Delhi District Court
M/S. Moments Expro 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
DLCT010080662019
CS (COMM.) No.975/2019
CNR No.DLCT0010080662019
IN THE MATTERS OF:
( As per the amended of parties)
Rahul Menandiratta
Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Office at C1/2 Janak Puri
Through its SPA Holder
Sh. Rajesh Mishra ......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
3. Union of India
Through its Secretary Home,
North Block,
New Delhi ......Defendants
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05
GOEL 15:39:37
+0530
Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 1 of 71 )
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.1,23,58,635/-(Rs
One Crore Twenty Three Lakhs Fifty Eight
Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Five) comprising
of principle amount of Rs 67,71,857- and the
interest of Rs 55,86,782/- 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.
2. Here it is pertinent to mention that another
connected case titled as “Ameer Chand
Mehandiratta (deceased) proprietor of M/s Durga
Furniture House (through LR Rahul Mehandiratta)”,
suit bearing no. CS (Comm) 972/2019 is also being
disposed off today itself. In both these cases the
parties are the same, pleadings are absolutely
Digitally
identical, facts in issues are the same emanating
signed by
RAJESH RAJESH
from the same work orders, issues as framed
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:39:44
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 2 of 71 )
absolutely identical, evidence adduced is almost on
the same line. Even the final arguments are
verbatim, therefore, the judgment in the present
case in a way would be reproduction of the
judgment of the case CS (Comm) 972/2019 with
cosmetic changes in the background of different
exhibits and little bit deviation in the evidence.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The brief facts of the case, as mentioned in
the plaint are that :-
(a) plaintiff is a government contractor and
running the business under a sole proprietor
firm in the name of M/s Moment’s Expro.
(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
RAJESH Digitally signed by work order for three vendors i.e (1) M/s
RAJESH KUMAR
KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2025.04.05
Durga Furnitures House, (2) M/s Moment’s
GOEL 15:39:49 +0530
Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 3 of 71 )
Expro (plaintiff) and (3) Ahuja Tent House
for building 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
built tin-shed/pagoda type temporary night
shelters at the locations allocated and no
complaint has been 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 nos. 181
and 193 dated 15.2.2013 and 1.3.2013 for an
amount of Rs 7,44,210/- and Rs 3,52,100/-
respectively and same were duly paid by the
defendant.
(f) vide letter ref No. F
06/84/NS/10/2013/D-1219 dated
04.03.2013, defendant extended contract of
work execution for the above said 25
temporary night shelter till 20.03.2013;
plaintiff raised invoice no. 014 dated
03.05.2013 for an amount of Rs 14,64,417/-
and the defendant made the timely payment
qua the aforesaid invoice.
(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. 133 dated
02.08.2013 in the sum of Rs 14,64,417-,
invoice no. 343 dated 4.1.2014 in the sum of
Rs 14,88,429/-, invoice no. 344 dated
6.1.2014 in the sum of Rs 14,64,419/- and
invoice no. 345 dated 09.1.2014 in the sum
of Rs 14,64,419/-; out of total amount of Rs
Digitally signed 58,81,684/- defendant made part payment of
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date: Rs 9,10,340/- only.
2025.04.05
GOEL 15:39:56
+0530
Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 4 of 71 )
(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.566 dated 20.10.2014 for
an amount of Rs 18,00,513/-.
(i) Plaintiff has sent many recovery reminders
for making balance payment of Rs
67,71,857- but instead of making the
payment, defendant formed an High Level
Coordination Committee (HLCC 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
authorised representative of the plaintiff.
(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
(hight shelters) against the subject
referred award letter no. D-1083/Dir
NS/13 dated 11.01.2013 have been
examined by two different
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
Committees. The first one headed by
KUMAR Date: Financial Advisor, DUSIB vide its
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:40:03 +0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 5 of 71 )
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. DUSUIB has already
cleared all outstanding dues and
nothing is due on its part now to be
payable”.
(l) The defendants are liable to make payment
of Rs 1,23,58,639/- ( Rs 67,71,857/- towards
principle amount + Rs 55,86,782/- towards
interest on principle outstanding w.e.f
1.11.2014 till 30.4.2019)
(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.
