Delhi District Court
Sh Rajender Kumar Gupta vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 4 September, 2025
Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. MCD
DLCT010190962024
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK GARG,
DISTRICT JUDGE-COMMERCIAL COURT-09
(CENTRAL DISTRICT), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CIVIL SUIT (COMMERCIAL) NO.:- 1342/2024
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Rajender Kumar Gupta
Proprietor of
M/s Rajender Kumar Gupta
Office at D-5, C.C. Colony,
Delhi-110007 ... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner
Dr. SPM Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002 ... Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.5,15,738/-
Date of institution : 05/12/2024
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 03/09/2025
Date of Judgment : 04/09/2025
::- J U D G M E N T -::
CS (Comm.) No. 1342/2024 Page 1 of 18
Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. MCD
1. By way of present judgment, this court shall adjudi-
cate upon suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant
for recovery of Rs.5,15,738/- alongwith pendente-lite and
future interest @ 12% per annum.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
2. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the
present suit, as stated in the plaint, are as under:-
i. The plaintiff is proprietor of M/s Rajender Ku-
mar Gupta and is doing the civil construction work
in defendant's department and other Govt. depart-
ments since quite long time and is recognized con-
tractor of the defendant's department.
ii. The defendant is a Government body provid-
ing civic amenities and infrastructure work for the
public at large within its territorial jurisdiction.
iii. The defendant has awarded the work order
bearing no. EE (M-RZ)-IV/SYS/2011-2012/165
dated 30.08.2011 to the plaintiff for a total contrac-
tual amount of Rs.4,86,967/- after completion of all
the formalities. The completion period of the work
was two months i.e. stipulated date of start of work
was 08.09.2011 and stipulated date of completion
CS (Comm.) No. 1342/2024 Page 2 of 18
Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. MCD
was 07.11.2011 and an agreement dated 30.08.2011
was executed between the parties with regard to the
said work order.
iv. The plaintiff had mobilized all its resources
with intention to complete the work and the work
was completed on 04.05.2012 with a total delay of 5
months and 27 days. The 1st RA/Final bill was pre-
pared by the Junior Engineer of the defendant on the
basis of measurement of executed work recorded in
the MB No. 24244/P-8 on 20.04.2015 by Junior En-
gineer.
v. On 22.05.2015, the bill was prepared by the
Junior Engineer of Rs.3,76,664.91/- which was ac-
cepted by the plaintiff.
vi. On repeated requests of the plaintiff regarding
payment of the bill with regard to the above said
work order, the defendant assured that the amount
of bill will be released only after approval of exten-
sion of time. The Junior Engineer, Asstt. Engineer
and Executive Engineer of the defendant had rec-
ommended for approval of the extension of time on
05 months 27 days vide noting dated 24.07.2015 to
the Suptd. Engineer for approval with remark that
CS (Comm.) No. 1342/2024 Page 3 of 18
Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. MCD
"the contractor start the work in time but could not
complete the same due to heavy public hindrance/
encroachment which were removed with the help of
area representative and MPL staff. After getting the
site clear, contractor started the work with full
swing and completed the same on 04.05.2012.
However, till date the extension of time was not ap-
proved or intimated to the plaintiff.
vii. The plaintiff has moved an RTI application on
02.12.19 before the defendant but the defendant has
not replied the query put by the plaintiff and the
plaintiff filed an appeal before Appellate Authority
on 31.01.2020. Only then, on 04.02.2020, defendant
replied to the questions put by the plaintiff stating
that non-availability of the measurement book is the
reason for not providing the answer of the questions
and the Junior Engineer was directed to trace the
measurement book.
viii. The claims of the plaintiff are as under:-
Claim Particulars Amount (in Rs.)
No.
1. Amount of 1st RA/Final Bill 3,76,665/-
2. Earnest Money Deposit 7,100/-
3. Interest @ 12% on claim no. 1 1,31,973/-
& 2 w.e.f. 04.02.2020 till
30.11.2024 (1046 days)
CS (Comm.) No. 1342/2024 Page 4 of 18
Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. MCD
(excluding 715 days i.e.
