Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V.KAMESWAR RAO, VINOD KUMAR
HLK Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Ajay Kumar – Respondent
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 b
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....
The court upheld that a party may be compensated for work done despite absence of a written contract when the other party benefits, reinforcing principles of unjust enrichment under Section 70 of the....
The main legal point established is that a plaintiff may be entitled to extra-work claims based on actual work executed, and objections raised without evidence may lack basis.
The court affirmed that a judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is valid when unqualified admissions exist, despite disputes over additional costs not included in the original agreement.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to extra work payment and interest on delayed payments under the terms of the contract and the Interest Act, 1978.
The court ruled that a contract described as tainted by fraud must be supported by specific evidence of wrongdoing; mere suspicion is insufficient.
An arbitrator cannot exceed jurisdiction by awarding claims not supported by written approval as mandated by the contract, rendering the award illegal.
Escalation of contract rates is permissible when delays are not due to the contractor's fault, allowing for additional payment for work done after significant delays.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