(n) After receiving the Non-Starter, on
28.3.2019, plaintiff sent a legal notice to the
defendant; although reply dated 6.5.2019
from the defendants in response to the legal
notice was received but the outstanding dues
were not cleared by the defendants. Hence,
the present suit was filed.
4. Here it is pertinent to mention here that,
originally the plaintiff had filed the present suit
under order XXXVII r/w section 151 CPC. Vide
order 29.11.2019, the present suit was treated as an
ordinary suit by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court
Digitally signed
RAJESH
and the defendants were directed to be summoned.
by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05
GOEL 15:41:47
+0530
Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 6 of 71 )
5. 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
and the rest of the defendants have not filed any
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.
6. 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.
7. On merits, it is stated that the payment of Rs
9,10,340/- as made by defendant to the plaintiff was
the final payment and not the part payment as
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
alleged by the plaintiff; HLCC in its meeting held
2025.04.05
GOEL 15:41:52
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 7 of 71 )
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 are
unjustified; the matter was examined by the Night
Shelter Branch which was further submitted to
Chief Engineer (Coordination), who submitted its
report 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.
8. 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.
9. The record would indicate that both the
Digitally signed
parties have filed the affidavits of admission and
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:41:59 +0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 8 of 71 )
denial of the documents.
10. 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 1,23,58,639/- 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
maintainable ? (OPD)
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.
11. Thereafter, vide order dated 12.01.2023, the
schedule for Second Case Management Hearing
was fixed by the Ld predecessor of the court.
12. Here it is pertinent to mention that
examination- in -chief by way of an affidavit of
PW1 Rahul Mehndiratta proprietor of M/s
Moment’s Expro and PW2 Ms. Sonal Lamba,
accountant of plaintiff firm was recorded before the
Court itself. On 23.3.2023, taking into consideration
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05
GOEL 15:42:06
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 9 of 71 )
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 Rahul
Mehndiratta & PW2 Sonal Lamba and to record
the further evidence to be adduced by both the
parties and the Second Case Management Hearing
was rescheduled.
13. Ld. Court Commissioner has submitted his
report dated 02-05-2023. As per the said report , the
cross examination of PW1 Rahul Mehndiratta &
PW2 Sonal Lamba was concluded before the Ld
Court Commissioner. No other witness was
examined by the plaintiff and the plaintiff evidence
was closed on 12.04.2023. 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.
14. PW1 Rahul Mehndiratta has deposed on the
lines of the averments made in the plaint in his
Digitally signed
evidence filed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05
GOEL 15:42:12
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 10 of 71 )
has relied upon / proved the following documents
i.e. copy of registration of the plaintiff firm
ExPW1/1, the SPA dated 16-04-2019 ExPW1/2,
order dated 08.01.2013 ExPW1/3, order dated
11.01.2013 ExPW1/4, bill no. 181 dated 15.02.2013
ExPW1/5, bill no. 193 dated 01.03.2013 ExPW1/6,
order of extension by the defendant vide letter dated
04.03.2013 ExPW1/7, bill bearing no. 014/2013-14
dated 03.05.2013 Ex.PW1/8, bill bearing no.
