to be more trustworthy and reliable as compared to the testimony of DW-2. To my mind, Metalman Auto Ltd. has been able to prove that the delay in non- completion of the project is solely attributable to M/s Neeraj Enterprises and that Metalman Auto Ltd. was within its rights to cancel the project vide email dated 01.02.2019 Ex. PW-2/16 on Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 44 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021record.
QUANTUM OF DAMAGES
77. Having held that M/s Neeraj Enterprises was at fault for the delay and for non-compliance of the project in time, the next question, which arises for consideration is as to for which amount Metalman Auto Ltd. is entitled for. Metalman Auto Ltd. in the plaint, in suit no. 263/2021, had stated that M/s Neeraj Enterprises received an amount of Rs. 27,55,080/- but M/s Neeraj Enterprises has admitted the receipt of an amount of Rs. 21,60,000/- by stating that the rest of the amount which was paid by Metalman Auto Ltd. was on account of rectifying defect in Aurangabad Project and J-1 Project as well. It is not in dispute that the defect was rectified by M/s Neeraj Enterprises in the Aurangabad Project of Metalman Auto Ltd. As such, I am of the opinion that Metalman Auto Ltd. has been able to prove that it is entitled for an amount of Rs. 21,60,000/-, i.e. for the amount, it had paid to M/s Neeraj Enterprises on account of the project under the Purchase Order dated 07.02.2018 going by the principle of unjust enrichment.
78. It is true that the Letter of Intent issued by Royal Enfield to Metalman Auto Ltd. was cancelled on 10.10.2018 and the plaintiff in suit no. 263/2021 has claimed an amount of Rs. 36,44,006/- on RAJ KUMAR account of loss of profit because of the cancellation of the project by Royal Enfield but in the entirety of the facts and circumstances, I Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 15:52:13 +0530 am of the opinion that neither the plaintiff in suit no. 263/2021 has led any evidence to prove that it suffered the loss of profit to the tune of Rs. 36,44,006/- nor the plaintiff is entitled for the same, in Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 45 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021the entirety of the facts and circumstances.
79. In the light of the above said discussion, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff i.e. Metalman Auto Ltd. in suit no. 263/2021 is entitled for the amount of Rs. 21,60,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the above said suit till the date of realization of the decreetal amount. Issues no. 1 & 2 stands decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff in suit no. 263/2021.
80. To my mind, the plaintiff i.e. M/s Neeraj Enterprises in suit no. 363/2021 has not been able to prove the issues no. 1 & 2 in his favour and accordingly, issues no. 1 & 2 in suit no. 363/2021 are decided against the plaintiff in that suit.
RAJ KUMAR Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR CONCLUSION Date: 2025.08.14 15:52:29 +0530 Issue No. 3:
81. In the light of the above said discussion, the suit instituted by the plaintiff Metalman Auto Ltd. in suit bearing no. 263/2021 is decreed to the extent that the plaintiff in that suit is entitled for an amount of Rs. 21,60,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the above said suit till the date of realization of the decreetal amount. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff in suit bearing no. 263/2021.
82. The suit bearing no. 363/2021 instituted by M/s Neeraj Enterprises is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 46 of 47 CS (Comm) No. 263/2021 Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/202183. Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly.
84. Decree sheet be prepared by the Reader, after payment of the additional Court Fees, if any.
85. A copy of this judgment be placed separately in each of the files of both the above said suits bearing nos. 263/2021 & 363/2021.
86. Files of both the cases be consigned to the record room.
Digitally
signed by
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, RAJ RAJ KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2025.08.14
On 14th August 2025 15:52:37
+0530
(RAJ KUMAR)
District Judge, (Commercial Court)-01
South West District, Dwarka Courts
New Delhi
Metalman Auto Limited Vs. Ram Mehar Page No. 47 of 47
CS (Comm) No. 263/2021
Ram Mehar Vs. Metalman Industries Pvt. Ltd.
CS (Comm) No. 363/2021