Courts possess independent authority under interim procedural rules and inherent powers to order the delivery of property pending litigation, specifically to prevent depletion or wastage, without requiring a final decree or formal execution process.

JUDGMENT :

VINOD KUMAR , J.

1. The present first appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “CPC”) is directed against order dated 30.04.2026 passed by learned District Judge, Commercial Court-02, District South, Saket (in short “District Judge”) in CS (COMM) 460/2025.

2. For better comprehension and for the sake of convenience, the respondent would be referred as ‘Plaintiff’ and appellant would also be referred to as ‘Defendant’.

3. Before coming to the submissions of parties, it would be appropriate to briefly state the pleadings before the trial court.

PLAINT

4. As per the pleadings of the plaint, the respondent- plaintiff filed a suit against the appellant-defendant stating that plaintiff is a reputed construction company doing the business of executing civil, contractual and finishing work for prominent developers/builders and government projects. The defendant is engaged in the business of real estate development undertaking numerous residential and commercial projects. The defendant issued a Letter of Intent dated May 14, 2024 in favour of plaintiff awarding the work of completion of civil works of towers at Village Dhunella, Sector-33, Sohna District, Gurugram. It is averred in para 8 and 9 of the plaint that the plaintiff immediately upon issuance of Letter of Intent undertook substantial mobilization at defendant’s project site. In order to execute the assigned civil and structural work of the towers A, B, C and D, the plaintiff arranged, mobilized and deployed a wide range of machinery, scaffolding, shuttering, tower hoists, bar cutting machines, monkey lifts, material trolleys, cement mixers, diesel generators and allied equipment essential for high-rise construction from reputed suppliers such as Deesons Traders (scaffolding and shuttering materials), Rohit Engineering Works (Monkey Crane, trolley/lifting machinery), AS Engineering Company (Tower hoists/Material hoist), C-MAC (Passenger Hoist), ACE (Tower Crane Model No.5034), RRA enterprises (Bar cutting, Bar bending and ring making machine), and Ayaan Power Tools (grinder and Hilti hammer machines), amongst others.

5. It was averred in para 10 of the plaint that equipments and materials mobilized by plaintiff were partly owned by plaintiff and partly hired on a monthly rental basis from reputed suppliers. Further the plaintiff procured large quantities of cement shuttering wood, PPGI sheets, MS plates, steel channels and consumables from various vendors.

6. The case of the plaintiff that the terms governing engagement of plaintiff by defendant were crystallized in Letter of Intent dated 14.05.2024 issued by defendant in favour of plaintiff. It provided that the plaintiff would execute civil and contractual works in Towers A, B, C, D and the defendant’s project. The Letter of Intent expressly stipulated the mode and timeline of payment, process and certification of Running Account (RA) Bills by Engineer-in-charge/Project Manager Consultant. I