Delhi District Court
Mr. Anil Duggal vs National Building Construction ... on 31 January, 2023
DLND010002152012
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE- 01,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided over by :- MS. VIJETA SINGH RAWAT (DHJS)
CS No. 56945/16
Mr. Anil Duggal
Proprietor
Dugal Associates
Registered office at :
D-242, Krishna Park,
Delvi Road, Khanpur,
New Delhi - 110062
......... Plaintiff
Versus
National Building Construction Corporation Limited
Registered Office at :
NBCC Bhavan,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110003
........ Defendant
Suit presented On : 28.09.2012
Arguments Concluded On : 20.01.2023
Judgment Pronounced On : 31.01.2023
CS No. 56945/2016
Anil Duggal Vs. National Building Construction Corporation Limited
Pages 1 of 23
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.21,99,500/- alongwith interest @ 16.75% calculated from 27.04.2003 and pendente lite and future interest @18% filed by Sh. Anil Duggal, proprietor of Duggal Associates (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Plaintiff') against National Building Construction Ltd. (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Defendant').
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Admittedly, in the year 2002, the defendant issued a tender notice inviting tenders for construction of Bus Queue Shelters for an on behalf of Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter, referred to as 'DTC') throughout South Delhi. The plaintiff submitted his bid around January, 2002 which was accepted by the defendant and Work Order No.55804 and 55807 dated 22.12.2001 and 31.01.2002, respectively, work was awarded to the plaintiff. On 23.01.2002, the contract was executed. The work was to be completed by 31.01.2002 and 14.03.2002, respectively. But finally, the work was completed by 13.06.2003 and the sites were handed over to the defendant on joint inspection.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 27.04.2003, a final bill was submitted by him for Rs.5788318.66/- yet, the defendant did not clear the outstanding amount. As per the plaintiff, as on 08.06.2003, as per his CS No. 56945/2016 Anil Duggal Vs. National Building Construction Corporation Limited Pages 2 of 23 statement of account, Rs.1341736.66/- was unpaid by the defendant for which a reminder was sent on 25.08.2003 but was not responded to by the defendant. The plaintiff has stated that after deduction of TDS of Rs.29,390/- and Work Contract Tax @4% amounting to Rs.1,13,078/-, an amount of Rs.11,99,268.66/- became payable but on 18.06.2003, only a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid and a principal amount of Rs.8,99,268.66/- was never released to the plaintiff. Reference has been made to a reminder dated 04.09.2003 by the plaintiff. However, the defendant responded with a show-cause notice dated 14.02.2004 for imposition of liquidated damages for delay in execution of work.
4. Thereafter, the parties have been at loggerhead with respect to imposition of liquidated damages for delayed execution of work which has been refuted by the plaintiff vide letter dated 15.03.2004. The plaintiff has thereafter, sent reminders on 03.09.2004, 22.11.2004, 15.11.2005, 03.06.2005, 04.06.2005, 22.06.2005 and 23.09.2005 followed by personal visits but no written response was received from the defendant. On 22.09.2005, the plaintiff had a meeting with the officials of the defendant. However, the parties are not on the same footing as to whether in the said meeting, it was agreed that the proposal of levying liquidated damages needed review. Such a claim by the plaintiff in his letter dated 29.09.2005, has been declined by the defendant vide letter dated 07.10.2005. Again reminders were sent on 14.02.2006, 16.02.2006, 01.09.2006 and 12.10.2006 to Director Project, NBCC. Finally, on CS No. 56945/2016 Anil Duggal Vs. National Building Construction Corporation Limited Pages 3 of 23 12.12.2006, a demand notice was sent to the defendant and on 04.05.2007, legal notice was issued to the defendant which have been denied in the written statement.
5. The plaintiff then preferred Company Petition No.115/2008 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.01.2012 wherein it is recorded as under:-
"It is agreed between the parties that the time spent in prosecuting the present proceedings would be excluded while determining the period of limitation for recovery proceedings to be filed by the petitioner."
6. In the interim, plaintiff also filed a RTI application on 22.04.2009 seeking information qua the outstanding dues towards the plaintiff in the books of account of the defendant, reason for non-payment and also sought internal communication between Project head and other concerned department. The same was replied to on 30.05.2009, where it was informed as under:
"Sir, This has reference to your Application No. 331 dated 01.05.209, wherein you have desired to have certain information concerning DTC Works, under RTI Act. As desired, the requisite information is furnished hereinbelow, para-wise:-
(1) On account of recoveries towards defect & L.D., amount outstanding in the name of M/s Dugal Associates as per our books is Rs.27,600/-.
