Delhi District Court
M/S Durga Furniture House vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board ( … on 5 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Sh. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL
District Judge (Commercial Court) -02,
Central, Tis Hazari
DLCT010080702019
CS (COMM.) No. 972/2019
CNR No.DLCT010080702019
IN THE MATTERS OF:
( As per the amended of parties)
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
Proprietor of M/s Durga Furniture House,
(through LR Rahul Mehandiratta)
Office at F-99, UF/F, Back Side
Jiwan park,
Uttam Nagar
New Delhi-110059 ......Plaintiff
Versus
1. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement
Board (DUSIB),
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Executive Officer
Office at Punarwas Bhawan,
I.P Estate ,
New Delhi
2. Government of NCT of Delhi
Through its Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat,
I.P Estate,
New Delhi 110002
RAJESH
KUMAR
GOEL Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
Digitally signed by
RAJESH KUMAR
GOEL
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Date: 2025.04.05
14:20:23 +0530 Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 1 of 72 )
3. Union of India
Through its Secretary Home,
North Block,
New Delhi ......Defendants
Date of filing of suit : 01.07.2019
Date of Argument : 20.03.2025
Date of Judgment : 05.04.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the
present suit for recovery of Rs. 1,78,85,815/-(Rs
one crore Seventy Eight Lakhs eighty five thousand
eight Hundred and fifteen only) comprising of
principle amount of Rs 98,00,447/- and the interest
of Rs 80,85,368/- filed by the plaintiff against the
Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB),
defendant no.1, Government of NCT of Delhi
through its secretary, defendant no.2 and Union of
India through its Secretary, defendant no.3.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The brief facts of the case, as mentioned in
the plaint are that :-
(a) Plaintiff is a government contractor and
runs the business under sole proprietor
Digitally signed
firm in the name of M/S Durga Furniture
RAJESH by
House.
RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:20:30 +0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 2 of 72 )
(b) Defendant no.1 is a government
department part of NCT, Delhi;
defendant no.2 is Govt. of NCT of Delhi
and defendant no.3 is Govt. of India.
(c) Defendant no.1 initially issued a work
order bearing no. F-06/84/NS/10/D-1080
dated 08.01.2013 for constructing five
temporary night shelters at (1) Okhla
(Mathura Road), (2) Anand Vihar (ISBT),
(3) Jama Masjid, (4) Yamuna Pusta
(Nigam Bodh Ghat) and (5) Yamuna
Khadar upto 28.2.2013 on payment of Rs
2667.43 per day and monthly (for 31
days) will be Rs 82,690/- per unit.
(d) On 11.1.2013, vide letter ref no.
D-1083/Dir (NS)/13, defendant has
issued another joint work order for three
vendors i.e (1) M/s Durga Furnitures
House, (2) M/s Moment’s Expro and (3)
Ahuja Tent House for erection of Tin-
shed/pagoda type temporary night
shelters and extended the work order for
23 locations in Delhi out of which work
of 14 locations was extended to the
plaintiff.
(e) Pursuant to the above work order,
plaintiff erected tin-shed/pagoda type
temporary night shelters at the locations
allocated to the plaintiff and no
complaint was ever raised and registered
by any of the stakeholders in respect of
the quality of the work done by the
plaintiff; plaintiff raised two bills bearing
no.s 482 and 501 dated 15.2.2013 and
1.3.2013 for an amount of Rs 11,57,660/-
RAJESH Digitally signed
by RAJESH
KUMAR KUMAR GOEL and Rs 6,34,847/- respectively and same
Date: 2025.04.05
GOEL 14:20:37 +0530
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 3 of 72 )
were duly paid by the defendant.
(f) vide letter No. F
06/84/NS/10/2013/D-1219 dated
04.03.2013, defendant extended contract
of work execution for the above said 24
temporary night shelter till 20.03.2013;
plaintiff raised invoice no. 623 dated
03.05.2013 for an amount of Rs
22,77,982/- and the defendant made the
timely payment qua the aforesaid invoice
also.
(g) Defendant has not given any further
instruction and order for closing and
removal of the above said night shelters;
plaintiff further raised invoices no. 635
dated 02.08.2013 in the sum of
Rs22,77,982/-, invoice no. 643 dated
04.01.2014 in the sum of Rs 23,15,334/-,
invoice no. 646 dated 06.01.2024 in the
sum of Rs 22,77,985/- and invoice no.
647 dated 09.01.2024 in the sum of Rs
22,77,985/- ; out of total amount of Rs
91,49,286/-, the defendant made part
payment of Rs 21,52,281/- only.
(h) On 18.03.2014, defendant issued a letter
for closing of night shelters running in the
tin sheds/tents from 16.03.2014; after
receiving the above said order, plaintiff
raised last invoice bearing no.003 dated
20.10.2014 for an amount of Rs
28,00,798/-.
(i) Plaintiff has sent so many recovery
reminders for making balance payment of
Rs 98,00,477/- but instead of making the
Digitally signed
payment, defendant formed an High
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL Level Coordination Committee (HLCC
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:20:44 +0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 4 of 72 )
53/2017); on 27.11.2017, HLCC held a
meeting in respect of issue of balance
payment to the plaintiff qua the period
14.1.2013 till 18.3.2014 which was
attended by the representative of the
plaintiff also.
(j) Even after the suggestion given by the
HLCC in its Minutes of meeting dated
27.11.2017, to the Night Shelter Branch
to examine the case as per terms and
conditions of supply order, the Night
Shelter Branch has neither examined the
same nor made the balance outstanding
payment to the plaintiff.
(k) Defendant vide its letter dated 14.01.2019
communicated to the plaintiff mentioning
therein that :
“This has reference to your various
representation and legal notices of even
dates on the subject cited above, in this
regard it is to inform you that your
issues raised for balance payment on
account of hiring of pagoda tents (night
shelters) against the subject referred
award letter no. D-1083/Dir NS/13 dated
11.01.2013 have been examined by two
different Committees. The first one
headed by Financial Advisor, DUSIB
vide its report on 05.06.2015 as well as
the second committee headed by Chief
Engineer (Coordination) both opined on
the same lines concluding that all the
necessary payments evaluated in terms
of said contract, have already been
made. DUSIB has already cleared all
outstanding dues and nothing is due on
its part now to be payable”.
Digitally signed by
RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR
KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2025.04.05
GOEL 14:20:51 +0530
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 5 of 72 )
(l) The defendants are liable to make
payment of Rs 1,78,85,815/- alongwith
pendente-lite and future interest @ 18 %
p.a. Hence, the present suit was filed.
(m) Since, the subject matter of the suit is a
commercial dispute, therefore, the
plaintiff is said to have approached
Central DLSA in terms of section 12 (A)
of the Commercial Court Act, 2015 and
the Central DLSA has released a non-
starter report dated 25.1.2019 in per-
institution mediation process.
3. Here it is pertinent to mention here that,
originally the plaintiff had filed the present suit
under order XXXVII CPC. Vide order 29.11.2019,
the present suit was treated as an ordinary suit by
the Ld. Predecessor of this Court and the defendants
were directed to be summoned.
4. On the summons of suit being served to the
defendants, defendants put their appearance through
Ld. Counsel. Order sheet dated 03-03-2021 and 26-
10-2021 indicates that initially Sh S. K. Vashishtha
Ld counsel appeared for the defendant No1 and 2
only but subsequently he submitted that he is
appearing for defendant No3 also. The written
statement has been filed by the defendant No 1 only
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date: and the rest of the defendants have not filed any
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:20:58 +0530
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 6 of 72 )
written statement. The main contesting defendant in
the present case is DUSIB only. Defendant No.2
and 3 are appearing to be just proforma defendants,
therefore, hereinafter any reference to defendant
would mean DUSIB only.
5. Defendant filed the written statement taking
preliminary objections that suit is not maintainable
as no amount is due and payable by the defendant to
the plaintiff and that the suit is barred by limitation
and is thus liable to be dismissed.
6. On merits, it is stated that the payment of Rs
21,52,281/- as made by defendant to the plaintiff
was the final payment and not the part payment as
alleged by the plaintiff; HLCC in its meeting held
on 27.11.2017, which was duly attended by the
representative of the plaintiff, has recommended to
constitute a committee under chairmanship of Chief
Engineer (Coordination); the Committee, so
constituted submitted its report on 18.10.2017 and
concluded that the payment made to the plaintiff are
correct and the claims of the plaintiff is unjustified;
the matter was examined by the Night Shelter
RAJESH by
Digitally signed
RAJESH
Branch which was further submitted to Chief
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL
2025.04.05
14:21:05
+0530
Engineer (Coordination), who submitted its report
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 7 of 72 )
on 17.05.2018 and concluded that department has
rightly calculated the dues of the plaintiff as per the
supply order dated 11.01.2013 and the claim of the
plaintiff is unjustified. All other claims as made in
the plaint by the plaintiff have been denied by the
defendant and it is prayed that the suit may kindly
be dismissed with special costs.
7. The plaintiff filed the replication denying the
allegations made in the written statement filed by
the defendant and reiterated the facts as mentioned
in the plaint.
8. The record would indicate that both the
parties have filed the affidavits of admission and
denial of the documents.
9. Vide order dated 06.10.2022, from the
pleadings of the parties following issues were
framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
recovery of the amount of Rs 1,78,85,815/- as
claimed in the plaint ? (OPP)
2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to
file the suit against the defendants?(OPD)
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not
Digitally signed
maintainable ? (OPD)
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05
GOEL 14:21:11
+0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 8 of 72 )
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by
period of limitation? (OPD)
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
pendente-lite and future interest, if so at what
rate and for what period? (OPP)
6. Relief.
10. Thereafter, vide order dated 12.01.2023, the
schedule for Second Case Management Hearing
was fixed by the Ld predecessor of the court.
11. Here it is pertinent to mention that the
examination- in- chief by way an affidavit and part
cross examination of PW1 Rajesh Mishra AR of
the plaintiff was recorded before the Court itself.
On 23.3.2023, taking into consideration the fact
that examination of witnesses shall consume a lot of
time, Ld. Court Commissioner was appointed by
the Ld. Predecessor of this court to conclude the
cross examination of PW1 Rajesh Mishra and to
record the further evidence to be adduced by both
the parties and the Second Case Management
Hearing was rescheduled.
12. Ld. Court Commissioner has submitted his
report dated 02-05-2023. As per the said report , in
RAJESH by
Digitally signed
RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL support of its case the plaintiff has examined two
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05
GOEL 14:21:18
+0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 9 of 72 )
witnesses i.e PW1 Rajesh Mishra and PW2 Anant
Mishra. Further cross examination of PW2 Rajesh
Mishra was concluded before the Ld Court
Commissioner. No other witness was examined by
the plaintiff and the plaintiff evidence was closed on
11.04.2023. Defendants have examined one
Pradyuman Saraswat, Dy. Director (Night Shelter),
DUSIB as DW1 who filed his evidence by way of
affidavit. DW1 was cross examined by the plaintiff
and the defendant’s evidence came to be closed.