133/2013-14 dated 02.08.2013 Ex.PW1/9, bill
bearing no.343/2013-14 dated 04.01.2014
ExPW1/10, bill bearing no. 344/2013-14 dated
06.01.2014 Ex.PW1/11, bill bearing no. 345/2013-
14 dated 09.01.2014 Ex.PW1/12, DUSIB letter
dated 18.03.2014 which is Ex.PW1/13, bill bearing
no. 566/2014-15 dated 20.10.2014 Ex.PW1/14,
letter dated 11.04.2018 to the Hon’ble Lt.Governor,
Govt of NCT of Delhi, Ex. PW1/15, letter dated
12.10.2017 Ex.PW1/16, as DUSIB authorities vide
customer Reference ID DUSIB/D03/15766 which is
exhibited as Ex.PW1/17, the Reminder-9 dated
24.05.2017 Ex.PW1/18(Colly), the Reminder-9
dated 24.05.2017 Ex.PW1/19, the Reminder-9 dated
Digitally
signed by
RAJESH RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
24.05.2017 Ex.PW1/20(colly), request letter dated
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:42:18
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 11 of 71 )
30-05-2017 Ex.PW1/21, letter Ex. PW1/22, the
Reminder-7 dated 23.11.2015 Ex.PW1/23,the letter
dated 20.10.2015 Ex.PW1/24(Colly),the Reminder
dated 08.09.2015 Ex.PW1/25(Colly), the Reminder
dated 04.03.2015 Ex.PW1/26, the Reminder dated
15.07.2014 Ex.PW1/27, the Reminder dated
15.07.2014 Ex.PW1/28,the Reminder-4 dated
27.05.2014 ExPw1/29, the Reminder dated
24.05.2017 Ex.PW1/30, the Reminder dated
16.04.2016 Ex.PW1/31, the Reminder dated
16.04.2016 Ex.PW1/32, the Reminder-3 dated
04.01.2014 Ex.PW1/33, the Reminder-3 dated
04.01.2014 Ex.PW1/34, the request dated
03.04.2013 Ex.PW1/35, a letter dated 04.12.2018
from DUSIB with the minutes of meeting of High
Level Coordination Committee which is exhibited
Ex.PW1/36, a letter dated 14.01.2019 from DUSIB
regarding refusal to pay the the outstanding amount
Ex.PW1/37, the copy of the Legal Demand Notice
dated 28.03.2019 alongwith speed post receipt,
internet generated tracking report and reply dated
02.05.2019 Ex.PW1/38(Colly), the NSR dated
25.01.2019 Ex. PW1/39, the certificate U/s 65B of
Digitally
RAJESH
signed by
RAJESH
KUMAR the then Indian Evidence act Ex.PW1/40.
KUMAR GOEL
Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:42:23
+0530
Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 12 of 71 )
15. PW2 Ms Sonal Lamba has also tendered her
evidence by way of affidavit ExPW2/A and has
relied upon the documents i.e. request letter dated
23-08-2017 alongwith receipts of online submission
to CEO, DUSIB ExPW2/1(colly), a request letter
dated 23-08-2017 PW2/2 (colly).
16. 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 filed
by the defendant. He has relied upon the
documents i.e. Report dated 4/5.6.2015 ExDW1/1
and report dated 18.10.2017 ExDW1/2.
17. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed.
18. PW1 Rahul Mehndiratta and PW2 Ms. Sonal
Lamba 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
Digitally
signed by
shall be referred to and considered while giving the
RAJESH
RAJESH KUMAR
KUMAR
findings on the issues, wherever necessary.
GOEL
Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:42:43
+0530
Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 13 of 71 )
19. 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.
20. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon
following judicial pronouncements:-
i. Khan Bahadur Shapoor Fredoom
Mazda vs. Durga Prosad chamaria and
Ors, D.oD 01.03.1961 ( SC).
ii. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs Kew
Precision Parts Private Limited and
Ors, D.o.D 5.8.2022 (SC)iii. Sushma Singh Vs Ram Bhajan Pal,
D.o.D 20.12.2022 (DHC)iv. Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd
Vs Aluminium Corporation of India
D.oD 16.10.1970(SC).
v. P.C Bhandari Vs New Victoria Mills,
Manu/UP/0001/1979RAJESH by
Digitally signed
RAJESH
vi. Bai Sakinabai & Ors Vs Gulam Rasul
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date: Uumar Bhai Shaikh decided on
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:42:49 +0530 28.03.1980 ( Gujarat HC)Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 14 of 71 )
vii. Elof Hansson Fiber LLC vs Deepanshu
agencies decided on 02.05.2017, DHC.
viii. J.C. Bhudraja Vs Chairman, Orissa
Mining Corporation Ltd & Ors,
Manu/SC 0602/2008ix. DCM Financial Services Ltd vs
Holland Tractors (India) Pvt. Ltd,
Manu/DE/2905/2008 .
x. Paisalo Digital Ltd vs Sat Priya
Mehamia Memorial Education Trust &
Ors, ARB. P.396/2024 D.o.D
03.04.2024.
21. Ld Counsel for the defendant has placed
reliance on following judicial pronouncements:
i. M/s Rakman Industries Ltd. Versus M/s
Sumaja Electro Infra Pvt. Ltd. RFA
(Comm) 8/2022 D.o.D 09.11.2022
(DHC).
ii. Bachhaj Nahar Versus Nilima Mandal &
Anr, Civil Appeal No. 5798-5799 of
2008 (SC) D.o.D 23.09.2008.
iii. Sunil Sood vs M/S Shri Krishna Builders
& Ors in RFA No. 751/2018 (DHC)
D.o.D 07.09.2018.