(2) NBCC has not received its payment from DTC. In turn, your dues have not been settled.
....."
CS No. 56945/2016Anil Duggal Vs. National Building Construction Corporation Limited Pages 4 of 23
7. Another RTI application was moved on 14.10.2011 seeking decision of certain officials of the defendant and as to who was responsible for the delay in execution of the contract alongwith deductions, if any. But, the information was declined on 08.11.2011 citing the pendency of the company petition. An appeal was preferred but has remained pending.
8. Pursuant to the order of the High Court dated 05.01.2012, the present suit came to be filed.
9. As per the written statement, in paragraph no.35, it is also explained that during conciliation before the High Court, the defendant had apprised the plaintiff of following deductions.
"(a) Towards electricity :Rs.80,000/-
(b) Towards rectification of work : Rs.50,000/- (Rs.75,000/- was initially deducted but a sum of Rs.25,000/- credited out of the same in the final bill in favour of the petitioner)
(c) Towards damages for Extension of time : Rs.5,96,356/- being 10% of the contract value (out of this amount a sum of Rs.2,85,458/-
was deducted from the running bills and the balance amount of Rs.3,10,898/- was recovered from the final amount as per the final bill.
(d) The amounts due towards the security deposit and E.M.D. were duly credited in the final bill."
10. The main ground of resistance to the present suit is for it being barred by limitation stating that the work was completed on 13.06.2003 and payment of Rs.3,00,000/- having been made on 18.06.2003 on submission of final bill, the limitation for price of work done by the CS No. 56945/2016 Anil Duggal Vs. National Building Construction Corporation Limited Pages 5 of 23 plaintiff for the defendant, started to run as there was no time fixed for payment. Even thereafter, the company petition was preferred only in July 2008 and so, even excluding duration of company law litigation, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation.
11. The plaintiff has denied in his replication that the suit is barred by limitation stating that the lis was alive in reply to the RTI query, there is an acknowledgment of dues of Rs.27,600/- which was not paid due to payment not received from DTC and as late as 2009, the defendant acknowledged the debtor-creditor relationship between the parties.
ISSUES
12. Vide order dated 15.01.2014 following issues were framed :
i) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit amount? OPP
iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate?
OPP
iv) Relief.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
13. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1.
He tendered evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and tendered the following documents:
CS No. 56945/2016Anil Duggal Vs. National Building Construction Corporation Limited Pages 6 of 23 Sr.no. Documents Exhibited as 1 Copy of work order no. 55804 dated Ex. PW1/1 22.12.2001 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) 2 Copy of work order no. 55807 dated Ex. PW1/2 31.01.2002 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) 3 Copy of letter dated 20.10.2002 Ex. PW1/3 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) 4 Copy of letter dated 28.02.2002 Ex. PW1/4 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) CS No. 56945/2016 Anil Duggal Vs. National Building Construction Corporation Limited Pages 7 of 23 Sr.no. Documents Exhibited as 5 Copy of letter dated 15.03.2002 Ex. PW1/5 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) 6 Copy of letter dated 29.01.2002 and Ex. PW1/6 14.03.2002 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) 7 Letter dated 19.04.2002 Ex. PW1/7 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) 8 Office copy of letter dated 19.04.2002 Ex. PW1/8 signed by Sh. Rakesh Jain at point 'D' (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) CS No. 56945/2016 Anil Duggal Vs. National Building Construction Corporation Limited Pages 8 of 23 Sr.no. Documents Exhibited as 9 Letter dated 28.04.2002 Ex. PW1/9 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) 10 Office copy of letter dated 03.05.2002 Ex. PW1/10 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) 11 Letter dated 03/04.06.2002 Ex. PW1/11 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) 12 Office copy of letter dated 10.06.2002 Ex. PW1/12 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) CS No. 56945/2016 Anil Duggal Vs. National Building Construction Corporation Limited Pages 9 of 23 Sr.no. Documents Exhibited as 13 Office copy of letter dated 12.06.2002 Ex. P-13 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) 14 Office copy of letter dated 27.09.2002, Ex. PW1/14 19.04.202 signed by Sh. Rakesh Jain at (objected to by Ld point G employee of plaintiff company counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents)
15. Joint Inspection Report dated Ex. P-14
13.06.2003 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents)