13. PW1 Rajesh Mishra has deposed on the lines
of the averments made in the plaint in his evidence
filed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He has relied
upon / proved the following documents i.e. order
dated 08.01.2013 ExPW1/1, execution order dated
11.01.2013 ExPW1/2, bill no. 482 dated 15.02.2013
ExPW1/3, bill no. 501 dated 01.03.2013 ExPW1/4,
order of extension by the defendant vide letter dated
04.03.2013 ExPW1/5, bill no. 623 dated 03.05.2013
ExPW1/6, bill no. 635 dated 02.08.2013 ExPW1/7,
bill no. 643 dated 04.01.2014 ExPW1/8, bill no.
646 dated 06.01.2014 ExPW1/9, bill no.647 dated
09.01.2014 ExPW1/10, letter dated 18.03.2014
regarding closing of night shelter ExPW1/11, bill
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05
GOEL 14:21:25
+0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 10 of 72 )
no. 003 dated 20.10.2014 ExPW1/12, request letter
dated 14.4.20214 addressed to Chief Secretary,
GNCT of Delhi ExPW1/13, request letter dated
14.04.2014 addressed to the Lt. Governor, Raj
Niwas ExPW1/14, request letter dated 14.04.2014
addressed to the CEO, DUSIB ExPW1/15, request
letter of outstanding pyament dated 28.05.2014
addressed to the CEO, DUSIB ExPW1/16, request
letter addressed to the CEO, Delhi Urban
Improvement Board ExPW1/17, request letter dated
23.05.2017 addressed to the Member
Power/Member Finance, DUSIB ExPW1/18 (colly),
request letter dated 23.05.2017 addressed to the
CEO, DUSIB ExPW1/19. Request letter dated
23.08.2017 addressed to the CEO, DUSIB
ExPW1/20, request letter dated 23.08.2017
regarding balance payment addressed to the
Member Power/Member Finance, DUSIB
ExPW1/21, request letter dated 12.10.2017
addressed to the CEO, DUSIB ExPW1/22, interest
chart ExPW1/23(colly), letter dated 04.12.2017
received from the defendant ExPW1/24, letter dated
14.01.2019 received from the defendant refusing the
DigitallyRAJESH
KUMAR
signed by
RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
payments ExPW1/25, the NSR dated 25.01.2019
Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:21:31
+0530
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 11 of 72 )
against the defendant ExPW1/26, legal demand
notice, speed post receipt, internet generated
tracking report ExPW1/27 (colly), certificate u/s 65
B of the then Indian Evidence Act ExPW1/28.
14. PW2 Anant Mishra has also tendered his
evidence by way of affidavit ExPW2/A and has
relied upon the documents i.e. request letter for
night shelter dated 20.10.2015 alongwith receipts of
online submission to CEO, DUSIB
ExPW2/1(colly), Payment reminder-5 dated
23.11.2015 alongwith receipts of online submission
to CEO DUSIB PW2/2 (colly), request letter for
night shelter dated 28.04.2017 ExPW2/3 (colly),
request letter for night shelter dated 23.05.2017
alongwith receipts of online submission to CEO
DUSIB ExPW2/4(colly).
15. As noted herein above, the defendant has
examined Sh Pradhyman Saraswat, Dy. Director
(Night Shelter), DUSIB as DW1 before the Ld
Court Commissioner who has tendered his evidence
by way of affidavit ExDW-1/A and has deposed on
the lines of stand taken in the written statement filedDigitally signed
by the defendant. He has relied upon the documents
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL
2025.04.05
14:21:38
+0530
i.e. Report dated 4/5.6.2015 ExDW1/1, report dated
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 12 of 72 )
18.10.2017 ExDW1/2, reply dated 02.05.2019 to
the legal notice of the plaintiff ExDW1/3, reply
dated 14.01.2019 to the demand of the plaintiff
ExDW1/4.
16. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed.
17. PW1 Rajesh Mishra and PW2 Anant Mishra
were cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the
defendants. DW1Sh Pradhyman Saraswat was cross
examined by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. The
cross examination of the aforesaid witnesses shall
be referred to and considered while giving the
findings on the issues, wherever necessary.
18. Written synopsis of final arguments have
been filed by the Ld Counsels of both the parties
and they have argued the matter orally as well. Both
the Ld. Counsels have argued on the lines of their
written synopsis which is in turn based upon their
respective stand as taken by them in their pleadings.
For the sake of convenience, the arguments of Ld.
Counsels of the parties are not being reproduced
but the same shall also be considered while giving
the findings on the issues.
Digitally
signed by
RAJESH RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:21:44
+0530
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 13 of 72 )
19. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon
following judicial pronouncements:-
(a) Khan Bahadur Shapoor Fredoom Mazda vs.
Durga Prosad chamaria and Ors, D.oD
01.03.1961 ( SC).
(b) Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs Kew
Precision Parts Private Limited and Ors,
D.o.D 5.8.2022 (SC)
(c) Sushma Singh Vs Ram Bhajan Pal, D.o.D
20.12.2022 (DHC)
(d) Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd Vs
Aluminium Corporation of India D.oD
16.10.1970(SC).
(e) P.C Bhandari Vs New Victoria Mills,
Manu/UP/0001/1979
(f) Bai Sakinabai & Ors Vs Gulam Rasul
Uumar Bhai Shaikh decided on 28.03.1980
( Gujarat HC)
(g) Elof Hansson Fiber LLC vs Deepanshu
agencies decided on 02.05.2017, DHC.
(h) J.C. Bhudraja Vs Chairman, Orissa Mining
Corporation Ltd & Ors, Manu/SC
0602/2008
(i) DCM Financial Services Ltd vs Holland
Tractors (India) Pvt. Ltd,
Manu/DE/2905/2008 .
(j) Paisalo Digital Ltd vs Sat Priya Mehamia
Memorial Education Trust & Ors, ARB.
P.396/2024 D.o.D 03.04.2024.
20. Ld Counsel for the defendant has placed
RAJESH by
Digitally signed
RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
reliance on following judicial pronouncements:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:21:55 +0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 14 of 72 )
(a) M/s Rakman Industries Ltd. Versus M/s
Sumaja Electro Infra Pvt. Ltd. RFA (Comm)
8/2022 D.o.D 09.11.2022 (DHC).
(b) Bachhaj Nahar Versus Nilima Mandal &
Anr, Civil Appeal No. 5798-5799 of 2008
(SC) D.o.D 23.09.2008.
(c) Sunil Sood vs M/S Shri Krishna Builders &
Ors in RFA No. 751/2018 (DHC) D.o.D
07.09.2018.
21. I have perused the records and heard the Ld
counsels of both the parties. I have also gone
through the case laws cited at the bar.
22. For the sake of convenience, firstly I shall be
deciding issue no.4, then issue no.2, thereafter issue
no.3, then issue no.1, after that issue no.5 and
finally issue no.6.
Issue No.4
Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by period of
limitation? (OPD)
23. In the written statement one of the preliminary
objections taken by the defendant is that the suit is
barred by time and is liable to be dismissed. During
the argument, Ld. Counsel for the defendant
submitted that in the present case there is no dispute
that the work of the temporary night shelter had
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05
been awarded to the plaintiff vide work order dated
GOEL 14:22:01
+0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 15 of 72 )
8.1.2013 ExPW1/1 and dated 11.01.2013 ExPW1/2
which was subsequently closed vide letter dated
18.03.2014 ExPW1/11. He further submitted that
the last bill raised by the plaintiff is dated
20.10.2014 ExPW1/12. By referring to the article
18 of the Limitation Act, Ld. Counsel for the
defendant submitted that in the bill dated
20.10.2014 ExPW1/12, the plaintiff has claimed the
amount till 16.3.2014, therefore, the limitation
would start from 16.3.2014 which has already
expired on 16.3.2017. He further submitted that the
present suit was instituted on 1.7.2019 which is
beyond the period of limitation. He has also taken
me to the cause of action clause as referred to in the
plaint and submitted that the claim of the plaintiff
regarding the arising cause of action is not tenable
in the eyes of law. He submitted that once the right
to sue is accrued, the limitation to file cannot be
extended by sending reminders or other
communications.
24. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
submitted that from the document ExDW1/2 dated
18/10/2017, it has come on the record that
Digitally signed
RAJESH
defendant had made the payment of Rs
by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05
GOEL 14:22:07
+0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 16 of 72 )
21,52,281.13/- on 27.11.2015 which is an
acknowledgment on the part of the defendant. He
further submitted that in the Committee Report
dated 18.10.2017, the defendant admitted its
liability. The last bill was raised by the plaintiff on
20.10.2014 ExPW1/12. He has also taken me to the
communication dated 14.1.2019 ExPW1/25 and
stated that the final refusal from the defendant was
on 14.1.2019, therefore, the limitation would start
from 14.1.2019 which is again an acknowledgment
on behalf of the defendant. Ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff also has taken me to section 18 and 19 of
the Limitation Act and submitted that the case of
the plaintiff is squarely covered by said provisions
of law.
25. Before dealing with the arguments advanced,
it would be appropriate to refer to the statutory
provisions. Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act
creates a bar for the institution of any suit, appeal,
or application made after the prescribed period of
limitation to be dismissed, even though limitation
has not been set up as a defence. The said Section
Digitally signed
reads as follows:
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR
KUMAR GOEL
Date:
2025.04.05
“3. Bar of limitation.–(1) Subject to the provisions
GOEL 14:22:12
+0530 contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 17 of 72 )
instituted, appeal preferred, and application made
after the prescribed period shall be dismissed,
although limitation has not been set up as a defence.
”
26. Section 18 of the Limitation Act provides that
where acknowledgment in writing of the liability is
made by a party against whom any right is claimed,
a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from
the time when the acknowledgment is so signed.
The said Section is reproduced hereunder:
“18. Effect of acknowledgment in writing.–
(1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed
period for a suit or application in respect of any
property or right, an acknowledgment of liability
in respect of such property or right has been
made in writing signed by the party against
whom such property or right is claimed, or by
any person through whom he derives his title or
liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be
computed from the time when the
acknowledgment was so signed.
