JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. 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 judgements 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, work order No.43 dated 27th May, 2013 was placed on the Contractor. After completion of the work to the satisfaction of the Engineer-in-Charge, the final bill was passed on 31st July, 2013 for a net amount of Rs.3,96,597/- (net amount), security of Rs.46,644/- and certain overhead charges resulting in total amount of Rs.4,66,445/-. The Contractor served a notice dated 5th March, 2015 calling upon EDMC to make the payment which was not done. Accordingly, the Contractor filed the subject suit claiming the entire sum of Rs.4,66,445/- alongwith pendente lite interest. The Corporation, in its written statement, pleaded as under:

"6-11. That the contents of para no. 6 to 11 of the plaint are wrong and denied. However it is submitted that the EDMC has issued the work order no. EE M-III/SH/N/TC/2013-14/43 dt. 27/05/2013, Name of Work:IMP./Dev of gali No. 2 East Nathu Colony Ashok Nagar by pdg. RMC in C-246, Shahdara North Zone. It is further submitted that plaintiff had carried out works as mentioned above and completed the works. It is further submitted that first and final bills of plaintiff was passed on 31/07/2013 gross amount Rs.4,66,445/- (Net amount Rs.3,96,597/-). After passing the bill of the plaintiff, the said passed bill were sent to the accounts department of EDMC/HQ for releasing the payment, but till date no payment have been release to the plaintiff due to paucity of funds under non-plan head. It is further submitted that even necessary and unavoidable payments such as medicines, essential hospital items, pensions, medical reimburse