16. Copy of letter enclosing final bill dated Ex. PW1/15 27.04.2003 which bears signatures of (objected to by Ld Mr. Rakesh Jain at point H counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) CS No. 56945/2016 Anil Duggal Vs. National Building Construction Corporation Limited Pages 10 of 23 Sr.no. Documents Exhibited as
17. Statement of account maintained by Ex. PW1/16 plaintiff (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents)
18. Office copy of letter dated 25.08.2003 Ex. PW1/17 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents)
19. Office copy of letter dated 04.09.2003 Ex. PW1/18 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents)
20. Show cause notice dated 14.02.2004 Ex. PW1/19 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) CS No. 56945/2016 Anil Duggal Vs. National Building Construction Corporation Limited Pages 11 of 23 Sr.no. Documents Exhibited as
21. Office copy of letter dated 03.09.2004 Ex.PW1/20 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) 22 Office copy of letter dated 22.11.2004 Ex.PW1/21 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) 23 Office copy of letter dated 15.04.2005 Ex.PW1/22 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) 24 Office copy of letter dated 03.06.2005 Ex.PW1/23 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) CS No. 56945/2016 Anil Duggal Vs. National Building Construction Corporation Limited Pages 12 of 23 Sr.no. Documents Exhibited as 25 Office copy of letter dated 04.06.2005 Ex.PW1/24 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) 26 Office copy of letter dated 22.06.2005 Ex.PW1/25 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) 27 Office copy of letter dated 23.09.2005 Ex.PW1/26 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) 28 Copy of letter dated 27.09.2005 signed Ex. P5 (admitted) by Sh. Bhaskar Jha at point "I"
employee of plaintiff company 29 Copy of letter dated 29.09.2005 Ex. P6 (admitted) bearing signature of plaintiff at point J 30 Copy of letter dated 07.10.2005 Ex. P3 (admitted) 31 Copy of letter dated 14.02.2006 signed Ex. P4 (admitted) by Sh. Satender at point "K" employee of plaintiff company CS No. 56945/2016 Anil Duggal Vs. National Building Construction Corporation Limited Pages 13 of 23 Sr.no. Documents Exhibited as 32 Copy of letter dated 16.02.2006 Ex. PW1/31 signed by Sh. Satender at point "L" (objected to by Ld employee of plaintiff company counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) 33 Copy of letter dated 01.09.2006 Ex. P2 (admitted) bearing signature of plaintiff at point "M"
34 Office copy of letter dated Ex. P1 (admitted) 12.12.2006 35 Copy of legal notice dated Ex. PW1/34 04.05.2007 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) 36 Copy of application under RTI Act Ex. PW1/35 dated 22.04.2009 signed by Naresh (objected to by Ld Pratap Singh an employee of the counsel for defendant as company at point "N" to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) 37 Rely sent by defendant vide letter Ex. PW1/36 dated 30.05.2009 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) CS No. 56945/2016 Anil Duggal Vs. National Building Construction Corporation Limited Pages 14 of 23 Sr.no. Documents Exhibited as 38 Copy of letter dated 14.10.2011 Ex. PW1/37 signed by Naresh Pratap Singh an (objected to by Ld employee of company at point "O" counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) 39 Copy of letter dated 08.11.2011 Ex.PW1/37A (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) 40 Copy of appeal filed before First Ex. PW1/38 Appellate Authority signed by (objected to by Ld Naresh Pratap Singh an employee counsel for defendant as of the company at point "P" to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents) 41 Copy of order dated 05.01.2012 Ex. PW1/39 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof and admissibility of documents)
14. Sh. Rakesh Jain working as Engineer in plaintiff company stepped in the witness box and examined himself as PW-2. He tendered evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A and relied upon the following documents :
CS No. 56945/2016Anil Duggal Vs. National Building Construction Corporation Limited Pages 15 of 23 Sl. No. Document Exhibited as
1. Copy of work order no.55804 Ex. PW1/1 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof)
2. Copy of work order no.55807 Ex. PW1/2 (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof)
3. Office copy of letter dated 24.04.2002 Ex. PW1/8 signed by him at point "D" (objected to by Ld counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof)
4. Office copy of letter dated 27.09.2002 Ex. PW1/14 Office copy of letter dated 19.04.2002 (objected to by Ld signed by him at point "G" counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof)
5. Copy of letter enclosing final bill dated Ex. PW1/15 27.04.2003 bearing signature at point (objected to by Ld "H" counsel for defendant as to mode and manner of proof)
15. The witnesses were extensively cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant, thereafter vide separate statement plaintiff evidence was closed.