(2) Where the writing containing the
acknowledgment is undated, oral evidence may be
given of the time when it was signed; but subject
to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
(1 of 1872), oral evidence of its contents shall not
be received.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this section,–
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:22:18 +0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 18 of 72 )
(a) an acknowledgment may be sufficient though
it omits to specify the exact nature of the property
or right, or avers that the time for payment,
delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet
come or is accompanied by a refusal to pay,
deliver, perform or permit to enjoy, or is coupled
with a claim to set off, or is addressed to a person
other than a person entitled to the property or
right,
(b) the word “signed” means signed either
personally or by an agent duly authorised in this
behalf, and
(c) an application for the execution of a decree or
order shall not be deemed to be an application in
respect of any property or right.”
27. A plain reading of Section 18(1) of the
Limitation Act would reflect that where any
acknowledgment of a liability has been made in
writing by the party against whom any right is
claimed, a fresh period of limitation would be
computed from the time when the acknowledgment
was so signed, subject to such acknowledgment
being made before expiry of the prescribed period
for filing a suit or application in that respect.
28. Section 18(2) of the Limitation Act may not
be applicable in the present case inasmuch as all the
alleged acknowledgments as claimed by the
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05
GOEL 14:22:24
+0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 19 of 72 )
plaintiff in the present case have a date and,
therefore, there would be no question of leading any
oral evidence to establish the date of the
acknowledgment.
29. Section 19 of the Act provides for the effect
of payment on account of debt or of interest on
legacy. The provision effectively states that when a
person or their agent is liable to pay a debt or
interest on a legacy, and they make a payment
before the expiry of the prescribed period, then a
fresh period of limitation shall be computed from
the time when the payment was made.
30. After going through both provisions, it
becomes clear that the main distinction between
Sections 18 and 19 of the Act is the requirement of
acknowledgment in writing. While Section 18
specifically calls for a written acknowledgment of a
debt, Section 19 is all about acknowledgment
through payment.
31. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Bala Krishnamurthi vs. M. Krishnamurthi,
1998 (7) SCC 123 while enunciating the objection
Digitally
RAJESH
KUMAR
signed by
RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL of fixing time limit for litigation that : –
Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:22:31
+0530
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 20 of 72 )
“Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the
right of parties. They are meant to see that parties
do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their
remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal
remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason
of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life span
for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal
injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted
time would never revisit. During efflux of time
newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer
persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the
courts. So a life span must be fixed for each
remedy. Unending period for launching the
remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and
consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus
founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the
maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis Mum (it is
for the general welfare that a period be put to
litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to
destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to
see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but
seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every
legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively
fixed period of time.”
32. Coming back to the case at hand, a perusal of
the para 22 of the plaint regarding cause of action,
the plaintiff has claimed that cause of action arose
on various dates as mentioned therein including the
dates on 18.3.2014 (ExPW1/11) when the defendant
issued a letter for closing the night shelter w.e.f
16.03.2014; when the plaintiff raised the last bill no.
003 dated 20.10.2014 (ExPW1/12); it further arose
Digitally signed
on each and every date when the plaintiff has sent
RAJESH by RAJESH
the legal reminder/notice; it arose on 27.11.2017
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:22:36 +0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 21 of 72 )
when the representative of the plaintiff had attended
the meeting of HLCC; it also arose on 18.12.2018,
when the plaintiff approached to DLSA for
compliance of section 12 A of Commercial Act; it
further arose on 05.01.2019, when officer from the
defendant appeared before the DLSA; it arose on
25.01.2019 also, when DLSA issued the second
notice and then when the DLSA released the non
starter report and finally on 28.03.2019 when the
plaintiff sent a legal notice ExPW1/27 (colly).
33. During the cross examination PW1 Rajesh
Mishra admitted that the payments of the bill
submitted by the plaintiff ExPW1/3 to ExPW1/10,
and the bill ExPW1/12 became due during the year
2013 and October 2014. In the present case, it is not
in dispute that vide communication dated
18.03.2014 ExPW1/11, defendant had asked the
plaintiff to close the night shelter.
34. Having noted the same, I am of the opinion
that the issue of limitation is to be tested on four
rival contentions of the parties i.e a) when the cause
of action first time, initially arose or accrued andRAJESH by
Digitally signed
RAJESH
what is the effect of the part payment made on
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL
2025.04.05
14:22:42
+0530 27.11.2015? b) whether the period of limitation
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 22 of 72 )
stands extended pursuant to the meetings convened
by the defendant and the reports thereof
ExDW1/1, ExDW1/2 and ExPW1/24? c) whether
the period of limitation was extended by various
payment reminders and legal notices issued by the
plaintiff and d) whether the initial limitation period
was extended when the final refusal was
communicated to the plaintiff by the defendant vide
communication dated 14.01.2019 ExPW1/25?
a) when the cause of action first time,
initially arose or accrued and what is the
effect of the part payment made on
27.11.2015?
35. The undisputed facts are that vide work order
dated 08.01.2013 ExPW1/1 and subsequent work
order dated 11.01.2013 ExPW1/2, plaintiff was
asked to build Tin Shed/Pagoda Tent night shelters
at 14 locations at Delhi. The said work was to be
closed w.e.f 16.3.2014 as plaintiff was asked vide
communication dated 18.03.2014 ExPW1/11. The
last bill raised by the plaintiff was 003 dated
20.10.2014 ExPW1/12. The work orders ExPW1/1
and ExPW1/2 are silent about the schedule of
payments to be made by the defendant to the
plaintiff. Meaning thereby, there is nothing in the
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:22:48 +0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 23 of 72 )
said order as to when the payment was to be made
by the defendant after the night shelters are built.
That being so, one may argue that the plaintiff was
within its power to raise the bill immediately after
the night shelter was built.
36. As noted, the contract between the plaintiff
and the defendant admittedly, came to an end on
18.03.2014 when the plaintiff was asked to close the
night shelters. Therefore, the cause of action for the
plaintiff for the first time initially arose and accrued
on 18.03.2014. Presuming there is no further
communications or dealings or meetings between
the plaintiff and the defendant after 18.03.2014, in
that eventuality, the cause of action for filing a
recovery suit would have arisen on 18.03.2014 and
from this date the limitation period for filing the suit
would start running and would expire on or before
17.03.2017.
37. In this context, the plaintiff is claiming that
the cause of action arose when the last bill no. 003
dated 20.10.2014 ExPW1/12 was submitted. In my
opinion this contention of the plaintiff cannot beDigitally signed
accepted. If such a plea is accepted by the court
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL
2025.04.05
14:22:54
+0530
then it would have a blanket permission to the
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 24 of 72 )
plaintiff to raise a bill after two years or even after
three years as per the wish of the plaintiff which
would be against the settled norms of law. It is true
that the plaintiff is within his right to raise the bill at
any time even during the continuation of the
contract or after the contract is over but that would
not help the plaintiff to extend the statutory period
of limitation for filing a suit for recovery, as
provided under the law. Hence, the initial cause of
action in the present case arose and accrued on
18.03.2014 when the contract was over and the
plaintiff was asked to close the night shelters.
38. Coming to the part payment being made on
27.11.2015, it is an admitted fact that the defendant
had made the part payment of Rs 21,52,281.13/- to
the plaintiff on 27.11.2015. According to the
defendant this was the full and final payment and
thereafter nothing was due against the defendant. In
terms of section 19 of the Limitation Act, the
limitation stands extended by the part payment.
Thus, considering the date of part payment the
limitation for filing the present suit would have
started from 27.11.2015 and would have expired on
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR
KUMAR GOEL
Date:
2025.04.05
26.11.2018. The present suit was instituted on
GOEL 14:23:01
+0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 25 of 72 )
01.07.2019 which is beyond the period of limitation
on this count also.
b ) whether the period of limitation stands
extended pursuant to the meetings convened
by the defendant and the reports thereof
ExDW1/1, ExDW1/2 and ExPW1/27?
39. Before proceeding further it is necessary to
refer to the cross examination of DW1 Pradyuman
Saraswat. When DW1 Pradyuman Saraswat was
asked ” were any committees were formed at the
request of the plaintiff”, DW1 replied that First
Committee dated 4/5.6.2015 was not formed on the
request/complaint of the plaintiff but the second
committee dated 18.10.2017 and the third
committee dated 27.11.2017 were formed on the
requests/ complaints of plaintiff”. The first
committee dated 4/5.6.2015 has given report
ExDW1/1, second committee dated 18.10.2017 has
given report ExDW1/2 and third committee dated
27.11.2017 has given report ExPW1/24. DW1
Pradyuman Saraswat has denied the suggestions
that the aforesaid committees were formed only to
pay the balance amount on account of hiring of
Pagoda Tents/Tin Shed Shelters built by the
Digitally signed
RAJESH
plaintiff. He further replied that the plaintiff had
by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05
GOEL 14:23:06
+0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 26 of 72 )
been called only in the meeting of the committee
dated 27.11.2017 .
40. From the evidence led by the parties and the
documents on record, it has come on the record that
plaintiff never attended any meeting pursuant to
which the reports ExDW1/1 and ExDW1/2 were
issued. As per records, the plaintiff had attended a
meeting of committee dated 27.11.2017 ExPW1/24
only. As far as meetings dated 4/5.6.2015 and dated
18.10.2017 are concerned, these meetings were the
internal meetings convened by the defendant no.1
and the plaintiff had nothing to do with these
meetings as such. Further , a careful examination of
the aforesaid reports ExDW1/1 and ExDW1/2
would indicate that these meetings had taken place
pursuant to the objections raised by the Audit party
and physical inspection carried out by the
defendant. In these meetings or in the reports, the
defendant has nowhere admitted the liability of the
plaintiff. It is true that in the meetings, the claims
submitted by the defendant were discussed, it was
also discussed that plaintiff may raise bill for certain
amount and certain suggestions were given but it
Digitally signed
RAJESH KUMAR
by RAJESHKUMAR Date:
GOEL
2025.04.05
was only for internal circulation of the defendant
GOEL 14:23:12
+0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 27 of 72 )
and the plaintiff cannot take benefit from the same
for extending the period of limitation on the ground
that there is an acknowledgment of debt in terms of
section 18 of the Limitation Act.
41. Coming to the report of the committee
circulated vide communication dated 27.11.2017
ExPW1/24, It has come on record that the
representative of the plaintiff had attended the said
meeting. In this meeting also, there was no
acknowledgment of debt by the defendant. Merely
attending the meeting by the plaintiff and discussion
having taken place regarding the claim of the
plaintiff does not mean that there was an
acknowledgment of the debt within the ambit of
section 18 of the Limitation Act.
c) whether the period of limitation was extended by
various payment reminders and legal notices issued by
the plaintiff ?
