Delhi High Court - Orders
South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr vs Mr. Kulbhushan Sakhuja on 20 April, 2022
Author: Vipin Sanghi
Bench: Navin Chawla, Vipin Sanghi
$~79 & 80
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA(COMM) 17/2022 & CM Nos.19173-75/2022
(80) RFA(COMM) 18/2022 & CM Nos.19177-80/2022
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
& ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sagar, SC with Ms.Nazia
Paraveen, Advs.
versus
MR. KULBHUSHAN SAKHUJA ..... Respondent
(80) MR. MANISH SAKHUJA ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
ORDER
% 20.04.2022
1. These appeals have been filed challenging the judgment(s) and order(s) dated 01.12.2021 passed by the learned District Judge, Commercial Court-05, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, in the Suit(s), being CS (COMM) 136 of 2021 (in reference to RFA(COMM) 17 of 2022); and CS(COMM) 151 of 2021 (in reference to RFA(COMM) 18 of 2022).
2. By the Impugned Judgments and Orders, the learned District Judge has allowed the application(s) under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') filed by the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Signing Date:22.04.2022 17:24:26 respondents and directed the appellants to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum, on the principal amount already paid by the appellants to the respondents, from 29.12.2019 till 06.10.2021. The appellants have been further directed to pay the cost of the Suit and ₹1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) spent by the respondents for invoking pre-institution mediation. The appellants have also been directed to return the earnest money/security amount to the respondents, if not already returned.
3. As the appeals arise out of similar facts and the challenge thereto is also common, we are disposing of these appeals by our common order.
4. In RFA(Comm) 17 of 2022, the respondent had filed the above- mentioned Suit, being CS(COMM) 136 of 2021, against the appellants claiming that work under Work Order, bearing W.O. no. 51 dated 19.04.2018, was awarded to the respondent by the appellants. On completion of the work, the first and final bill was prepared and passed for a sum of ₹6,48,266/- (Rupees six lakh forty-eight thousand two-hundred and sixty-six) on 29.03.2019, by the appellant no. 2 herein. Further, at the time of awarding of the aforesaid work, the respondent had also deposited a security/earnest money of ₹73,294/- (Rupees seventy-three thousand two hundred ninety-four), which was also to be refunded, thereby making the total amount refundable as ₹7,21,560/- (Rupees seven lakh twenty-one thousand five hundred sixty). The respondent claimed interest on the above amount at the rate of 12% per annum.
5. In RFA(COMM) 18 of 2022, the respondent had filed the subject Suit, being CS(COMM) 151 of 2021, claiming therein that the Work Order no. 29 dated 18.04.2018 was awarded in his favour. On completion of the work, the first and final bill was prepared and passed for a sum of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Signing Date:22.04.2022 17:24:26 ₹6,78,465/- (Rupees six lakh seventy-eight thousand four hundred sixty- five) on 29.03.2019 by the appellant no. 2. At the time of the Award of Work, the respondent had also deposited a security/earnest money of ₹76,548/- (Rupees seventy-six thousand five hundred forty-eight), thereby making the total amount refundable as ₹7,55,013/- (Rupees seven lakh fifty- five thousand thirteen). The respondent, therefore, claimed the above-said amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
6. During the pendency of the above Suits, the appellants admittedly paid to the respondent the principal amount on 06.10.2021. As far as the interest thereon is concerned, the learned District Judge in the Impugned Judgments, has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Vipin Gupta, (2018) SCC OnLine Del 8036, and passed the above-mentioned decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code.
7. 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 as the amount has been unilaterally paid by the appellants, the direction to pay interest thereon cannot be sustained.
8. 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 respondents/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 most severely affected by such pandemic, rather Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Signing Date:22.04.2022 17:24:26 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.
9. In any case, the learned District Judge, by way of the Impugned Judgments, has granted nine months 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 respondents till the date of actual payment. We find no infirmity in such a direction.
10. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present appeals. The same are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VIPIN SANGHI, ACJ NAVIN CHAWLA, J APRIL 20, 2022/Arya/P Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Signing Date:22.04.2022 17:24:26