Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 4145
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Reserve: 26th July, 2022 Date of Decision: 13th September, 2022 + CS(COMM) 555/2021 A2 Interiors Products Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Authorized Representative Mr. Jatin Pasricha A-1121-22, Birla Farm, Chattarpur Extension, Delhi-110074 ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Mohit Chaudhary & Mr. Kunal Sachdeva, Advocates.
versus
1. Rahul Bhandari S/o Mr. M.C. Bhandari R/o 1-2 Maharani Bagh, New Delhi- 110065
2. Namita Bhandari W/o Mr. Rahul Bhandari R/o 1-2, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi- 110065.
3. Mr. M.C. Bhandari R/o C-109, South Ex, Part 2 New Delhi
4. Mrs. Manali Singhal D/o Mr. M.C. Bhandari R/o C-109, South Ex, Part 2 New Delhi.
…..Defendants Through: Mr. Prosenjeet Banerjee, Ms. Shreya Singhal, Ms. Aanchal Kapoor & Mr.
Deepak Singh Rawat, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G E M E N T
I.A. 2147/2022 (For Summary Judgment) & I.A. 11640/2022 (For Rejection of Plaint)
1. An application I.A. 2147/2022 has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) for Summary Judgment for directing the defendant to pay ₹5,97,09,531/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum. On the other hand, application under Order 13(A) read with Order XII Rule 6 and Section 151 of CPC has been filed on behalf of the defendant for dismissal of the entire claim.
2. The plaintiff in its application under Order XIII (A) CPC has asserted that there are no disputes about the admitted facts and the liability of the defendant to pay ₹5,97,09,531/- with interest as proved and established from the various Invoices and documents relied upon by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree in the sum of ₹5,97,09,531/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum.
3. The defendants have controverted the assertions made in the application and asserted that the claim of the plaintiff to be not maintainable. Similar are the contentions made in the application I.A. 11640/2022 seeking rejection of the plaint.
4. Briefly stated, plaintiff in its Suit has claimed that it is a Company engaged in various activities along with interior designing. It was engaged by the defendants sometime in February, 2016 for the work of interior designing and construction (inclusive of alteration, modification, repair and rectification) at the premises bearing No. C-109, South Extension, Part-II. Along with the above arrangement, the defendants also placed an order for supply of Burma Teak Wood and other goods. As per the arrangement, the plaintiff was entitled to keep 21% over the bills of input as its profit. In addition, an amount fixed for services i.e., labour payment was to be made by the defendants. The plaintiff in a timely manner executed the work and delivered Burma Teak Wood and other material at the respective addresses of the defendants and also performed necessary tasks. The plaintiff carried out the works as under:
| Particulars of the Work Carried out | Amount | Total |
| Total Value of the Interior Work done at House no. C-109, South Extension Part - 2, New Delhi | ₹2,67,69,994/- | |
| Total Value of the Hardware utilized at the C-109, South Extension Part-2, New Delhi | ₹26,27,892 /- | |
| ₹2,93,97,886/- | ||
| Total cost of Burma Teak | ₹2,46,06,762/- |
| wood after deduction of VAT + 21% contractors profit | ₹ 51,67,420/- | |
| ₹2,97,74,182/- | ||
| Value of the second bill raised for the work done at the residence of the Defendants | ₹9,71,530/- | |
| Value of rework i.e. changes, additions, alterations, modifications, repairs and rectifications etc. | ₹91,10,825/- | |
| Value of work carried out at the residence of the Defendant No. 1 | ₹10,35,423/- | |
| Addition of safety and security expenses lying on sites | ₹10,50,900/- | |
| Labor/ Installation Charges | ₹1,35,82,774/- | |
| Amount of Taxes | ₹35,90,1411- | |
| GST @ 18% | ₹1,16,95,870/- | |
| Total Amount | ₹10,02,09,531/- | |
| Amount received (details given in Para 8 below) | ₹4,05,00,000/- | |
| Amount Pending | ₹5,97,09,531/- |
5. It is asserted that from time to time i.e., from 24.02.2016 to 01.02.2018 invoices were raised on the defendants for the work done and the goods delivered against which a sum of ₹4,05,00,000/- has been paid by the defendants, but there is an outstanding amount of ₹5,97,09,531/- which the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay. The plaintiff has claimed that on several occasions via e-mails, telephonic conversations, personal visits and meetings, plaintiff requested the defendants to clear the outstanding amount and to make further payments to its various suppliers of goods and services but all requests went in vain. Certain works, which were beyond the scope of the work, were also carried out by the defe