42. During the arguments, Ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff has drawn my attention towards various
payment reminders and also the legal notices
issued by the plaintiff i.e ExPW1/13 to ExPW1/22
Digitally signed and ExPW2/1 to ExPW2/4 and ExPW1/27 (colly)
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05
GOEL 14:23:19
+0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 28 of 72 )
and submitted that despite that outstanding amount
was not paid by the defendant. While replying to the
aforesaid contention, Ld. Counsel for the defendant
submitted that the limitation to file cannot be
extended by sending the letters/reminders or any
other communications.
43. In the present case, it is a matter of fact that
the aforesaid payment reminders and legal notices
were issued by the plaintiff asking the defendant to
make the payment of outstanding dues. As noted
earlier, the right to sue has already accrued on
18.3.2014, which was further extended in view of
the part payment made on 27.11.2015, therefore,
the subsequent communications or the reminders
sent by the plaintiff would not in any way extend
the period of limitation.
44. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Delhi
High Court in M/s Decor India (P) Ltd. vs. Delhi
Stock Exchange Association, CS(OS) 745/2004
decided on 01.06.2012 while making reference to
the judgment in Major (Retd.) Inder Singh Rekhi vs.
Digitally
Delhi Development Authority, (1988) 2 SCC 338
signed by
RAJESH RAJESH
that, “It is a settled legal position that the accrual of
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:23:24
+0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 29 of 72 )
cause of action cannot be postponed by writing
reminders or sending reminders. It further held that
the doctrine of limitation and prescription is based
on two broad considerations; first, that there is
presumption that the right not exercised for a long
time is not existent and second that the right of the
parties should not be in a state of constant
uncertainty, doubt or suspense”.
45. In other case of M/s Rakman Industries Ltd
(Supra), It was held :-
“17. It is settled law that mere demand for the
repayment of does not extend the period of
limitation. It is also equally well settled that merely
sending a legal notice to repay the amount does not
assist the plaintiff for the purpose of calculation of
the period of limitation. Even if it is to
2022/DHC/004732 be presumed that a statement
made in the plaint is correct as a matter of evidence,
the same would still be beyond the period of
limitation. The plaintiff pleaded that he had
communicated with the defendant in July, 2019, and
the defendant had admitted the pending amount.
The said month of July, 2019, is after five years of
placing the order for supply which is, 23.04.2014.
The last invoice placed by the plaintiff on record is
dated 18.11.2015. Thus, even if we take the
averment that the defendant had called the plaintiff
in July, 2019, and had admitted its liability to pay
the pending amount, the same would not extend the
period of limitation for claiming the outstanding
amount as the said acknowledgment, if any, is
RAJESH Digitally
by RAJESH
signed beyond the period of three years from the cause of
KUMAR KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2025.04.05 action which, in the present case, would be the date
GOEL 14:23:32 +0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 30 of 72 )
when the goods ought to have been delivered. The
plaintiff has also pleaded that cause of action also
arose on various dates when the plaintiff requested
the defendant to repay the entire amount. The said
averment, however, will not extend the period of
limitation since making a demand does not extend
the period of limitation, which commence on a date
in terms of the provisions of Limitation Act.
Further, it is not the case of the plaintiff that the
goods were to be supplied over the period of next
few years and, therefore, the cause of action would
start after the expiry of the said period.
18. Thus, apart from contending that some
correspondences were exchanged between the
parties in relation to refund of money, nothing else
has been pleaded. It is settled law that the
correspondence exchanged between the parties
cannot extend the limitation period for
2022/DHC/004732 institution of a suit. Once the
right to sue had accrued, the limitation to file cannot
be extended by sending reminders or other
communications. If the said proposition is accepted,
then the limitation to file a suit will never end and
will be extended by sending repeated demand
notices. The law requires a litigant to be vigilant of
its rights and avail remedies before expiry of the
stipulated period of limitation within the four
corners of Civil Procedure Code and other
applicable laws.”
d) whether the initial limitation period was extended
when the final refusal was communicated to the plaintiff
by the defendant vide communication dated 14.01.2019
ExPW1/25
46. The next contention of the plaintiff is that the
claim of the plaintiff was finally rejected on
14.01.2019 ExPW1/25, therefore, the limitation
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05
GOEL 14:23:37
+0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 31 of 72 )
would start from this date also. In my opinion, the
refusal by the defendant vide communication
ExPW1/25 also would not extend any help to the
plaintiff for claiming the benefit of limitation on
the basis of that communication. The period of
limitation to file the present suit initially has already
expired on 17.03.2017 and pursuant to the part
payment made on 27.11.2015, finally expired on
26.11.2018. Any communications/
acknowledgments after the expiry of period of
limitation, cannot be considered for extending the
period of limitation, as claimed by the plaintiff.
Therefore, the limitation cannot be counted from
this communication dated 14.01.2019.
47. Before parting with this issue of limitation, it
is pertinent to mention that in the plaint, the plaintiff
has claimed that the cause of action also arose when
the plaintiff approached the DLSA for Pre-litigation
Mediation in compliance of section 12 A of the
Commercial Court Act, 2015 and continued when
the non-starter report was issued. I fail to
understand how such a plea even can be put
forward. In my opinion, such type of contention is
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR
GOEL
KUMAR GOEL
Date:
2025.04.05
absolutely baseless, frivolous and without any
14:23:45 +0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 32 of 72 )
substance. If such types of arguments are given a
seat while calculating the period of limitation, it
would make the limitation Act redundant which is
not permissible.
48. I have also gone through the case laws as
relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
There is no doubt about the proposition of law as
laid down by Hon’ble Courts and the observations
made therein but the same would not be of any help
to the defendant being distinguishable on facts. To
apply the mandate of the aforesaid judgments, I am
of the opinion that in addition to the jural
relationship between the parties, the plaintiff was
supposed to establish that there was an
acknowledgment of debt to bring the case within
the ambit of section 18 of the Limitation Act. This
Court has already reached at the conclusion that
there was no acknowledgment of debt after
27.11.2015 ( when the part payment was made by
the defendant) therefore, the attempt of the plaintiff
to take shelter of the aforesaid judgments for
bringing its case within the ambit of section 18 of
Digitally signed
RAJESH
KUMAR
by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
Date:
the Limitation Act, would fail.
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:23:51 +0530
49. In view of my aforesaid discussions, I am of
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 33 of 72 )
the opinion that the present suit of the plaintiff is
barred by limitation. Thus, issue no.4 is decided in
favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
50. In view of the findings on issue no.4, the
present suit is liable to be dismissed, therefore,
decision on the rest of the issues would not be of
much relevance. However, in terms of order XIV
Rule 2 CPC, the court is supposed to pronounce
judgment on all issues notwithstanding that a case
is being disposed of on a preliminary issue or on
technical ground. Therefore, I am giving the
findings on the rest of the issues also.
Issue No. 2
Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the
suit against the defendants?(OPD)
51. The term “cause of action” as such has not
been defined under the Civil Procedure Code but
cause of action is essentially a bundle of facts which
led to the genesis of the dispute, and to the plaintiff
obtaining a right in law to approach the court for
legal redress. The cause of action, therefore,
necessarily includes an act of the defendant, in the
Digitally
RAJESH
signed by
RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
absence of which the suit itself could not possibly
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:23:58
+0530
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 34 of 72 )
exist. There are numerous judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court encapsulating this term. It would be
apposite to note some of them.
52. In the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji
Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366 , it was held that:-
24. “Cause of action” means every fact which
would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if
traversed, in order to support his right to
judgment. It consists of a bundle of material facts,
which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in
order to entitle him to the reliefs claimed in the
suit.”
53. In Swamy Atmananda v. Sri Ramakrishna
Tapovanam, (2005) 10 SCC 51] Hon’ble Supreme Court
held :
“24. A cause of action, thus, means every fact,
which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the
plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a
judgment of the court. In other words, it is a
bundle of facts, which taken with the law
applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to
relief against the defendant. It must include some
act done by the defendant since in the absence of
such an act, no cause of action can possibly
accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement
of the right sued on but includes all the material
facts on which it is founded.”
54. Subsequently, in ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70] Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that law cannot permit clever drafting
RAJESH by
Digitally signed
RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
which creates illusions of a cause of action. What is
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:24:05 +0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 35 of 72 )
required is that a clear right must be made out in the
plaint.
55. Reverting back to the case at hand, it is not in
dispute that the plaintiff had been awarded work
order dated 08.01.2013 ExPW1/1 and work order
dated 11.01.2013 ExPW1/2. It is also not in dispute
that the said contract was closed vide
communication dated 18.03.2014 ExPW1/11.
According to the defendant whatever the amount
was due has already been paid but the case of the
plaintiff is that the entire amount has not been paid
and the principal amount of Rs 98,00,447/- is due
and outstanding against the defendant. One of the
contentions of the defendant is that that
tin-shed/pagoda type temporary night shelters were
supposed to be extendable but it was never
expandable which has been denied by the plaintiff.
56. I am of the considered opinion that the above
are the disputed bundle of facts upon which the case
of the plaintiff is based upon. These disputed facts
have created a valid cause of action in favour of the
plaintiff to file the suit seeking verdict from the
RAJESH by
Digitally signed
RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
court of law. Hence, issue no.2 is decided in favour
KUMAR Date:
of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
2025.04.05
GOEL 14:24:10
+0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 36 of 72 )
Issue No.3
Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable ?
(OPD)
57. The burden to prove this issue was upon the
defendant. This issue appears to have been framed,
by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, in the
background of one of the preliminary objections
taken by the defendant in the written statement that
the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as no
amount is due. During the arguments, Ld. Counsel
for the defendant has not pressed this issue and
submitted that whether any amount is due against
the defendant or not is going to be decided by this
court while deciding issue no.1. As noted earlier,
the only dispute between the parties is whether any
amount is due and outstanding against the defendant
towards the work executed by the plaintiff or not.
This issue is going to be taken up while giving
findings on issue no.1 and consequently, this court
would be deciding whether this suit is maintainable
or not. In view of the submission made, this issue is
disposed of as not pressed.
Digitally
signed by
RAJESH RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
Issue No.1
KUMAR Date:
GOEL
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the
2025.04.05
14:24:16
+0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 37 of 72 )
amount of Rs 1,78,85,815/- as claimed in the plaint ?
(OPP)
58. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has extensively
referred to the reports ExDW1/1, ExDW1/2 and
ExPW1/24 word by word and it would not be out
of place to say that he was heavily placing the
reliance on the aforesaid reports only contending
that the bills of the plaintiff were rejected by the
defendant without any reasons. He submitted that
the plaintiff was never informed about any
objection of the audit department or about the report
of the team, who allegedly carried out the physical
inspection of the site. He further submitted that
initially, the defendant had admittedly made the
payment of a few bills submitted by the plaintiff
wherein the rates charged by the plaintiff were the
same as were charged in the subsequent bills which
were not passed by the defendant. He further
submitted that the defendant has not given any
reasons for not making the payment.