22. 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.
23. For the sake of convenience, firstly I shall be
RAJESH Digitally
by RAJESH
signed
deciding issue no.4, then issue no.2, thereafter issue
KUMAR KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2025.04.05
GOEL 15:42:55 +0530
Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 15 of 71 )
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)
24. 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 been awarded to the plaintiff vide
work order dated 8.1.2013 ExPW1/3 and dated
11.01.2013 ExPW1/4 which was subsequently
closed vide letter dated 18.03.2014 ExPW1/13. He
further submitted that the last bill raised by the
plaintiff is dated 20.10.2014 ExPW1/14. By
referring to the article 18 of the Limitation Act, Ld.
Counsel for the defendant submitted that in the bill
dated 20.10.2014 ExPW1/14, the plaintiff has
claimed the amount till 16.3.2014, therefore, the
limitation would start from 16.3.2014 which has
Digitally signed
already expired on 16.3.2017. He further submitted
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL
2025.04.05
15:43:00
that the present suit was instituted on 1.7.2019
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 16 of 71 )
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.
25. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
submitted that from the document ExDW1/2 dated
18/10/2017, it has come on record that the
defendant had made the payment of Rs 9,10,340/-
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 ExPW1/14. He
has also taken me to the communication dated
14.1.2019 ExPW1/37 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
Digitally
signed by
RAJESH
KUMAR
RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
Date:
taken me to section 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:43:06
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 17 of 71 )
and submitted that the case of the plaintiff is
squarely covered by said provisions of law.
26. 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
reads as follows:
“3. Bar of limitation.–(1) Subject to the
provisions contained in sections 4 to 24
(inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred,
and application made after the prescribed period
shall be dismissed, although limitation has not
been set up as a defence. ”
27. 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
RAJESH
Digitally signed
by RAJESH
prescribed period for a suit or application in
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date: respect of any property or right, an
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:43:11 +0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 18 of 71 )
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,
—
(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.”
28. A plain reading of Section 18(1) of the
Limitation Act would reflect that where any
RAJESH Digitally
by RAJESH
KUMAR KUMAR
signed
GOEL
Date: 2025.04.05
acknowledgment of a liability has been made in
GOEL 15:43:17 +0530
Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 19 of 71 )
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.
29. Section 18(2) of the Limitation Act may not
be applicable in the present case inasmuch as all the
alleged acknowledgements as claimed by the
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.
30. 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.
31. After going through both provisions, it
RAJESH by
Digitally signed
RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
becomes clear that the main distinction between
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:43:24 +0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 20 of 71 )
Sections 18 and 19 of the Act is the requirement of
acknowledgement in writing. While Section 18
specifically calls for a written acknowledgement of
a debt, Section 19 is all about acknowledgement
through payment.
32. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Bala Krishnamurthi vs. M. Krishnamurthi,
1998 (7) SCC 123 while enunciating the objection
of fixing time limit for litigation that : –
“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
RAJESH
KUMAR
fixed period of time.”
GOEL
Digitally signed
by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
Date:
33. Coming back to the case at hand, a perusal of
2025.04.05
15:43:34
+0530
Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 21 of 71 )
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 (ExPW1/13) 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.
566 dated 20.10.2014 (ExPW1/14); it further arose
on each and every date when the plaintiff has sent
the legal reminder/notice; it arose on 27.11.2017
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 ExPW1/38 (colly).
34. During the cross examination PW1 Rahul
Mehndiratta admitted that the payments of the bills
submitted by him were received during the year
Digitally
2013 and 2014. In the present case, it is not in
signed by
RAJESH RAJESH
KUMAR
KUMAR GOEL
Date: dispute that vide communication dated 18.03.2014
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:43:42
+0530
Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 22 of 71 )
ExPW1/13, defendant had asked the plaintiff to
close the night shelter.
35. 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
and what is the effect of the part payment made on
27.11.2015? 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 ExPW1/36? 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 ExPW1/37?
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?
