Delhi High Court - Orders
South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr vs Mr. Kulbhushan Sakhuja on 21 April, 2022
Author: Vipin Sanghi
Bench: Navin Chawla, Vipin Sanghi
$~51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA(COMM) 20/2022 & CM APPL. 19364-67/2022
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
& ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sagar, Standing Counsel
with Ms.Nazia Praveen, Advs.
Versus
MR. KULBHUSHAN SAKHUJA ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
ORDER
% 21.04.2022
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and order dated 28.09.2021 passed by the learned District Judge Commercial Court - 04, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS (Comm) No. 142 of 2021, decreeing the Suit of the respondent under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), directing that the respondent is entitled to recovery of a sum of ₹6,50,176/- (Rupees six lakh fifty thousand one hundred seventy-six) along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of expiry of nine months of the date of the bill, that is, 29.03.2019, till the entire amount is paid. The respondent has further been held entitled to recovery of security/earnest refund of Rs. 73,478/- (Rupees seventy-three thousand four hundred seventy-eight) without interest, however, only after compliance Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Signing Date:22.04.2022 17:33:49 with Clause 45 of the General Terms and Conditions of Contract by the respondent.
2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the above Suit claiming that he had successfully performed the work under the Work Order, bearing W.O. No. 57 dated 19.04.2018, awarded by the appellants to the respondent. After completion of the Work, the first and final bill was prepared and passed for a sum of Rs. 6,50,176/- (Rupees six lakh fifty thousand one hundred seventy- six) on 29.03.2019 by the appellant no. 2. The respondent/plaintiff further claimed that he is entitled to a refund of the security/earnest money of Rs. 73,478/- (Rupees seventy-three thousand four hundred seventy-eight).
3. The appellants filed their written statement. The respondent, thereafter, filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code. In reply to the application, the appellants placed reliance on Clause 7 of the Circular dated 10.06.2014 and Clause 9 of the General Terms and Conditions to contend that the respondent is entitled to payment on 'Queue' basis and no interest is payable to the Contractor.
4. The learned District Judge, by the Impugned Order, held that the award of work to the respondent and due execution thereof by the respondent is not disputed by the appellants. The final bill has also been passed by the appellant no. 2 and is not under challenge. The only defence taken by the appellants is that the work in question was under a non-planned head and as such, the payment thereunder will be released only when the funds are available with the appellant. The learned District Judge held that such a defence cannot be accepted. The learned District Judge further relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Vipin Gupta, (2018) SCC OnLine Del 8036, to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Signing Date:22.04.2022 17:33:49 hold that the respondent would be entitled to interest after the expiry of the period of nine months from the date of the bill.
5. The appellants confines the challenge to the Impugned Judgment and Decree only to the extent that it awards interest in favour of the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Impugned Judgments fail to take into account the scarcity of funds with the appellants and the Covid - 19 pandemic situation, which resulted in a delay in releasing the amount in favour of the respondents. He submits that the direction to pay interest to the respondent cannot be sustained.
6. We cannot agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The scarcity of funds with the appellants cannot be a ground to deny the legitimate and legal claim of the respondent/contractor or delay in payment thereof. Equally, the situation arising out of the Covid - 19 pandemic, in fact, should have persuaded the appellant/Corporation to expedite the process of payment of legitimate and legal dues to its contractors, who would be more severely affected by such pandemic, rather than give an excuse to the appellants to delay such payment. It certainly cannot give a justification to the appellant/Corporation to withhold and delay the payment of legitimate dues to the contractors.
7. In any case, the learned District Judge, by way of the Impugned Judgment, has granted nine-month interest-free period to the appellants, and only thereafter directed the payment of interest and that too, only at the rate of 10% per annum, to the respondent till the date of actual payment. We find no infirmity in such a direction.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Signing Date:22.04.2022 17:33:498. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present appeal. The same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VIPIN SANGHI, ACJ NAVIN CHAWLA, J APRIL 21, 2022/rv Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Signing Date:22.04.2022 17:33:49