59. Surprisingly, Ld. Counsel for the defendant
also pointed the gun of his arguments for rejecting
Digitally
the claim of the plaintiff by using the same reports
signed by
RAJESH RAJESH
KUMAR
GOEL
KUMAR GOEL
Date:
2025.04.05
i.e ExDW1/1, ExDW1/2 and ExPW1/24. He
14:24:21
+0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 38 of 72 )
submitted that there was an objection from the audit
team that the rates charged by the plaintiff were on
a higher side and a due process of tendering was not
adopted by the concerned branch for allotment of
the work to the plaintiff. He further submitted that
during the physical inspection by the Night Shelter
team, it was revealed that the requisite items as per
the work orders were not placed by the plaintiff. He
further pointed out that as per the work order
ExPW1/2, the Pagoda Type Night Shelter was
supposed to be expandable but the plaintiff failed to
make it expandable therefore, the case of the
plaintiff was examined by various committees and
the defendant came to the conclusion that the entire
payment which was due and outstanding against the
defendant, has already been made to the plaintiff
and nothing is outstanding against the defendant.
60. For deciding this issue, it is appropriate to
go through the relevant provision of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 regarding denial by
the defendant in a suit filed before Commercial
Court. Order 8 rule 3 A (1) CPC, as applicable to
the commercial disputes, says that denial shall be in
RAJESH by
Digitally signed
RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
the manner provided in sub rules 2,3, 4 and 5 of this
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:24:27 +0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 39 of 72 )
rule. Sub rule 2 says that the defendant in his
written statement shall state which of the
allegations in the particulars of the plaint he
denies, which allegations he is unable to admit or
deny, but which he requires the plaintiff to prove,
and which allegations he admits.
61. Sub rule 3 says that where the defendant
denies an allegation of fact in a plaint, he must
state his reasons for doing so and if he intends to
put forward a different version of events from that
given by the plaintiff, he must state his own version.
62. Further, as per the second proviso
attached to Order VIII Sub rule 5 (i), if the
allegations of the fact in the plaint, are not denied in
the manner provided under rule 3 A CPC of this
order, the same shall be taken to be admitted
except as against a person under disability.
Meaning thereby, if the denial is not in terms of
order 8 rule 3 A CPC and sub rules, as noted
herein above, then it shall be taken as an admission
on the part of the defendant.
63. There is no discretion even to the court to
Digitally signed
RAJESH
ignore the facts pleaded in the plaint which have not
by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:24:33 +0530
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 40 of 72 )
been denied or dealt with in terms of order 8 sub
rule 3 A CPC by the defendant. Here it would be
relevant to note the observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court made in a case of Ambalal
Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace
LLP, (2020) 15 SCC 585 , wherein it was held
that:-
34. The Schedule to the Commercial Courts Act
amends various provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure and thereby makes significant departure
from the Code. After Order 13 of the Code, Order
13-A — “Summary Judgment” has been inserted.
Order 13-A contains the scope and classes of suits to
which Order 13-A applies, grounds for summary
judgment, procedure to be followed, evidence for
hearing of summary judgment, orders that may be
made by Court in such proceedings for summary
judgment, etc. After Order 15 of the Code, Order 15-
A–“Case Management Hearing” has been inserted.
Order 15-A provides for first case management
hearing (Rule 1); recording of oral evidence on a
day-to-day basis (Rule 4); powers of the court in a
case management hearing (Rule 6); adjournment of
case management hearing (Rule 7); consequences of
non-compliance with orders (Rule 8). By way of
amendment, several rules have been incorporated to
make the matters of commercial disputes on fast
track. In Order 20 of the Code — “Judgment”, Rule
1 has been substituted that within ninety days of the
conclusion of arguments, the Commercial
Court/Commercial Division/Commercial Appellate
Division to pronounce the judgment and copies
thereof shall be issued to all the parties to the dispute
through electronic mail or otherwise.
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:24:46 +0530
35. Various provisions of the Act, namely, case
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 41 of 72 )
management hearing and other provisions makes the
court to adopt a pro-active approach in resolving the
commercial dispute. A new approach for carrying
out case management and strict guidelines for
completion of the process has been introduced so
that the adjudicatory process is not delayed. I have
referred to the various provisions of the Act and the
Schedule bringing in amendments brought to the
Civil Procedure Code to deal with the commercial
disputes, only to highlight that the trial of the
commercial dispute suits is put on fast track for
disposal of the suits expeditiously. Various
provisions of the Act referred to above and the
amendments inserted to the Civil Procedure Code by
the Schedule is to ensure speedy resolution of the
commercial disputes in a time bound manner. The
intent of the legislature seems to be to have a
procedure which expedites the disposal of
commercial disputes and thus creates a positive
environment for investment and development and
make India an attractive place to do business.
36. A perusal of the Statement of Objects and
Reasons of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the
various amendments to the Civil Procedure Code and
insertion of new rules to the Code applicable to suits
of commercial disputes show that it has been enacted
for the purpose of providing an early disposal of high
value commercial disputes. A purposive
interpretation of the Statement of Objects and
Reasons and various amendments to the Civil
Procedure Code leaves no room for doubt that the
provisions of the Act require to be strictly construed.
If the provisions are given a liberal interpretation, the
object behind constitution of Commercial Division
of Courts viz. putting the matter on fast track and
speedy resolution of commercial disputes, will be
defeated. If we take a closer look at the Statement of
Objects and Reasons, words such as “early” and
“speedy” have been incorporated and reiterated. The
RAJESH by
Digitally signed
RAJESH
object shall be fulfilled only if the provisions of the
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date: Act are interpreted in a narrow sense and not
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:24:52 +0530
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 42 of 72 )
hampered by the usual procedural delays plaguing
our traditional legal system.
64. From the aforesaid order of Hon’ble Supreme
Court, it is crystal clear that the provisions of
Commercial Court Act,2015 are to be adhered to in
strict compliance. Adding of a new proviso with sub
rule 5 (i) is an example that the evasive denial is
to be treated as an admission on the part of the
defendant.
65. Now, take the present case at hand. To see
whether the defendant has made denial in terms of
order VIII sub rule 3 A or not, it would be necessary
to go through the pleadings of the parties. From the
pleadings of the parties, it is more than clear
that certain facts and communications have not
been denied by the defendant. The relevant para’s
of the plaint are being reproduced as under:-
Para 3 to 14 of the Plaint
3. That, defendant no 1 has initially issued a work
execution/ supply order bearing no.
F-06/84/NS/10/D-1080 dated 08.01.2013 for
erection of 05(five) temporary night shelters at
palaces (1) Okhla (Mathura Road), (2) Anand Vihar
RAJESH by
Digitally signed
RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
(ISBT), (3) Jama Masjid, (4) Yamuna Pusta (Nigam
KUMAR Date:
GOEL
2025.04.05
14:24:57
Bodh Ghat) and (5) Yamuna Khadar upto
+0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 43 of 72 )
28.02.2013 on payment of Rs. 2667.43 per day and
monthly (for, 31 days) will be Rs. 82690.00/- per
unit. Original copy of work order dated 08.01.2013
IS annexed herewith as annexure-3.
4. That, on 11.01.2013 vide letter ref no. D-1083/Dir
(NS)/13 defendant has issued another joint work
order for three vendors te. (1) M/s Durga Furnitures
House, (2) M/s. Moment’s Expro and (3) Ahuja Tent
House for erection of Tin-shed/pagoda type
Temporary Night Shelters and extended the work
order for 23 locations in Delhi. Copy of the Letter
dated 11.01.2013 vide letter ref no. D-1083/Dir
(NS)/13 is annexed herewith as annexure-4.
5 That, out of above said work orders, the plaintiff
was allocated work for erection of Tin-shed/pagoda
type Temporary Night Shelters at 14 location in
Delhi as follows:
S.No. Location Shelter
Type
1. DUSIB Building, Basti Vikas Pagora
Kendra, Seemapuri
2. Kali Mata Mandir, Rohini, Tin Shed
Sector 3
3. Telephone Exchange, Eidgah Pagora
4. Hanuman Temple, Yamuna Pagora
Bazar
5. Adarsh Nagar, Metro Station Pagora
6. Ghata Masjid Pagora
7. Sai Baba Mandir, Lodhi Road Pagora
8. Himmat Garh, Opposite Civic Pagora
Centre
9. Tilak Nagar, Subzi Mandi Pagora
6. That, the plaintiff erected Tin-shed/pagoda type
Temporary Night Shelters at the locations allocated
with world class material and measures as per terms
and conditions and your department has approved
and handed over all the Tin-shed/pagoda type
Digitally
Temporary Night Shelters to the NGO appointed for
taking care of the same, it is also pertinent to
signed by
RAJESH RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:25:03
+0530
mentioned here that no complaint has been raisedAmeer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 44 of 72 )
and registered by any of the NGO and any of the
officer in charge of defendant in respect of quality of
erected Tin-shed/pagoda type Temporary Night
Shelters and services provided by.
7. That, the plaintiff raised two bills bearing nos.
482 and 501 dated 15.02.2013, 01.03.2013 for
amount of Rs. 11,57,660/- (Rupees Eleven Lac Fifty
Seven Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Only) and Rs.
6,34, 847/-Rupees Six Lac Thirty Four Thousand
Eight Hundred Forty Seven Only) respectively and
the same were duly and timely paid by defendant.
Original office copy of the bills bearing nos. 482 and
501 dated 15.02.2013 and 01.03.2013 are annexed
herewith as annexure-5 and 6 respectively.
8 That, on 04.03.2013 defendant extended the
contract of work execution/supply order for erection
of 25 nos, purely temporary night shelters in tin
shed/pagoda type temporary night shelters already
erected at 24 locations in Delhi till 20.03.2013 vide
letter ref. No. F-06/84/NS/10/2013/D-1219, however
defendant has not given any further instruction and
order for closing and removal of the above said night
shelters. Copy of letter ref. No.
F-06/84/NS/10/2013/D-1219 dated 04.03.2013 is
annexed herewith as annexure-7.
9. That, the plaintiff further raised invoice/bill
bearing no. 623 dated 03.05.2013 for amount of Rs.
22,77,982/ (Rupees Twenty Two Lac Seventy Seven
Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Two Only) and the
same was also duly and timely paid by defendant.
Original office copy of invoices/bills bearing no.623
dated 03.05.2013 is annexed herewith. as
annexure-8.