15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022)
4. Cost (Court Fee, Advocate Fee, Certificate will be
Misc. Expenses etc.) produced at the
time of final
hearing
Total 5,15,738/-
ix. The plaintiff made several requests for release
of the amount of the aforesaid bill and the earnest
amount but all in vain. Since the defendant ne-
glected to make the payment, on 04.04.2024, the
plaintiff got served a legal notice U/s 478 DMC Act,
1957 dated 02.04.24 to the defendant calling upon
to remit the amount along with interest at the rate of
12% per annum. The said notice was duly delivered
upon the said defendant but the defendant neither
complied nor replied the same.
x. As per clause 9 of the General Terms and
Conditions of the tender documents, the defendant
is liable to release the payment of the passed bills
within the period of 6/9 months and also to release
the earnest/security amount as per the clause 45 of
the General Terms and Conditions.
xi. The defendant is liable to pay interest @ 12%
p.a. on entire amount of (bill amount Rs.3,76,665/-
CS (Comm.) No. 1342/2024 Page 5 of 18
Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. MCD
+ 7,100 earnest money). The amount of interest ac-
crued on the aforesaid amount is Rs.1,31,973/-.
Thus, the total suit amount including principal and
interest is Rs.5,15,738/-. Hence, the plaintiff has
filed the present suit against the defendant.
DEFENDANT'S CASE
3. In the written statement, the defendant contended
that it had issued Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for certain
work, which set outs the relevant terms and conditions
and makes it clear that the General Conditions of Con-
tract and Special Conditions of Contract shall be applica-
ble. Though, the defendant admitted having awarded the
Work Order No. EE (M-RZ)-IV/SYS/2011-2012/165
dated 30.08.2011 to the plaintiff, however, it is submitted
that the plaintiff has not submitted any bills that he was
contractually required to in terms of Clause 7 & 9 of the
General Conditions and Special Conditions of Contract
(GCC) and Clause 4 of the work order and the purported
bills that the plaintiff seeks to rely upon are only internal
noting of the defendant and they do not constitute bill for
the purpose of payment and the suit is without any cause
of action. It is further submitted that execution of the
work order was delayed by the plaintiff. Till date the
plaintiff has never applied for the extension of time nor
CS (Comm.) No. 1342/2024 Page 6 of 18
Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. MCD
submitted any document of completion or labour clear-
ance certificate.
4. It is further submitted that as the plaintiff has failed
to comply with Clauses 17 & 45 of the GCC, he is not
entitled to refund of security deposit.
ISSUES
5. On the basis of the pleadings following issues were
settled on 03.03.2025 :
i. Whether the suit is barred by limitation as averred in
the written statement? (OPD)
ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of
the amount as claimed in the plaint? (OPP)
iii. If the issue no. (ii) is decided in affirmative, whether
the plaintiff is entitled for the pendente-lite and fu
ture interest, if so at what rate and for what period?
(OPP)
iv. Relief.
EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF
6. In order to prove its case, plaintiff Sh. Rajender Ku-
mar Gupta has examined himself as PW1 and has filed his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and has relied
upon the documents as under:
CS (Comm.) No. 1342/2024 Page 7 of 18
Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. MCD
i. The work order dated 30.08.2011 is ExPW1/1.
ii. The agreement dated 30.08.2011 is ExPW1/2.
iii. The 1st RA/Final Bill is ExPW1/3.
iv. The typed copy of the noting dated 24.07.2015 of
extension of time is Mark A (mentioned as ExPW1/4
in the affidavit is now de-exhibited).
v. The RTI application dated 02.12.2019 with postal
receipt is ExPW1/5 and ExPW1/6.
vi. The service report is ExPW1/7.
vii. The RTI appeal dated 31.01.2020 is ExPW1/8.
viii. The postal receipt is ExPW1/9.
ix. The reply of the defendant dated 04.02.2020 is
ExPW1/10.
x. The legal notice dated 02.04.2024 is ExPW1/11.
xi. The postal receipts are ExPW1/12 and ExPW1/13.
xii. The track report are ExPW1/14 and ExPW1/15.
xiii. The certificate of non starter report dated 25.09.2024
is ExPW1/16.
