Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. These are a batch of appeals which have arisen out of disputes between Contractors/Plaintiffs (hereinafter, ‘Contractors’) on the one hand and the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereinafter, ‘NrDMC’) and East Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereinafter, ‘EDMC’), on the other. NrDMC and EDMC are collectively referred to as ‘Corporations'. The facts in each appeal are different and hence separate judgments are being passed in each of the appeals.

2. Briefly, these are cases where various work orders were placed on Contractors by both the Corporations. The works were executed by the Contractors and thereafter, the Engineer-in-Charge has passed the final bills. Payments in respect thereof were not made. Suits for recovery were filed by the Contractors. The Trial Court decreed the suits in favour of the Contractors.

3. In respect of each of the work orders, the Contractors seek either/all of the following payments :

(a). Payment of the principal amount as passed in the final bill;

(b). Refund of security deposit;

(c). Interest on account of late payment of the principal amount, as also due to delay in refund of security deposit.

4. The Corporations rely on Clauses 7 and 9 of the General Conditions of Contract in respect of payment of principal amount and interest, read with the amendment of 19th May, 2006. In respect of the security deposit, the Corporations rely on Clauses 17 and 45 of the General Conditions of Contract for Municipal Corporation of Delhi Works (hereinafter, ‘General Conditions of Contract’). In addition, the Corporations also rely upon Circular dated 10th June 2014 signed by the Chief Engineer, MCD which was issued in the nature of a clarification. The questions that have arisen in all these cases are –

(i) Whether payment of the principal amount can be delayed in view of Clause 7 and Clause 9 of the General Conditions of Contract read with the amendments?

(ii) Whether the refund of earnest money/security deposit can be delayed in view of Clauses 17 and 45 of the General Conditions of Contract?

(iii) Whether interest is payable on delayed payments/refunds and if so, for which period?

5. Arguments have been addressed by Mr. Sunil Goel and Ms. Mini Pushkarna on behalf of the Corporations - NrDMC and EDMC, respectively. On behalf of the Contractors in some matters, Mr. Vinay Kumar has made submissions.

Background of the case :

6. In the present case, the Contractor was awarded work orders Nos.522, 202, 208, 436, 83, 313, and 194 dated 5th March, 2014, 19th December, 2014, 19th December, 2014, 28th February, 2014, 24th November, 2014, 9th January, 2015, and 19th December, 2014, respectively. The Contractor contends that he is entitled for the principal amount of Rs.47,21,695/- qua all work orders. Security refund of total amount of Rs.5,53,118/- is also being sought. It is the contention of the Contractor that the payment of the amounts due was withheld, despite the final bills having being passed on various dates by the Engineer-in-Charge as enumerated in the table below:

The total amount for which the bills were passed is Rs.52,74,813/-, including security deposits made. The Contractor thus claims:

(i) Payment of the principal amount as per the bills by the Engineer-in-charge;

(ii) Refund of security amount;

(iii) Interest on delayed payments.

7. In the written state