10. That, the plaintiff further raised invoices/bills
bearing no. 635, 643, 646, 647 dated 02.08.2013,
04.01.2014, 06.01.2014 and 09.01.2014 for amount
Digitally signed of Rs. 22,77,982/, Rs. 23,15,334, Rs. 22,77,985/- and
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05
Rs. 22,77,985/ respectively. Total amount of Rs.
GOEL 14:25:10
+0530 91,49,286/- (Rupees Ninety One Lac Forty Nine
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 45 of 72 )
Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Six Only) Out of
which defendant have made part payment of Rs.
21,52,281/379 (Rupees Twenty One Lac Fifty Two
Thousand Two Hundred Eighty One Only). Original
office copy of invoices/bills bearing no 635,643,646,
647 dated 02.08.2013, 04.01.2014, 06.01.2014 and
09.01.2014 are annexed herewith as annexure-9, 10,
11 and 12 respectively
11. That, on 18.03.2014 defendant issued a letter for
closing of night shelters running in the tents/tin sheds
from 16.03.2014. Original copy of the letter dated
18.03.2014 is annexed herewith as annexure-13.
12. That, the plaintiff after receiving the above said
order dated 18.03.2014 further raised last invoice/bill
bearing no. 003 dated 20.10.2014 for amount of Rs.
28,00,798/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lac Seven
Hundred Ninety Eight Only) Original office copy of
invoice/bill bearing no. 003 dated 20.10.2014 is
annexed herewith as annexure-14.
13. That, the plaintiff has sent so many recovery
reminders for making balance payment of Rs.
98,00,477/- (Rupees Ninety Eight Lac Four Hundred
Seventy Seven Only) instead of making the payment
defendant has formed an High level Coordination
Committee (HLCC 53/2017) and on 27 11.2017 held
a meeting in respect of issue of balance payment to
the supplier M/s Durga Furniture and Moment’s
Expro for hiring of Pagoda Tents/Tin Shades for
Setting up Temporary Night Shelter during the
period 14.01.2013 till 18.03.2014 and the same was
attended by the authorised representative of the
plaintiff on 27.11.2017. That in the present meeting
HLCC observed that “the issues rose by the plaintiff
in respect of Pagoda tents and measurement have not
been examined w.r.t. the records of the file. HLCC
suggested that Night Shelter branch should examine
the case as per terms and conditions of supply order;
Digitally
signed by
RAJESH RAJESH
reply given to the Audit Party and representation
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date: given by the agencies and to be put up to the
GOEL
competent authority urgently for further necessary
2025.04.05
14:25:16
+0530
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 46 of 72 )
action. This is also necessitated as the agencies are
disputing the payment and delay may result in more
interest liability on DUSIB”. Office copies of the
payment reminders and minutes of HLCC dated
27.11.2017 are annexed herewith as annexure-15
(Colly) and 16 respectively.
14. That, even after the suggestion given by the
HLCC to the Night Shelter Branch to examine the
case as per terms and condition of supply order, the
Night Shelter Branch has neither examined the same
nor served any single notice to the plaintiff to join
the investigation nor made above mentioned balance
due payment to the plaintiff.
Reply given by the defendant in the written statement
3. That contents of paragraph no. 3 of the plaint are a
matter of record.
4. That in reply to contents of paragraph no. 4 of the
plaint, it is submitted that supply order mentioned in
paragraph under reply was in continuation of
previous supply order dated 08/01/2013 vide no.
F-06/84/NS/10/D-1080, as mentioned in paragraph
no. 3 of the plaint, and therefore terms and
conditions of Supply Order dated 8.01.2013
remained binding on the parties to the order.
5. That contents of paragraph no. 5 of the plaint are a
matter of record.
6. That contents of paragraph no. 6 of the plaint, as
stated, are wrong and therefore denied. It is
submitted that at all the locations, measurements
were not as per terms and conditions of the supply
order. Even provisions made by plaintiff were not as
per terms and conditions of supply order. The rate
per day of tin shed night shelter / pagoda type night
shelter was arrived at by the plaintiff by considering
Digitally signed full quantities and rates of sub-items but sub-items
RAJESH by
were not provided by the plaintiff as per
RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:25:23 +0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 47 of 72 )
measurements of Supply Order and therefore amount
calculated by the plaintiff is wrong and hence denied.
The rest of the contents of paragraph under reply are
a matter of record and not denied if found in
conformity with the record
7. That contents of paragraph no. 7 of the plaint are a
matter of record and not denied, if found in
conformity with relevant record.
8. That contents of paragraph no. 8 of the plaint are a
matter of record and not denied, if found in
conformity with relevant record.
9. That contents of paragraph no. 9 of the plaint are a
matter of record.
10. That contents of paragraph no. 10 of the plaint
are denied to the extent that part payment was made
amounting to Rs. 21,52,281.00. In fact, the payment
of above mentioned amount of Rs. 21,52,281.00 was
full and final as recommended on the basis of
measurements of sub-items provided by the plaintiff
at sites. The measurements of sub-items at sites and
calculation of amount is as per report of Committee
dated 05.06.2015 (Annexure-‘1’). The bills
mentioned in paragraph under reply are not correct.
It is pertinent to mention here that a sum of Rs.
21,52,281/- remained only due and payable in view
of earlier payments made by defendant to plaintiff
and same was paid and therefore nothing remained
due and payable by defendant to plaintiff after
making payment of above mentioned amount of Rs.
21,52,281/-. The rest of contents of paragraph is a
matter of record and not denied, if found in
conformity with relevant record.
11. That contents of paragraph no. 11 of the plaint
are a matter of record and not denied, if found in
conformity with relevant record.
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:25:29 +0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 48 of 72 )
12. That contents of paragraph no. 12 of the plaint
are a matter of record and not denied, if found in
conformity with relevant record.
13. That contents of paragraph no. 13 of the plaint, as
stated, are wrong and therefore denied. It is
specifically denied that a sum of Rs. 98,00,477/- is
the balance amount payable by defendant to plaintiff.
It is not denied that the defendant placed the matter
before High Level Coordination Committee and held
a meeting for deciding the issue of balance payment
to plaintiff and the same was also attended by the
representatives of the plaintiff on 27.11.2017. It is
also relevant to mention here that high level
coordination committee recommended to constitute a
committee under chairmanship of ChiefEngineer
(Coordination). The committee so constituted,
submitted its report on 18.10.2017 (Annexure -2″)
and concluded that payment made to plaintiff is
correct and that claims of the plaintiff are unjustified.
The plaintiff was to erect expandable Pagoda Tent
instead of pagoda tent of fixed size of 400 sq. Fi, as
claimed by plaintiff. Rest of the averments made in
paragraph under reply is a matter of record and not
denied if found in conformity with the record.
14. That contents of paragraph no. 14 of the plaint
are wrong and therefore denied. The matter was
examined by Night Shelter Branch. The matter was
further submitted to Chief Engineer (Coordination),
who submitted its report on 17.5.2018 and concluded
that department has rightly calculated the dues of the
plaintiff as per the supply order dated 11:01.2013.
The claim of the plaintiff is un-justified in fact, the
plaintiff had to erect the expandable pagoda type tent
instead of pagoda tent of fixed size of 400 sq ft, as
claimed by the plaintiff. The Claim of the plaintiff is
an afterthought and the committee reached the
conclusion that the findings of the earlier committee
are in accordance with the supply order and the
RAJESH by
Digitally signed
RAJESH plaintiff has been paid the amount which was due
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date: and payable to the plaintiff under the supply order in
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:25:35 +0530
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 49 of 72 )
question. As such, plaintiff is not entitled for any
other balance payment as claimed by plaintiff.
66. A careful perusal of the aforesaid averments
made in the pleadings by the parties would reveal
that certain facts have gone undisputed and
unchallenged rather the same have been admitted by
the defendant, as to most of the averments the reply
of the defendant is that the same is matter of record
and not denied. It would not be wrong to say that
what to talk about evasive denial rather there is
clear cut admission on the part of the defendant
about certain facts which is further supported by the
affidavit of admission and denial of the documents
filed by the defendant.
67. In the said affidavit of admission and denial
of documents, defendant has admitted certain
documents/communications i.e work order dated
08.01.2013, letter dated 11.01.2013, letter dated
04.03.2013, letter dated 18.03.2014, minutes of
High Level Coordination Committee (HLCC) dated
27.11.2017, letter dated 14.01.2019, non-starter
report dated 25.01.2019, copy of legal notice and
reply dated 02.05.2019.
Digitally signed RAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date: 2025.04.05 GOEL 14:25:42 +0530
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 50 of 72 )
68. Having noted the same, to adjudicate the main
dispute the parties, I may pen down the admitted
facts/ communications emanating from the
pleadings of the parties and admission of denial
which are as under;-
a) Initial work order dated 08.01.20213 ExPW1/1
b) Communication dated 11.01.2013 ExPW1/2
c) Bills bearing no. 482 dated 15.02.2013
ExPW1/3.
d) Bills bearing no. 501 dated 01.03.2013
ExPW1/4
e) Letter dated 4.3.2014 ExPW1/5
f) Bill no. 623 dated 03.05.2013 ExPW1/6
g) Raising of Bill no. 635 dated 02.08.2013
ExPW1/7, Bill No. 643 04.01.2014 ExPW1/8,
Bill No. 646 dated 06.01.2014 ExPW1/9 and
bill no. 647 dated 09.01.2014 ExPW1/10
( correctness of these bills disputed but raising
and submission of bills not disputed).
h) Communication dated 18.03.2014 ExPW1/11.
i) Bill No. 003 dated 20.10.2014 ExPW1/12.
j) The communication dated 04.12.2017 vide
which the minutes of the committee of HLCC
dated 27.11.2017 were communicated
Digitally
ExPW1/24
signed by
RAJESH RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:25:51 k) The communication dated 14.01.2019
+0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 51 of 72 )
ExPW1/25.
l) Non-Starter Report dated 25.01.2019
ExPW1/26.
m) Legal Notice dated 28.03.2019 given by the
plaintiff to the defendant part of
ExPW1/27(colly).
n) The reply to the said notice given by the
defendant dated 02.05.2019 part of ExPW1/27
(colly)
o) The plaintiff had been allocated work of
building Tin Shed/Pagoda Type temporary
night shelter at 14 locations (reference para 5
of the plaint not denied by the defendant ) .
69. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the
plaintiff had been awarded the work orders which
were executed by the plaintiff and then the bills
were submitted. The main bone of contention
between the parties is firstly that the bills raised by
the plaintiff are not correct as the amount claimed
has not been calculated properly. Secondly, the
plaintiff was supposed to build an expandable
Pagoda Type Night Shelter but during the physical
inspection, it was revealed that it was not
expandable.