In addition to other documents, PW1 also relied
upon the certificate under Section 63 of BSA is
ExPW1/17.
EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT
7. In order to prove its case, defendant was granted op-
portunity to lead its evidence but defendant chose not to
CS (Comm.) No. 1342/2024 Page 8 of 18
Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. MCD
led any evidence to prove its defence.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS
Issue No. 1
(i) Whether the suit is barred by limitation as averred
in the written statement? (OPD)
8. The onus of proving this issue was on the defendant.
9. It is argued by Ld. counsel for the defendant that the
claim of the plaintiff in the present suit is barred by limita-
tion.
10. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has contro-
verted the contentions of the Ld. counsel for the defendant
and has relied upon an authority titled M/s R.K. Goel Ab-
hey Kumar Jain Vs. MCD, RFA (Comm.) 424/2024 de-
cided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on dated 14.07.25.
11. In the present case, the plaintiff, a contractor, claims
to have executed the work for the defendant/MCD which
was completed on 04.05.12. It is admitted that the defen-
dant prepared the final bill on 22.05.15 which was ac-
cepted by the plaintiff. the grievance of the plaintiff is that
despite repeated assurances from officers of the defendant,
payment was not released.
CS (Comm.) No. 1342/2024 Page 9 of 18
Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. MCD
12. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an RTI application on
02.12.2019 and subsequently preferred an appeal under the
RTI Act on 31.01.2020. Since no payment was made, the
plaintiff served a legal notice U/s 478 of DMC Act, 1957
dated 02.04.24 and having received no response, instituted
the present suit for recovery of money on 05.12.2024.
13. Article 18 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act,
1963 prescribes a limitation period of three years for re-
covery of money for the work done by the plaintiff for the
defendant. The time begins to run from the date when the
work is done. However, where a bill is prepared and ac-
cepted, the limitation may begin from the date of the settle-
ment of the account or the acknowledgment in writing as
per Section 18 of The Limitation Act, 1963.
14. In the present case, the work was admittedly com-
pleted on 04.05.12. Even if the date of preparation of the
bill i.e. 22.05.15 is considered as the starting point of limi-
tation, the suit should have been filed within three years
i.e. on or before 22.05.2018.
15. The plaintiff relies on repeated oral assurances, RTI
application dated 02.12.2019, appeal before the Appellate
Authority under RTI dated 31.01.2020 and legal notice U/s
478 of DMC Act, 1957 dated 02.04.2024. However, none
of these constitutes a valid acknowledgment in writing by
the defendant U/s 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
CS (Comm.) No. 1342/2024 Page 10 of 18
Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. MCD
16. An RTI application filed by the plaintiff is his own
act and not that of the defendant. Similarly an appeal under
RTI Act and issuance of legal notice by the plaintiff cannot
extend the period of limitation. For limitation to be ex-
tended, there must be an acknowledgment in writing
signed by the debtor (defendant) before the expiry of the
limitation period and no such acknowledgment is pleaded
or proved by the plaintiff.
17. In view of the above, the limitation expired latest by
22.05.2018 and the present suit filed on 05.12.2024 is
hopelessly barred by time by more than six years.
18. The reliance of Ld. counsel for the defendant on the
authority M/s R.K. Goel Abhey Kumar Jain Vs. MCD
(Supra) is of no help to him. IN the said case also, it has
been held by the Hon'ble High Court that the preparation
and certification of the final bill constitutes the trigger for
commencement of the period of limitation. Since final bill
was prepared by the respondent in the said case on
12.11.2018 which was accepted by the appellant, therefore, Hon'ble Court held that the date 12.11.2018 is the point from which the period of limitation is required to be com- puted.
