Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 568
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, VINOD KUMAR, JJ.
HLK Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Ajay Kumar - Respondent
RFA (COMM) No. 107 of 2022
Decided On : 20-08-2025
For the Appellant : Kshitij Sharda
For the Respondent: Pradeep Kumar Kar
The court affirmed that consent for additional work can be established through continued payments and invoice acceptance, highlighting contractual obligations regarding work completion and associated costs.
Headnote:(A) Agreement Act - Cost of work - On appeal, it was found that the invoices raised by the plaintiff were accepted by the defendant, despite his claims of excess payment and incomplete work. The court concluded that the defendant was liable for additional work and taxes as per the agreements and acknowledged invoices, reinforcing the principle that consent for extra work can be inferred from continued payments made post-invoice. The lower court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claim was set aside, affirming the contract's obligations. (Paras 16, 24, 49)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, engaged in construction, had a contractual agreement with the defendant for various works. Disputes arose regarding the amount payable following claims of excess payments and incomplete tasks, leading to a suit for recovery of Rs.7,02,856/-.
Findings of Court:
The plaintiff was entitled to the outstanding amount of Rs.7,02,856/- plus 9% interest from the filing date of the suit until realization.
Issues: The principal questions related to the admissibility of invoices, responsibilities for tax payments, and the validity of claims regarding additional work performed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the invoices indicated the total work done and were accepted by the defendant, who did not contest the work's necessity until much later. Thus, the defendant was liable for the outstanding amount as justified by the documentary evidence.
Result: Appeal allowed in favor of the plaintiff for recovery of the amount with interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details on contract agreement and payments. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. defendant's counterclaim and admissions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. trial court's findings on claims. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 4. arguments regarding additional work and taxes. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 41) |
| 5. interest entitlement and rate determination. (Para 44 , 46 , 47) |
| 6. final decree and court order. (Para 49 , 50 , 51) |
JUDGMENT :
VINOD KUMAR, J.
1. Present Regular First Appeal challenges a judgment dated 01.06.2022 passed by learned District Judge (Commercial Court-01), South East District, New Delhi vide which civil suit CS (Commercial) No. 291/2020 filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs.07,02,856/- was dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the appellant would also be referred to as ‘plaintiff’ and the respondent as ‘defendant’.
3. For the disposal of this appeal, it is necessary to briefly state more relevant portions of pleadings and evidence led by parties before the Trial Court.
Plaint
4. As per the plaint, the plaintiff company is engaged in the business of designing, installation and execution of civil work including construction, electrical and plumbing etc. The defendant, being the sole proprietor of M/s Aditya Enterprises, entered into an agreement with plaintiff on 19.12.2015 for executing interior designing, civil construction and other works in defendant’s property bearing No. D-117, Lower Ground Floor, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi-110024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Project Site').
5. In para 5, it is averred that this agreement contained details of the works to be done, material to be used and quality thereof. The scope of the work to be done also included certain other works than those detailed in the agreement. Such work pertained to electricity, networking, phone line installation, CCTV Camera, and Air Conditioning etc. The estimated cost of the total work was Rs.20,50,153/- excluding applicable taxes.
6. In para 7 of plaint, it is averred that the work was started in January, 2016 and the defendant was regularly updated about its progress. The defendant never expressed dissatisfaction about the work or the material. During the construction of bathroom in the last week of January, 2016, water seepage in two walls was detected and the defendant was intimated about it. On closer inspection, it was found that seepage was from an active Delhi Jal Board sewer that had been laid adjacent to the damaged walls. It was mutually decided that the remedial measures for repair of the damaged wall would be carried out by the plaintiff. Also, the defendant decided for installation of a Central Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning System (HVAC) at the project site, instead of 05 split air conditioners that were to be installed as per original agreement. Cost estimated for remedial measures and installation of HVAC system was prepared and shared through an email dated 30.01.2016, but there was a typographical error and hence cost was shared again vide email dated 03.02.2016 as per which the cost of damage to the wall was Rs.1,31,894/- and for installation of the HVAC system, it was Rs.3,07,553/-. An amount of Rs.1,90,000/- was adjusted against the cost provision that had already been made in the original agreement for the installation of five Split Air Conditioners, which was later substituted with an HVAC system. Certain extra work was also done on the asking of the defendant.
7. As per para 12, the defendant further desired execution of additional works at the project site, which were beyond the original bill of quantities. Details of extra work were mentioned in Schedule ‘B’ of the plaint. A discount of 5 percent plus Rs.1,781.31/- was given to the defendant even on the extra work done.
8. As per the para 13 of the plaint, the defendant paid a sum of Rupees Eight Lakhs between 22.12.2015 and 19.03.2016 in respect of the ongoing work. On completion of major portion of the work, invoice of Rs.21,52,905/- i