70. In order to adjudicate the above rival
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
contentions of the parties, it is apposite to refer to
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:25:56 +0530
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 52 of 72 )
the testimonies of the witnesses examined by both
the parties. As far as the examination-in-chief of
the witnesses is concerned, they have deposed
absolutely in consonance with the averments made
in their respective pleadings which has already been
noted down by this court in initial para’s of this
judgment. It is also pertinent to mention that the
cross examination of the witness has been done
before the Ld. Local Commissioner on certain
aspects which is not in dispute therefore, I would
be referring to that part of cross examination of
witnesses only which is touching the real
controversy between the parties and not otherwise.
71. PW1 Rajesh Mishra during his cross
examination replied that the plaintiff had been
provided 12 Pagodas of the 400 square feet each
and two tin sheds of the size of 1000 square feet
each. PW1 denied the suggestion that the size of
the Pagoda was expendable. During cross
examination of PW1 Rajesh Mishra, one question
was put to the witness regarding execution of the
document i.e work order dated 11.01.2013
ExPW1/12 but the Ld. Predecessor of this Court
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date: observed that the question relating to the execution
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:26:02 +0530
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 53 of 72 )
of the said order and answers thereof are not
permitted to be taken on record. That being so, the
question and answers in respect of the work order
ExPW1/2 would not be read in evidence. PW1
further replied that the items mentioned in the tin
shed rates were also to apply to rates offered for
Pagoda tents. Regarding the requirements of
different items in the Night Shelter, PW1 Rajesh
Mishra replied that it was as per the work order. He
admitted that the same rates have been charged for
the Pagoda Tent and Tin Sheds. PW1 admitted that
he has not filed the statement of the account and has
denied all other suggestions put to him.
72. PW2 Anant Mishra is basically a witness to
various reminders/ request letters sent to the
defendant. During the cross examination he replied
that before sending the request letters ExPW2/1 to
ExPW2/4, he had checked the accounts.
73. Coming to the testimony of witness of
defendant, DW1 Pradyuman Saraswat, during his
cross examination admitted that first three bills
were paid by the defendant to the plaintiff and
Digitally
signed by
RAJESH RAJESH
regarding the criteria to pass the bill, he replied that
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:26:08
+0530
after submission of bills by the contractor, the same
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 54 of 72 )
is checked by the accounts department. When
DW1 was put to a question ” you are not conversant
with the facts and circumstances of the case” ,
surprisingly, DW1 replied in affirmative i.e ‘YES’.
He admitted that no objection was raised while
passing the first three bills of the plaintiff and the
subsequent bills were also raised by the plaintiff as
the first three bills ExPW1/3, ExPW1/4 and
ExPW1/6. Regarding not passing of subsequent
bills, DW1 Pradyuman Saraswat replied that the
same were not passed as some objections were
received by the Audit Department and Vigilance
reference. Regarding audit objection and the
vigilance reference, DW1 Pradyuman Saraswat
replied that it is referred to in document ExDW1/1
but admitted that said Audit report is not part of the
present record.
74. DW1 Pradyuman Saraswat further admitted
that objections raised by the Audit department were
never communicated to the plaintiff and also
admitted that the plaintiff has sent several reminders
and requests for making the balance payment but
the same were never replied by the defendant. DW1
Digitally signed
RAJESH
also admitted that the plaintiff had removed the
by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05
GOEL 14:26:14
+0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 55 of 72 )
articles from the site after 18.03.2014. Regarding
Pagoda Tent and Night Shelter, DW1 replied that
the unit of the Pagoda Tent was 400 sq. ft but it was
expendable as per the requirement but admitted that
the price of the Pagoda Tent and Tin Shed was
same. When DW1 Pradyuman Saraswat was asked
regarding criteria for formation of a high level
coordination committee, he replied that he does not
know. When he was asked in which circumstances,
the coordination committee was formed , he just
replied that it is a matter of record. Again, when
DW1 was asked whether the defendant had placed
on record the documents as referred to in reports
ExDW1/1 and ExDW1/2, DW1 replied in negative.
All other suggestions put to DW1 have been denied
by him.
75. From the aforesaid testimonies of the
witnesses, it is evident that initially defendant made
the payment of few bills submitted by the plaintiff
and no objection was ever raised by the defendant
in respect of those bills but subsequent bills were
not cleared because of audit objection and the report
of the team who had carried out the physical
Digitally
signed by
RAJESH
inspection of the site. This objection has been taken
RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:26:19
+0530
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 56 of 72 )
by the defendant from the very beginning and was
reiterated during the arguments also.
76. This, now, takes me to the reports ExDW1/1,
ExDW1/2 and ExPW1/24 which have been relied
upon by both the parties rigorously as the arguments
of Ld. Counsels of both the parties revolved around
these reports only.
77. The report dated 04/5.06.2015 ExDW1/1
appears to have been given by a committee
constituted pursuant to the vigilance order DUSIB
dated 27.11.2014. At the outset, I may mention that
the said report does not bear any date as such but
the covering letter vide which the report was sent to
the member ( Admn) , DUSIB is dated 4/5.6.2015,
therefore, it is presumed that the report was given
on the same date. The said report is running into
35 pages. First 18 pages of the said report is nothing
but the factual status of the case i.e constitution of
the committee pursuant to the order of vigilance and
the mandate of the Committee; composition of the
committee, facts of the case including awarding the
work orders to the plaintiff, submissions of the bill
Digitally
signed by
RAJESH RAJESH
by the plaintiff, payments of few bills, deductions
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:26:24
+0530
made by the accounts branch, observations of the
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 57 of 72 )
senior officers etc.; audit observations/objections
and reply to those objections by the Night Shelter
Branch; constitution of board for physical
verification of the and findings of the said board.
On subsequent pages, there are details of the
meetings of the Committee and the conclusion and
recommendation of the committee is at page no.20
and 21. Practically, the report is complete at page
no.21 as subsequent documents are the annexures
considered by the committee while giving the said
report. For deciding the present issue the
conclusion of the committee would be relevant but
not the recommendations as it was for future actions
on the part of DUSIB.
78. Here it would be necessary to reproduce the
conclusion of the Committee which is as under:-
” Conclusion of the Committee:-
The members of the committee unanimously
concluded that
1) On 07.12.2012 Hon’ble High Court had given
direction to DUSIB as follows:
“to study the list of 23 locations where it is stated
that Night Shelters are required and to, If satisfied
Digitally signed with the need, immediate take steps for providing
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date: Night Shelters at the said locations and to report on
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:26:29 +0530 the next date of hearing on the said list:”
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 58 of 72 )
On the direction of court order dated 07.12.2012,
the committee did not find any evidence avallable
on record which shows any action initiated by NS
branch between the period from 07.12.2012 to
01.01.2013 the period when the court has heard the
matter, directed in court and issued the order. They
were simply awaiting the copy of the court order
2) The cost benefit analysis weighting the option of
running the temporary Night shelters on hiring basis
or acquisition of tents and other materials for
running thereof was also not available on record.
3) The NIT for erection of NS, which was pre-
requisite, was not available on record.
4) Payment upto 30.04.2013 was released with the
approval of CEO. The approval of CEO for
continuation of 25 Night Shelters at different
locations was not found on record. Director (NS)
has issued directions for removal of these 25 NS
w.e.f. 18.03.2014. As such, ex-post-facto approval
of CEO is required before releasing the committed
liability for the period between 01.05.2013 to
18.03.2014. For the same action is required on the
part of night shelter branch.
5) As the committed liability stands on the basis of
rates already approved and considered by
competent authority, the Committee has, as such,
not taken into account the rates of tents and other
materials from market, as on date
6) In the absence of any available parameter on
record, the Committee has placed reliance on the
physical verification carried out by the Performance
Audit team of the C&AG of India and a team of
Engineers (Board of officers) and has worked out
shelter wise amount to be released in favour of each
agency on the basis of rates already approved and
considered by competent authority.
7) On the basis of calculations, committee
RAJESH
Digitally signed
by RAJESH
considered that total payment of agencies due w.e.f.
KUMAR
KUMAR GOEL
Date: date of erection of Night Shelter to date of removal
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:26:36 +0530
of night shelter comes to Rs.1,12,54,665.42.
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 59 of 72 )
(Shelter wise detail is given at Annexure A) Out of
this DUSIB has already released payment to the
tune of Rs.72,02,045.83 and thus balance payment
(committed liability) comes to Rs.40,52,619.50
(Annexure-B) which may be released as per detalls
given below:-
1.Durga Furniture House Rs.21,52,281.13
2. Moments Expro Rs. 9,10,340.00
3. Ahuja Tents & Decorators Rs. 9,10,340.00
Rs.40.52,619.50″
79. From the aforesaid conclusion of the
committee, the Committee has placed the reliance
on the physical verification carried out by the
performance audit team of the CAG of India and a
team of Engineers ( Board of officers) and has
worked out shelter wise amount to be released in
favour of each agency on the basis of rates already
approved and considered by the competent
authority. The committee on the basis of
calculations that only an amount of Rs
21,52,281.13/- which is due and outstanding may be
released to the plaintiff ( Durga Furniture House).
80. Here it is pertinent to refer to the lapses on the
part of the DSUIB, particularly the Night Shelter
Branch, as recorded in the aforesaid report
ExDW1/1, which are being reproduced as under:-
Digitally signed
RAJESH
(a) The work to identify the location and
by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:26:41 +0530
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 60 of 72 )
requirement has already assigned to OSD
(NS) to survey this site and submit report.
However, OSD (NS) has not submitted any
report except informing that he has contacted
DDA (at page no.3 of the report).
(b) No action from 7.12.2012 to 01.01.2013
was either initiated or taken by NS Branch
as they were awaiting the copy of the
Court Order. It shows that no official of
NS Branch of DUSIB was present in the
court at the time of hearing and order
passed by Hon’ble High Court ( at page
no.3 of the report).
(c) This section of NS Branch was against the
financial rules and CVC
instructions/guidelines as there was no
approval of competent authority. Neither
any quotation letter was issued to above
agencies nor was any NIT prepared. The
items required were also not mentioned in
the file (page no.3 of the report).
(d) CEO has again recorded his observations
(I) the rates of different types of Tents of
similar size be obtained within one week
and put up on file. (II) Inspite of my
Digitally signed by
RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR
KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2025.04.05
GOEL 14:26:47 +0530
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 61 of 72 )
instructions on page no.25/N, why no
exercise to find the cost of the Tents has
been done? ( page 11 of the report).
(e) Before any action of aforesaid payment
released, performance audit of C&AG of
India already started and had observed
serious irregularities vide their audit
observation number 29,30,31 and 34 dated
04.09.2013 ( page no.11 of the report).