36. The undisputed facts are that vide work order
dated 08.01.2013 ExPW1/3 and subsequent work
Digitally signed
order dated 11.01.2013 ExPW1/4, plaintiff was
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL
2025.04.05
15:43:48
+0530
asked to build Tin Shed/Pagoda Tent night shelters
Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 23 of 71 )
at14 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 ExPW1/13. The
last bill raised by the plaintiff was 566 dated
20.10.2014 ExPW1/14. The work orders ExPW1/3
and ExPW1/4 are silent about the schedule of
payments to be made by the defendant to the
plaintiff. Meaning thereby, there is nothing in the
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.
37. 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
Digitally
signed by
RAJESH
from this date the limitation period for filing the suit
RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:43:53
+0530
Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 24 of 71 )
would start running and would expire on or before
17.03.2017.
38. In this context, the plaintiff is claiming that
the cause of action arose when the last bill no. 566
dated 20.10.2014 ExPW1/14 was submitted. In my
opinion this contention of the plaintiff cannot be
accepted. If such a plea is accepted by the court
then it would have a blanket permission to the
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.
39. Coming to the part payment being made on
27.11.2015, it is an admitted fact that the defendant
RAJESH by
Digitally signed
RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL had made the part payment of Rs 9,10.340/- to the
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05
GOEL 15:43:58
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 25 of 71 )
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 26.11.2018.
The present suit was instituted on 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 ExPW1/36?
40. 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/complaints of 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
Digitally signed
committee dated 27.11.2017 were formed on the
RAJESH by RAJESH
requests/ complaints of plaintiff”. The first
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05
GOEL 15:44:04
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 26 of 71 )
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 ExPW1/36. DW1
Pradyuman Saraswat has denied the suggestions
that the aforesaid reports are baseless, forged and
fabricated. He further replied that the plaintiff had
been called only in the meeting of the committee
dated 27.11.2017.
41. 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 ExPW1/36
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
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR
KUMAR GOEL
Date:
2025.04.05
pursuant to the objections raised by the Audit party
GOEL 15:44:09
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 27 of 71 )
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
was only for internal circulation of the defendant
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.
42. Coming to the report of the committee
circulated vide communication dated 27.11.2017
ExPW1/36, 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
Digitally signed
RAJESH
KUMAR
by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
Date:
section 18 of the Limitation Act.
2025.04.05
GOEL 15:44:15
+0530
Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 28 of 71 )
c) whether the period of limitation was extended by
various payment reminders and legal notices issued
by the plaintiff ?
43. 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 to various authorities i.e
ExPW1/14 to ExPW1/35, PW1/38 (colly) and
ExPW2/1(colly) and ExPW2/2( Colly) 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.
44. 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
Digitally
signed by
RAJESH
KUMAR
RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
Date:
sent by the plaintiff would not in any way extend
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:44:20
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 29 of 71 )
the period of limitation.
45. 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. Delhi Development
Authority, (1988) 2 SCC 338 that, “It is a settled legal
position that the accrual of 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”.
46. 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,
RAJESH by
Digitally signed
RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
the same would still be beyond the period of
KUMAR Date:
GOEL
2025.04.05
15:44:30
limitation. The plaintiff pleaded that he had
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 30 of 71 )
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 beyond the period of three years from the
cause of action which, in the present case, would be
the date 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
Digitally
signed by
RAJESH RAJESH
its rights and avail remedies before expiry of the
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date: stipulated period of limitation within the four
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:44:36
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 31 of 71 )
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
ExPW1/37
47. The next contention of the plaintiff is that the
claim of the plaintiff was finally rejected on
14.01.2019 ExPW1/37, therefore, the limitation
would start from this date also. In my opinion, the
refusal by the defendant vide communication
ExPW1/37 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.
48. Before parting with this issue of limitation, it
is pertinent to mention that in the plaint, the plaintiff
Digitally
signed by
RAJESH RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:44:44
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 32 of 71 )
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
absolutely baseless, frivolous and without any
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.
49. 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 there was an acknowledgment
Digitally
signed by
of debt to bring the case within the ambit of
RAJESH RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:44:57
section 18 of the Limitation Act. This Court has
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 33 of 71 )
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 the Limitation Act,
would fail.
50. In view of my aforesaid discussions, I am of
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.