19. In the present case, as stated above, it is the case of the plaintiff himself that the bills were passed by defen-
CS (Comm.) No. 1342/2024 Page 11 of 18Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. MCD dant/MCD on 22.05.2015 which was accepted by the plaintiff and even if this date is considered to constitute the date for commencement of the period of limitation, the present suit filed on 05.12.24 is hopelessly barred by time and hence the said authority is of no help to the plaintiff.
20. Accordingly, the present issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 2(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the amount as claimed in the plaint? (OPP)
21. The onus of proving this issue was on the plaintiff.
22. It is the case of the defendant that suit of the plaintiff is pre-mature and he is not entitled to the suit amount for want of submitting the bills for payment. Reliance is placed upon the judgment in the case of North Delhi Mu- nicipal Corporation Vs. Sanjeev Kumar RFA No. 430/2017 decided on 22.03.2018.
23. It is the case of the plaintiff that the present suit has been filed in respect of work order No. EE (M-RZ)-IV/ SYS/2011-2012/165 dated 30.08.2011 and 1st RA/Final bill was passed by the defendant corporation but the defendant CS (Comm.) No. 1342/2024 Page 12 of 18 Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. MCD withheld the amount of the bill. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the security deposit amount of Rs.7,100/- in respect of the said work order also remains to be paid by the defendant. This is not disputed by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant as well.
24. In respect of the said work order, it is the case of the plaintiff that 1stRA/Final bill which is Ex.PW1/3 was pre- pared by the Junior Engineer on 22.05.2015 which was ac- cepted by the plaintiff. The concerned officer of the defen- dant had every time assured to pass the bill prepared by Ju- nior Engineer and release the amount to the plaintiff as and when the amount of this work will come in this division/ head of account.
25. It is not the case of the defendant that the officials of the defendants had not prepared the bill Ex.PW1/3. This bill bears the signatures of the Assistant Engineer con- cerned of the defendants and this fact has not been dis- puted by the defendants.
26. Mere fact that particulars of the said bill were filled by some officials of the defendants in order to help and as- sist the plaintiff in its preparation and presentation is by it- self non sufficient to reject the same. Rather signatures of the plaintiff on the said bill give rise to presumption that CS (Comm.) No. 1342/2024 Page 13 of 18 Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. MCD this was submitted by the plaintiff himself and that ap- proval was given by officials of the defendants and it leads to the inference that there was appropriate compliance of judgment of Hon'ble High Court in case NDMC Vs. San- jeev Kumar (Supra).
27. In view of the aforesaid position, it cannot be said that the plaintiff had not submitted the said bills in respect of said work order EE (M-RZ)-IV/SYS/2011-2012/165 af- ter completion of work in accordance with the terms and conditions of the work contract. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that if the plaintiff has not complied with the GCC guidelines, the defendants also cannot be said to have been complied with the said guidelines. If the plaintiff is alleged to be guilty of non submitting of the bill in respect of the work order EE (M-RZ)-IV/SYS/2011- 2012/165, the defendants are also equally guilty of passing the bill in respect of the said work order. Thus equity de- mands that if both the parties are guilty of non compliance of the terms and conditions of the agreement, only one party cannot be penalized for the default. Hence in my opinion, the claim of the plaintiff cannot be said to be non suited due to the breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties on this ground alone.
28. The plaintiff in his testimony as PW1 has categori-
CS (Comm.) No. 1342/2024 Page 14 of 18Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. MCD cally deposed that he immediately after the award of work order made all the necessary arrangements for the execu- tion and completion of the awarded work order and com- pleted the said work order before the stipulated time. He further deposed that the work was completed by the plain- tiff to the satisfaction of Engineer-in-Charge/Defendant no. 2 and the period prescribed for defect liability also passed over without any negative remark and to the satisfaction of the Engineer-in-Charge/defendant no. 2. He further de- posed that the defendant no. 2 completed the final measure- ment of the aforesaid work recorded in measurement books, thereafter the defendant no. 2 prepared and passed the running bill pertaining to the aforesaid work order and same was accepted by the plaintiff.