(f) CEO vide his note dated 5.11.2013 had
observed that “The audit has raised
objections and made audit para no.3 undue
benefit to the contractor. This issue has
not been put up on the file. CEs (I & II)
may be asked to ascertain after inspecting
whether old 25 Night Shelters are as per
the supply order placed with suppliers.
The inspection report be submitted within
a fortnight” (page no.16 of the report.
81. It is difficult for this Court to digest the
contention of the defendant that since the decision
was taken by the committee therefore, no further
amount is due and outstanding against the defendant
for the work executed by the plaintiff for the simple
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05
GOEL 14:26:52
+0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 62 of 72 )
reason that:-
(a) On what basis the said calculation was done by
the Committee has not been clarified. Once the
rates were duly approved, while awarding the
work orders, how, the defendant unilaterally
can modify or reduce the said rates without the
consent of the opposite party or without giving
any opportunity of being heard to consider the
stand of the party .
(b) From the said report, it is evident that payment
upto 30.04.2013 was released with the approval
of CEO. At that time, there was no objection
by the DUSIB for releasing the payment at the
same rate as mentioned in the work order and
on what basis the subsequent rates were
reduced is not known to the court.
(c) As mentioned in para 5 of the said report, the
committed liability stands on the basis of rate
already approved and considered by the
competent authority and the committee has as
such not taken into account the rates of tents
and other material from the market as on date
(d) Coming to the objections of the audit
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date: department that the work was awarded without
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:26:59 +0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 63 of 72 )
inviting tenders or undue benefit was given to
the contractor (plaintiff), how on this basis
plaintiff payment can be withheld by the
defendant when admittedly, the said report was
never shared with the plaintiff. Further, the
plaintiff has never asked the defendant not to
adopt a due procedure for allotment of the
work. It was the duty of the defendant to adopt
the due procedure i.e inviting tenders etc and it
was not the job of the plaintiff.
(e) It is nowhere the case of the defendant that
there was conspiracy between the defendant
organization and the plaintiff. As an outsider,
plaintiff was within its right to presume, while
accepting the offer of the defendant for setting
up the night shelter, that defendant had adopted
the due procedure as per the well established
norms and rules applicable.
(f) The board which was constituted to physically
inspect the night shelters also was not in the
knowledge of the plaintiff. There are the
findings of the board officers which primarily
is pointing out that the night shelter branch did
not analyse the cost properly before awarding
RAJESH by
Digitally signed
RAJESH the work and lapses relate to deficiency in the
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:27:05 +0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 64 of 72 )
supply order. Further in case any lapses on the
part of the plaintiff were noticed by the team
who had carried out physical inspection, the
same at least should have been shared with the
plaintiff. The internal deviations of the policy
in awarding the work orders cannot be a
ground to withheld the payment of an outsider
i.e plaintiff who is not at all concerned about
the internal mechanism and the process to be
adopted by the defendant organisation.
(g) There is nothing on record suggesting that the
plaintiff did not execute the work as per the
work orders ExPW1/1 and ExPW1/2 and the
Night Shelters were not expandable. It appears
that the defendant has rejected the claim of the
plaintiff merely on the basis of surmises and
conjuncture .
82. Coming to the report dated 18.10.2017
ExDW1/2, the said report has been given by a
committee which was constituted under the
chairmanship of Chief Engineer ( Coord) to decide
balance payment of certain agencies including the
plaintiff in respect of the night shelters. The said
report is running into around 8 pages and the first 6
pages are about the constitution of the
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:27:12 +0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 65 of 72 )
committee,mandate of the committee; about the
dates of the meeting of the committee; awarding the
work orders to the plaintiff and subsequent fact;
submissions of the bills; part payments by the
defendant etc. The observation and the conclusion
of the committee is at page no.7 and 8. The
committee concluded as under:
“… The committee has observed that the
department has rightly calculated the dues of
both the suppliers as per the supply order dated
11.01.2013. The claims of both the suppliers are
unjustified. Therefore, the department has rightly
calculated the dues of both the suppliers. These
facts show that the supplier had to erect the
expandable Pagoda Type Tent instead of the
facts as claimed by both the supplier that Pagoda
Type Tent is of a fixed size of 100 sq ft.
The claim of the vendors appears to be an after
thought and the Committee has reached this
conclusion that the findings of the earlier
committee are in accordance with the supply
order and both the suppliers have been paid their
dues correctly. As such, they are not entitled for
any other balance payment as claimed by them.
So far as the service of legal notice is concerned,
the department may reply suitably with the
consultation of Law Office, DUSIB.
The proceedings of the committee are concluded
with the above observation and may be placed
before the HLCC for its perusal and appropriate
consideration.”
83. The aforesaid report ExDW1/2 is primarily
RAJESH by
Digitally signed
RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
based upon the earlier report ExDW1/1 constituted
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:27:26 +0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 66 of 72 )
on the same issue and this committee has basically
reiterated the outcomes and report/conclusion of the
earlier committee which did not find any place to
stand before this court for rejecting the claim of the
plaintiff. Therefore, these reports would also be of
no help to the defendant for rejecting the claim of
the plaintiff. Coming to the report of the Committee
held on 27.11.2017 which was circulated vide
communication dated 04.12.2017 ExPW1/24. It
appears that the said HLCC was held pursuant to
the report of the committee dated 18.10.2017
ExDW1/2. The agenda taken up by the committee
was balance payment to the suppliers including the
plaintiff. After considering the stand of the Night
Shelter Branch and the report of the earlier
committees to the effect that department has rightly
calculated the dues of the supplier and no amount is
outstanding, the committee observed as under:-
“..6. after deliberations, HLCC observed that the
issues raised by the agencies in respect of Pagoda
Tent and measurement have not been examined w.r.t
the records of the file. HLCC suggested that night
shelter branch should examine the case as per the
terms and conditions of the supply order; reply
given to the audit party and representations given by
the agencies and to be put up to the competent
authority urgently for further necessary action. This
is also necessitated as the agencies are disputing the
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL
2025.04.05
14:27:32
+0530
payment and any delay may result in more interest
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 67 of 72 )
liability on DUSIB.”
84. The aforesaid observation of the committee
has made it very crystal clear that the issue of the
payment raised by the plaintiff has not been
examined according to the records of the file. Not
only that, the committee suggested that the night
shelter branch should examine the case as per the
terms and conditions of supply order; reply given by
the night shelter branch to the audit party and also
the representation of the agencies i.e plaintiff.
Thereafter, the night shelter branch was supposed to
put up the case before competent authority for
action. Meaning thereby, the claim of the plaintiff
was rejected without going through the records and
examination of the representations given by the
plaintiff.
85. From the overall facts and circumstances, it
appears to this court that since vigilance department
of the DUSIB had taken cognizance of the matter as
the due procedure was not adopted by the night
shelter branch while awarding the work order to the
plaintiff therefore, despite the fact that payment was
Digitally
signed by
RAJESH RAJESH
made initially in respect of few bills submitted by
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:27:38
+0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 68 of 72 )
the plaintiff, the rest of the claim was rejected just
to save the skin few officers which cannot be
permitted in the given circumstances. Consequently,
the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the
outstanding amount for the execution of the work
for which the bills have been submitted.
86. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for
recovery of Rs 1,78,85,815/- wherein the principle
outstanding amount is Rs 98,00,447/-. The plaintiff
has also claimed the interest in the sum of Rs
80,85,368/- @ 18% p.a for the period from
1.11.2014 till 31.5.2019. As far as the principle
amount of Rs 98,00,447/- is concerned, the
defendant has not disputed the fact that as per the
bills submitted by the plaintiff, the plaintiff may
claim an amount of Rs 97,46,789.22/- as observed
at page no.16 of the report ExDW1/1. Meaning
thereby, to the extent of Rs 97,46,789.22/-, the
calculation made by the plaintiff is correct. Without
going into further details, the plaintiff would be
entitled to recover Rs 97,46,789.22/- from the
defendant as principle amount, in case the suit of
the plaintiff is decreed. Issue no. 1 is answered
Digitally
signed by
accordingly.
RAJESH
RAJESH KUMAR
KUMAR GOEL
Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:27:44
+0530
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 69 of 72 )
Issue NO. 5
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the pendente-lite
and future interest, if so at what rate and for what
period? (OPP)
87. As noted earlier, the plaintiff has claimed the
interest in the sum of Rs 80,85,368/- @ 18% p.a for
the period from 1.11.2014 till 31.5.2019. It has not
been explained that on what basis the plaintiff has
claimed the interest at the aforesaid rate. The work
order ExPW1/1 and ExPW1/2 are silent and there is
nothing on record suggesting that the plaintiff
would be entitled for the interest @ 18% p.a on
delayed payments. At the same time, the defendant
cannot be allowed to go free for withholding the
payment of the plaintiff without any reasons.
Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances
of the case, this Court is of the view that interest of
justice would have been met by awarding interest
@ 8% per annum on Rs 97,46,789.22/- till actual
realization, in case the suit of the plaintiff is
decreed.
Digitally
signed by
RAJESH
RAJESH KUMAR
KUMAR GOEL
Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:27:50
+0530
Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 70 of 72 )
Issue No.6 Relief
88. In view of my findings on the issue no.4, the
present suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
89. There is no order as to costs.
90. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
91. Before parting with the judgment, I deem it
necessary to highlight certain disturbing facts with
regard to the way DUSIB, particularly the Night
Shelter Branch and the officers concerned even at
senior level, have conducted in respect of the
allotment of work involving huge financial public
money qua the erection of Night Shelters as evident
from the records, the report dated 4/5.06.2015
ExDW1/1 and the observations made by this court
in preceding para’s particularly para no.80 and 85 of
this judgment. The said report which has been filed
by the DUSIB itself, has pointed out so many
serious lapses on the part of the branch concerned
indicating that all was not well in DUSIB during the
relevant time. It is not clear that if any action has
been taken for those lapses and it is in the
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR
KUMAR GOEL
Date:
2025.04.05
knowledge of Competent Authority. Accordingly,
GOEL 14:27:56
+0530Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 71 of 72 )
let the copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief
Secretary, GNCT of Delhi and also to Chief
Vigilance Commissioner for information and
necessary action, as they deem it proper.
92. File be consigned to Record Room, as per rules.
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
14:28:02 +0530(Rajesh Kumar Goel)
District Judge (Commercial)-02
Central, Tis Hazari Courts
05.04.2025
Announced in the Open Court
today i.e: 05.04.2025Ameer Chand Mehandiratta (deceased)
prop M/s Durga Furniture House
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 72 of 72 )
[ad_1]
Source link