CS No. 56945/2016Anil Duggal Vs. National Building Construction Corporation Limited Pages 16 of 23 DEFENCE EVIDENCE
16. In defence, the defendant examined Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj, Additional General Manager (Engg.) as DW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. DW-1/A and relied upon the following documents :
Sr. Documents Exhibit No.
1. Copy of office order no. 710/11 dated Ex. DW1/1 12.10.2011
17. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff , thereafter vide separate statement of Ld counsel for defendant, defendant evidence was closed.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
18. Final arguments have been advanced by Sh. Ayush Bhatia, Ld. Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff and Sh. Mohit Arora, Ld. Counsel on behalf of defendant.
REASONING AND APPRECIATION OF MATERIAL ON RECORD CS No. 56945/2016 Anil Duggal Vs. National Building Construction Corporation Limited Pages 17 of 23
19. The Court has gone through the entire record of the case including pleadings of the parties, evidence led by the parties and documents proved by the parties during trial.
ISSUEWISE FINDINGS ISSUE NO 1.
i) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
20. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant.
20.1 It has been argued on behalf of the defendant that the hopelessly barred by limitation even excluding the period spent in litigation of Criminal Petition no. 115 of 2008 before the Delhi High Court and vide order dated 15.01.2012, it was agreed between the parties that the time spent in prosecuting proceedings would be excluded while determining limitation by this Court. It has been argued that the case of the plaintiff is covered by Article 18 of the Schedule of The Limitation Act, 1963 as he is seeking recovery of price of work done by him for which at best, the cause of action accrued on 18.06.2003 when last payment was made by the defendant.
20.2 Per contra, it has been argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the suit is not barred by limitation because the demand of the plaintiff is covered by Article 26 of the Schedule to The Limitation Act, 1963 which provides CS No. 56945/2016 Anil Duggal Vs. National Building Construction Corporation Limited Pages 18 of 23 3 years of limitation for recovery of money found to be due from the defendant, on accounts stated between them and as the accounts remained unsettled. A reference has been made to reply to the RTI Ex. PW1/36 where the defendant have admitted that Rs. 27,600/- was due and payable to the plaintiff and as the defendant had not received the payment from DTC, the dues had not been settled.
20.3 Thus, it is first to be ascertained under which Article of the Schedule of The Limitation Act, the case of the plaintiff would fall. The rival contentions of the parties are qua applicability of Article 26 and Article 18 respectively of the Schedule to The Limitation Act, 1963. Article 26 to the Schedule of the Limitation Act provides as under :
26 For money payable to the plaintiff for Three When the accounts are stated money found to be due from the years in writing signed by the defendant to the plaintiff on accounts defendant or his agent duly stated between them. authorised in this behalf, unless where the debt is, by a simultaneous agreement in writing signed as aforesaid, made payable at a future time, and then when that time arrives.
20.4 In Standing Conference of Public Enterprises Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited & Ors, LPA no. 778/2012 decided on 16.01.2013 :
"4. The first question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether a civil suit for recovery of the amount claimed in the writ petition, had it been filed by the appellant on the date of filing CS No. 56945/2016 Anil Duggal Vs. National Building Construction Corporation Limited Pages 19 of 23 of the writ petition, would have been barred by limitation. The learned Single Judge, on going through various Articles in the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, came to the conclusion that since there is no specific Article governing the suits for recovery of such an amount, the residuary Article 113 would apply to such a suit and the period of limitation would be three years from the date when the payment was made. The plea taken in the appeal is that it is Article 26 of Limitation Act which would apply to a civil suit of this nature. Article 26 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act prescribes limitation period of three years in respect of the suit for money payable to the plaintiff for money found to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff on accounts stated in them and the period of limitation commences when the accounts are stated in writing signed by the defendant or his agent duly authorized in this behalf, unless where the debt is, by a simultaneous agreement in writing signed as aforesaid, made payable at a future time, and then when that time arrives. Stating the account means settlement of accounts. Article 26 of the Limitation Act refers to a case where a balance is struck after