CS(COMM) 555/2021

Page 1 of 13

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Reserve: 26^th July, 2022

Date of Decision: 13^th 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

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003610

CS(COMM) 555/2021

Page 2 of 13

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.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003610

CS(COMM) 555/2021

Page 3 of 13

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/-

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003610

CS(COMM) 555/2021