SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 2256

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, JJ.
Mr. Rajnish Yadav Proprietor of M/s Bharat Construction Co. – Appellant
Versus
The North Delhi Municipal Corporation – Respondent
RFA(OS)(COMM) 1 of 2021
Decided On : 10-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
Moni Cinmoy & Abhinav Akash, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Sanjeev Sagar & Ms. Nazia Parveen, Advocates, for the Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of contractual clauses and the burden of proof in establishing entitlement to claims.

Headnote:

Commercial Courts Act - Construction Contract - Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - [Section 13, Commercial Courts Act, 2015] - The judgment discusses the applicability of Clause 10 CC of the Agreement, the entitlement to refund of security deposit, and the payment of interest. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the contractual obligations and the legal provisions related to the completion period and refund of security deposit.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a civil construction company, filed a suit against the North Delhi Municipal Corporation for non-payment of final bill, escalation costs, expenses due to prolongation of work, and refund of earnest money. The respondent contested the suit on the grounds of limitation and inapplicability of certain clauses of the Agreement.

Finding of the Court:

The court found in favor of the appellant for the non-paid amount, rejected the claim for escalation costs, and expenses during prolongation of work, but allowed the claim for refund of security deposit and awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

Issues: The issues involved the applicability of contractual clauses, entitlement to refund of security deposit, and the payment of interest.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the contractual clauses, the burden of proof on the appellant, and the lack of evidence to support certain claims.

Final Decision: The court passed a decree in favor of the appellant for the non-paid amount, refund of security deposit, and awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. Mr. Rajnish Yadav has filed the present appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 impugning a judgement dated 06.05.2020 (hereafter `the impugned judgement') passed by the learned Single Judge in C.S (COMM.) No. 719/2017 captioned Mr. Rajnish Yadav v. The North Delhi Municipal Corporation, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the suit filed by the appellant.

Factual Context

2. The appellant is engaged in the business of civil construction under the name of his proprietorship concern, `Bharat Construction Company'. On 10.02.2012, the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereafter `MCD') awarded a contract for construction work at A-74, Phase-I, Naraina Industrial Area to DTC Nallah at Loha Mandi Naraina in Karol Bagh Zone vide work order No. EE-Project Karol Bagh/SYS/2011-2012/14 (hereafter `the Project'), to the appellant for an amount of Rs.4,05,26,960/- (Rupees Four Crores Five Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Only).

3. The appellant states that he deployed men, materials and tools required for construction within a period of ten days from the date of the aforesaid work order. Subsequently, on 11.04.2012 and again on 12.06.2012, the appellant informed MCD that that he would be appointing a civil engineer and a diploma holder with the requisite educational qualifications to supervise on the project.

4. On 28.08.2012, MCD extended the period for completion of the Project to 30.11.2012. Thereafter, the time for completion of the Project was extended from time to time. By a letter dated 23.01.2014, it was finally extended till 31.03.2014.

5. The appellant claims that he submitted the running bills, including bills of escalation in terms of Clause 10 CA (Payment due to Variation in prices of Materials after Receipt of Tender) of the General Condition of Contract for Municipal Corporation of Delhi Works (hereafter `the Agreement'), and the same were cleared by the respondent. The appellant continued to execute the works in terms of the work order, despite hindrances at the construction site.

6. The appellant claims that he completed the Project on 04.05.2015 and submitted the Final Bill on 12.05.2015. He states that MCD paid the 8th, 9th, and 10th Running Account Bills (RA Bills) but did not clear the Final Bill, including the amount due on account of escalation in costs, in terms of Clause 10 CC (Payment due to increase/decrease in Prices/Wages, excluding material under 10 CA, after receipt of tender for work).

7. On 15.04.2017, the appellant issued a legal notice to the respondent under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, demanding payment of the remainder amount; however, the respondent did not pay the same.

8. Aggrieved by the non-payment of his claims, the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit in this Court [being CS(COMM) No.719/2017: captioned `Rajnish Yadav v. The North Delhi Municipal Corporation']. In the said suit, the appellant/plaintiff raised the following claims:

(a) a claim for a sum of Rs.83,349/- on account of non-payment of the Final Bill;

(b) a claim for a sum of Rs.51,09,949/- on account of escalation under Clause 10 CC of the Agreement;

(c) a claim for a sum of Rs.17,60,000/- on account of expenses incurred due to prolongation of the work; and

(d) a claim for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of refund of earnest money.

In addition to the above, the appellant/plaintiff had also claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the aforementioned claims.

9. Accordingly, the appellant/plaintiff sought a decree against MCD for an aggregate amount of Rs.1,41,33,670/- along with, interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of actual payment, in addition to costs.

10. MCD contested the said suit and filed its Written Statement. MCD claimed that the suit was barred by limitation. According to MCD, by virtue of Section 478(2) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereafter `the DMC Act'), the cl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top