adjusting several items of credit and debit, constituting the account between the parties. Mere making of claim by one party and its admission by the other would not be governed by Article 26 of Limitation Act though it would be a case of admission or acknowledgement of the debt by the other party. This Article refers to an account containing items both on credit and debit side, where the figures on both the sides are adjusted between the parties and a balance is struck, the consideration for the payment of balance being the discharge of items on each side. Reference in this regard can be made to Gordon Woodroffe and Co. (Madras) Ltd. v. Shaik M.A. Majid and Co. AIR 1967 SC 181 and Bishun Chand v. Girdhari Lal AIR 1934 PC 147. In an account, which is stated or settled within the meaning of this Article, it is not open to the parties to prove that a higher or lesser amount was due. Such an account when stated in writing and signed by the defendant or its agent may tantamount to a new contract, possibly constitute a substantive cause of action in itself and a suit may possibly be maintained on it. Such account can be reopened only on the grounds of fraud of mistake which would justify setting aside any other agreement. In fact, the view taken by Goa and Madras High Court in Prabhakar Fatoo Dessai v. Vassudeva Narayan Sarmalkar AIR 1976 Goa 53 and N. Ethirajulu Naidu v. K.R. Chinnikrishnan Chettiar AIR 1975 Madras 333 (DB) is that where the entire debt has become time barred by the time when the settlement of accounts are made, the same would not CS No. 56945/2016 Anil Duggal Vs. National Building Construction Corporation Limited Pages 20 of 23 amount to a cause of action nor could it provide a fresh starting unless it amounts to express promise within the meaning of Section 25(3) of the Contract Act. We, however, need not delve further into this aspect since, as stated hereinbelow, this is not a case of stating/settlement of account envisaged in Article 26 of Limitation Act."
20.5 Thus, since it is not a case of mutual debit and credit between the parties, it cannot not be said to be the one to fall under Article 26 of Schedule of The Limitation Act, 1963 and the argument on behalf of the plaintiff is therefore, rejected.
20.6 In the considered view of this Court on the facts of the present case, limitation would be assessed as per Article 18 of the Schedule of The Limitation Act, 1963 which is three years since the work is done. As per the evidence led by the plaintiff, final bill Ex. PW1/15 was submitted on 27.04.2003 for a sum of Rs. 57,88,318.66/- and an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid on 18.06.03 vide cheque no. 073367 into the account of the plaintiff. The sites were handed over after completion of work on 13.06.2003 pursuant to a joint inspection. Hence, at best, the work had been completed on 13.06.2003 and the limitation began to run and would thereafter, have expired on 12.06.2006. However, reliance has been placed upon reply to RTI Ex. PW1/36 where there is an acknowledgment of debt of Rs.27,600/-. However, for applicability of Section 18 of The Limitation Act, 1963, the acknowledgement of debt also has to be within the period of limitation but the reply is dated 30.05.2009 which again is beyond the period of limitation. For extension of limitation by way of CS No. 56945/2016 Anil Duggal Vs. National Building Construction Corporation Limited Pages 21 of 23 acknowledgment, the same is required to be unequivocal. However, even if Ex.P3 (also Ex. PW1/29) which was sent in reply to Ex. P6 (also Ex. PW1/28), it can be gathered that there was no unequivocal admission on behalf of the plaintiff on the claims of the defendant. Every other reminder sent by the plaintiff which are Ex. P1, Ex. P2, Ex. P4, Ex. PW1/17, Ex. PW1/18, Ex. PW1/20, Ex. PW1/21, Ex. PW1/22, Ex. PW1/23, Ex. PW1/24, Ex. PW1/25, Ex. PW1/26 and Ex. PW1/31 (objection overruled as they are copies of originals already sent to the defendant) do not serve to extend the period of limitation. The litigation before the Company Law Board was from the period 05.05.2008 to 05.01.2012 which itself would not come to the benefit of the plaintiff because even prior the filing of the Company Law Board, the claim herein, stood barred by law. Hence this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
ISSUES NO. 2 and 3ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit amount? OPP
iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate? OPP
21. In view of observation in Issue No.1 both these issues are also decided against the plaintiff.
CS No. 56945/2016Anil Duggal Vs. National Building Construction Corporation Limited Pages 22 of 23 RELIEF
22. In view of the findings and observations herein above, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to cost.
23. Decree sheet be prepared, accordingly.
24. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced in open Court (Vijeta Singh Rawat) on 31.01.2023 Additional District Judge-01, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi CS No. 56945/2016 Anil Duggal Vs. National Building Construction Corporation Limited Pages 23 of 23