Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 31856
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, Sachin Datta, JJ
KAPIL KHANNA – Appellant
Versus
CONTINENTAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
RFA(COMM)-47/2024
The plaintiff failed to establish his claims for payment due to non-completion of work as per contract terms, emphasizing the burden of proof lies with the claimant.
Headnote:(A) Contract Law - Breach of Contract - The appellant sought recovery of ₹35,52,935/- for services rendered under two Purchase Orders (POs) but was denied due to failure to complete the work as per the contract terms. The court emphasized the necessity of delivering complete drawings as per the scope of work defined in the Book of Requirements (BOR). (Paras 1, 24, 50)
(B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff failed to establish that he had performed additional work beyond the agreed scope or that the defendant had agreed to pay for such work. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide necessary documentation to support his claims. (Paras 27, 41)
(C) Payment Terms - The court upheld the payment structure outlined in the POs, confirming that payments were contingent upon the completion of specified stages of work. (Paras 43, 49)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, an architect, claimed unpaid dues from the respondent for consultancy services related to a new building and an existing locker room, alleging breach of contract. The respondent contended that the appellant failed to deliver required services and documentation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant did not fulfill his contractual obligations and failed to provide necessary evidence of completed work.
Issues: The main issues included whether the plaintiff had performed the work as per the contract and whether he was entitled to the claimed amounts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proof to establish his claims and that the defendant was justified in denying further payments based on incomplete work.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning a judgment dated 08.08.2023 (hereafter the impugned judgment) passed by the learned Commercial Court in CS (COMM) No. 177/2020 captioned Kapil Khanna Vs. Continental India Pvt Ltd. In terms of the impugned judgment, the learned Commercial Court has dismissed the suit of recovery filed by the appellant.
2. The appellant had filed the aforementioned suit for recovery of a sum of ₹35,52,935/- along with the pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It is the appellant’s case that the respondent had breached the contract for the payment of work done in respect of the new building and the existing locker building amounting to an aggregate sum of ₹34,18,085/-. In addition to seeking recovery of the aforesaid amount, the appellant had also sought recovery of interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 18.11.2019 to 17.03.2020, which was quantified at ₹1,34,850/-.
3. The appellant (hereafter also referred to as plaintiff) carries on the business / profession in the name of sole proprietorship concern – M/s Place Studios. He states that he is an architect by profession and is,interalia,engagedintheprofessionofarchitecture,urbandesigning, master planning, interior design and other allied services.
4. The respondent (hereafter also referred to as defendant) is a private company and engaged in the business of manufacturing pneumatic casings, inner tubes and tyres for all types of vehicles.
PLAINTIFF’SCASE
5. It is the plaintiff’s case that in December 2018,the defendant had approached him in his office at Delhi for availing consultancy services for designing the new building and existing locker room as R&D building as per Book of Requirements (hereafter also referred to as ‘BOR’).
6. The plaintiff claims that on 28.01.2019, he sent a consultancy proposal as per the BOR floated by the defendant. Pursuant to the said proposal, the defendant issued a Purchase Order (PO no. 133/4900242041 – hereafter the first PO) dated 01.02.2019 for a sum of ₹7,50,000/- plus Goods and Services Tax (GST) as applicable. The first PO mentions the detail as “Consultant for services required in R&D”. The first PO also indicated the scope of work/services as well as specified the deliverables. The payment terms as set out in the first PO specified that 20% of the amount due would be payableonapproval of the concept; 20% at the stage of estimate and tenders; 20% of the amount due at the stage of providing civil finishes, electrical and plumbing working drawings; and the remaining 40% was payable in four stages during construction.
7. The plaintiff claims that there was an existing locker room building adjoining the building mentioned as ‘new building’. The defendantproposedtomergethetwoandconstructabuildingtobeused as a testing facility (R&D building). The plaintiff claims that the existing building was in a completely torn down condition and had to bepracticallyrebuilt.Accordingtothepetitioner,thescopeofworkwas relatedonlytoarchitecture,structural,HVACandelectricalworkofthe new building.
8. The plaintiff claims that thereafter the officials of the defendant called upon the plaintiff to do additional work with the false promise of payment of enhanced fee. He also claims that the defendant had issued another interim Purchase Order dated 07.06.2019 (PO No. 127/4990244820 – hereafter the second PO) of ₹50,000/- plus GST as applicable, acknowledging the scope of additional works.
9. The plaintiff claims that he had submitted the entire drawings, the requisite details as well as the tender documents, which were received from the defendant.
10. TheplaintiffhadissuedanInvoicedated20.03.2019(Ex.PW1/8) (being Invoice no.13) in respect of the first PO for a sum of ₹1,50,000/- plus integrated goods and service tax ( IGST) of ₹27,000 being 20% of the amount payable under the first PO at the first stage. Thereafter, the plaintiff also raised a second invoice for the same amoun