51. 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
Digitally signed
Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL suit against the defendants?(OPD)
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:45:03 +0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 34 of 71 )
52. 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
absence of which the suit itself could not possibly
exist. There are numerous judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court encapsulating this term. It would be
apposite to note some of them.
53. 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.”
54. 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
Digitally signed taken with the law applicable to them gives the
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date: plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must
include some act done by the defendant since in the
2025.04.05
GOEL 15:45:08
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 35 of 71 )
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.”
55. Subsequently, in ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70] Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that law cannot permit clever
drafting which creates illusions of a cause of action.
What is required is that a clear right must be made
out in the plaint.
56. Reverting back to the case at hand, it is not in
dispute that the plaintiff had been awarded work
order dated 08.01.2013 ExPW1/3 and work order
dated 11.01.2013 ExPW1/4. It is also not in dispute
that the said contract was closed vide
communication dated 18.03.2014 ExPW1/13.
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 67,71,857/- 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
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
expandable which has been denied by the plaintiff.
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05
GOEL 15:45:14
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 36 of 71 )
57. 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
court of law. Hence, issue no.2 is decided in favour
of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No.3
Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable ?
(OPD)
58. 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
Digitally signed
RAJESH
towards the work executed by the plaintiff or not.
by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05
GOEL 15:45:21
+0530
Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 37 of 71 )
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.
Issue No.1
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the
amount of Rs 1,23,58,639/- as claimed in the plaint ?
(OPP)
59. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has extensively
referred to the reports ExDW1/1, ExDW1/2 and
ExPW1/36 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
Digitally
same as were charged in the subsequent bills which
signed by
RAJESH RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
were not passed by the defendant. He further
15:45:27
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 38 of 71 )
submitted that the defendant has not given any
reasons for not making the payment.
60. Surprisingly, Ld. Counsel for the defendant
also pointed the gun of his arguments for rejecting
the claim of the plaintiff by using the same reports
i.e ExDW1/1, ExDW1/2 and ExPW1/36. He
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
ExPW1/4, 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
RAJESH by
Digitally signed
RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
and nothing is outstanding against the defendant.
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05
GOEL 15:45:33
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 39 of 71 )
61. 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
the manner provided in sub rules 2,3, 4 and 5 of this
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.
62. 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.
63. 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
Digitally
signed by
RAJESH RAJESH
order, the same shall be taken to be admitted
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:45:39
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 40 of 71 )
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.
64. There is no discretion even to the court to
ignore the facts pleaded in the plaint which have not
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
RAJESH by
Digitally signed
RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
(Rule 6); adjournment of case management hearing
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05 (Rule 7); consequences of non-compliance with orders
GOEL 15:45:44
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 41 of 71 )
(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.
35. Various provisions of the Act, namely, case
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
Digitally signed
amendments to the Civil Procedure Code leaves no
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL room for doubt that the provisions of the Act require to
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:45:49 +0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 42 of 71 )
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 object shall be fulfilled only if the
provisions of the Act are interpreted in a narrow sense
and not hampered by the usual procedural delays
plaguing our traditional legal system.
65. 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.
66. 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
Digitally
plaint are being reproduced as under:-
signed by
RAJESH
RAJESH KUMAR
KUMAR GOEL
Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:45:55
+0530
Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 43 of 71 )
Para 3 to 14 of the Plaint
3. That, defendant 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
(ISBT), (3) Jama Masjid, (4) Yamuna Pusta (Nigam
Bodh Ghat) and (5) Yamuna Khadar upto
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. Shastri Park, Near Fruit Pagora
Market
2. Pusta Usmanpur, Opp. Jag Pagora
Pavesh
3. Pusta Usmanpur, Near DDA Pagora
Park
4. Babarpur, DJB Water Filling, Pagora
Loni Road
5. Asaf Ali Road, Opp. LNJP Pagora
Hospital
Digitally signed
6. Fountain chowk, Near MCD Pagora
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL Dhalao
KUMAR Date: 7.
GOEL
2025.04.05
15:46:01
Jama Masjid Park Tin Shed
+0530
Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 44 of 71 )
8. Mori Gate Terminal Pagora
9. Badali More, Near By Pass Pagora
10. Badarpur Border Metro Pagora
Station
11. Yamuna Pusta Pagora
12. Yamuna Pusta Pagora
13. Sarai Kale Khan, Near Bus Tin Shed
Depot
14. Munirka, Near CNG Pump 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
Temporary Night Shelters to the NGO appointed for
taking care of the same, it is also pertinent to
mentioned here that no complaint has been raised
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.