29. The issue of award of work order No. EE (M-RZ)- IV/SYS/2011-2012/165 to the plaintiff, the plaintiff having completed the said work order within time without any negative remark, final measurements of the work also car- ried out by the defendants and the preparation of the run- ning bill in respect of the said work have not been denied by the defendants. Nothing has been brought on record by the defendants to prove that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought in respect of the said work order No. EE (M-RZ)-IV/SYS/2011-2012/165. There is no reason to dis- believe the testimony of PW1 and in view of unrebutted CS (Comm.) No. 1342/2024 Page 15 of 18 Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. MCD and unchallanged documents proved by the plaintiff in re- spect of the said said work order No. EE (M-RZ)-IV/SYS/ 2011-2012/165. Thus, plaintiff is entitled to the payment of Rs.3,76,665/- which amount was cleared by the defendants in respect of the said work order No. EE (M-RZ)-IV/SYS/ 2011-2012/165.
30. Coming to the issue of refund of security deposit in respect of said work order, the defendants have taken a plea that plaintiff is not entitled to refund for security for want of compliance of Clause 17 and 45 of GCC.
31. In this regard, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Rajnish Yadav, Proprietor of M/s Bharat Construc- tion Co. (supra) has observed as under :-
25. ........... There is no dispute that the security deposit is refundable to the appellant/plaintiff and the same could be withheld only to secure MCD against any claims due to non-perfor-
mance of the statutory obligations on the part of the appellant/plaintiff. There is no material to indicate that the appellant/plaintiff has not cleared its due towards labour or any other statutory levy. A considerable amount of time has lapsed since the contract was complete. Admittedly, no claim has been made against MCD on account of any acts of commission or omission on the part of the appellant/plaintiff. Denying the appellant's/plaintiff's claim in this context would amount to permitting MCD to appropriate the security amount. Admit- tedly, there are no grounds for MCD to appro- priate the security deposit. Thus, the same is required to be refunded to the appellant/plain- tiff.
CS (Comm.) No. 1342/2024 Page 16 of 1832. It is relevant here to state that nothing has been placed on record by defendants to bring out that plaintiff has failed to clear the dues towards labour or any other statutory levy in respect of the said work orders. Admit- tedly, no claim has been made against defendants/MCD on account of any acts of commission or omission on the part of plaintiff and thus in these facts and circumstances as well as in view of the observations made in the judgment of Rajnish Yadav, Proprietor of M/s Bharat Construction Co. (supra), plaintiff is also entitled to refund of the secu- rity deposit of Rs.7,100/- qua the said work order.
33. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Conclusion :
34. As discussed above, although the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of amount of the bill for the work done in respect of the work order in question and also to the recov- ery of the security amount, yet as the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation, the present suit is liable to be dis- missed.
Issue No. 3 CS (Comm.) No. 1342/2024 Page 17 of 18(iii) If the issue no. (ii) is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the pendente- lite and future interest, if so at what rate and for what period? (OPP)
35. Since the court has decided the issue no. 2 against the plaintiff, no order is being passed with regard to the in- terest and hence this issue is decided accordingly.
Issue No. 4(iv)Relief.
36. In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plain- tiff is hereby dismissed.
37. No order as to cost.
38. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by DEEPAKDEEPAK GARG Date: GARG 2025.09.04 15:38:15 +0530 Announced in the open Court on (Deepak Garg) Day of 04th September, 2025 Distt. Judge, (Comm. Court)-09, Central District, THC : Delhi CS (Comm.) No. 1342/2024 Page 18 of 18