181 and 193 dated 15.02.2013, 01.03.2013 for
amount of Rs. 7,44,210/- (Rupees seven Lac Forty
four Thousand two Hundred ten Only) and Rs.
3,52,100/-Rupees three Lac fifty two Thousand one
Hundred Only) respectively and the same were duly
and timely paid by defendant. Original office copy of
the bills bearing nos. 181 and 193 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
Digitally signed
order for closing and removal of the above said night
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
shelters. Copy of letter ref. No.
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:46:08 +0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 45 of 71 )
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. 014 dated 03.05.2013 for amount of Rs.
14,64,417/ (Rupees fourteen Lac sixty four
Thousand four Hundred seventeen Only) and the
same was also duly and timely paid by defendant.
Original office copy of invoices/bills bearing no.014
dated 03.05.2013 is annexed herewith. as
annexure-8.
10. That, the plaintiff further raised invoices/bills
bearing no. 133, 343, 344 and 345 dated 02.08.2013,
04.01.2014, 06.01.2014 and 09.01.2014 for amount
of Rs. 14,64,417-/ , Rs. 14,88,429/- , Rs.
14,64,419/- /- and Rs. 14,64,419/- respectively.
Total amount of Rs. 58,81,684/- (Rupees fifty eight
Lac eighty one Thousand six Hundred Eighty four
Only) Out of which defendant have made part
payment of Rs. 9,10,340/- (Rupees nine Lac Fifty ten
Thousand three Hundred forty Only). Original office
copy of invoices/bills bearing no 133 ,343,344 and
345 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. 566 dated 20.10.2014 for amount of Rs.
18,00,513/- (Rupees eighteen Lac five Hundred
thirteen Only) Original office copy of invoice/bill
bearing no. 566 dated 20.10.2014 is annexed
herewith as annexure-14.
Digitally signed 13. That, the plaintiff has sent so many recovery
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date: reminders for making balance payment of Rs.
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:46:15 +0530
Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 46 of 71 )
67,71,857/- (Rupees sixty seven Lac seventy one
thousand eight Hundred fifty 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;
reply given to the Audit Party and representation
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 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.
RAJESH by
Digitally signed
RAJESH 4. That in reply to contents of paragraph no. 4 of the
plaint, it is submitted that supply order mentioned in
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05
GOEL 15:46:21
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 47 of 71 )
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
full quantities and rates of sub-items but sub-items
were not provided by the plaintiff as per
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. 9,10,340.00. In fact, the payment
RAJESH by
Digitally signed
RAJESH
of above mentioned amount of Rs. 9,10,340.00 was
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date: full and final as recommended on the basis of
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:46:26 +0530
Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 48 of 71 )
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.
9,10,340/- 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.
9,10,340/-. 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.
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. 67,71,857/- 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
RAJESH by
Digitally signed
RAJESH instead of pagoda tent of fixed size of 400 sq. Fi, as
claimed by plaintiff. Rest of the averments made in
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:46:31 +0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 49 of 71 )
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
plaintiff has been paid the amount which was due
and payable to the plaintiff under the supply order in
question. As such, plaintiff is not entitled for any
other balance payment as claimed by plaintiff.
67. 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
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05
GOEL 15:46:36
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 50 of 71 )
filed by the defendant.
68. In the said affidavit of admission and denial
of documents, defendant has admitted certain
documents/communications i.e work order dated
08.01.2013 ExPW1/3, letter dated 11.01.2013
ExPW1/4, letter dated 04.03.2013 ExPW1/7, letter
dated 18.03.2014 ExPW1/13, minutes of High
Level Coordination Committee (HLCC) dated
27.11.2017 ExPW1/36, letter dated 14.01.2019
ExPW1/37, non-starter report dated 25.01.2019,
copy of legal notice and reply dated 02.05.2019
ExPW1/38.
69. 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 ExPW1/3
(b) Communication dated 11.01.2013 ExPW1/4
(c) Bills bearing no. 181 dated 15.02.2013
ExPW1/5.
Digitally
signed by
(d) Bills bearing no. 193 dated 01.03.2013
RAJESH RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date: ExPW1/6.
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:46:43
+0530
Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 51 of 71 )
(e) Letter dated 4.3.2014 ExPW1/7
(f) Bill no.014 dated 03.05.2013 ExPW1/8
(g) Raising of Bill no. 133 dated 02.08.2013
ExPW1/9, Bill No. 343 04.01.2014
ExPW1/10, Bill No. 344 dated 06.01.2014
ExPW1/11 and bill no. 345 dated 09.01.2014
ExPW1/12 ( correctness of these bills disputed
but raising and submission of bills not
disputed).
(h) Communication dated 18.03.2014 ExPW1/13.
(i) Bill No. 566 dated 20.10.2014 ExPW1/14.
(j) The communication dated 04.12.2017 vide
which the minutes of the committee of HLCC
dated 27.11.2017 were communicated
ExPW1/36
(k) The communication dated 14.01.2019
ExPW1/37.
(l) Non-Starter Report dated 25.01.2019
ExPW1/39.
(m)Legal Notice dated 28.03.2019 given by the
plaintiff to the defendant part of
ExPW1/38(colly).
(n) The reply to the said notice given by the
defendant dated 02.05.2019 part of ExPW1/38
(colly)
(o) The plaintiff had been allocated work of
RAJESH
Digitally signed
by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
building Tin Shed/Pagoda Type temporary
KUMAR
GOEL
Date:
2025.04.05
15:46:48
night shelter at 14 locations (reference para 5
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 52 of 71 )
of the plaint not denied by the defendant ) .
70. 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.
71. In order to adjudicate the above rival
contentions of the parties, it is apposite to refer to
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
RAJESH by
Digitally signed
RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
before the Ld. Local Commissioner on certain
KUMAR Date:
aspects which is not in dispute therefore, I would be
2025.04.05
GOEL 15:46:58
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 53 of 71 )
referring to that part of cross examination of
witnesses only which is touching the real
controversy between the parties and not otherwise.
72. PW1 Rahul Mehandiratta during his cross
examination replied that he had erected the Tin Shed
and Pagoda Tent at Nine locations out of which
Pagoda Tents were at seven locations; the ‘Gaddas’
were laid in a Tin Shed as per the work order; the
size of Pagoda Tent was Two and half time less then
the size to the Tin Shed; he did not filed any
statement of account pertaining to the transaction in
question. He further replied that he had received an
amount of Rs 34,71,067/- from the defendant on
various dates during the year 2013-2014. PW1 has
denied the suggestion that he is not entitled to the
amount claimed by way of the present suit.
73. PW2 Ms. Sonal Lamba is basically a witness
to few reminders/ request letters sent to the
defendant. During the cross examination she replied
that she is working in the office of the plaintiff as
office Administrator and Account; she has prepared
Digitally
the account statement. She further replied that the
signed by
RAJESH
RAJESH
balance amount has not been paid by the defendants
KUMAR
KUMAR GOEL
Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:47:04
+0530
Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 54 of 71 )
and denied the suggestion that no amount is payable
by the defendant.
74. Coming to the testimony of witness of
defendant, DW1 Pradyuman Saraswat, during his
cross examination he has denied the suggestion that
he has filed a false and fabricated affidavit
ExDW1/A; admitted that defendant had placed the
work order to the plaintiff for erection of tents at
nine locations; admitted that first three bills were
duly paid by the defendant to the plaintiff after the
same were checked by the account department and
field staff. DW1 further admitted that subsequent
three bills raised by the plaintiff were as per the
three initial bills and the last three bills were not
passed as some objections were raised by the Audit
and Vigilance department which have been referred
to in the report ExDW1/1. 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
Digitally
in respect of those bills but subsequent bills were not
signed by
RAJESH RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:47:09
+0530
Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 55 of 71 )
cleared because of audit objection and the report of
the team who had carried out the physical inspection
of the site. This objection has been taken 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 ExPW1/36 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
RAJESH by
Digitally signed
RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
the mandate of the Committee; composition of the
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05
GOEL 15:47:15
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 56 of 71 )
committee, facts of the case including awarding the
work orders to the plaintiff, submissions of the bill
by the plaintiff, payments of few bills, deductions
made by the accounts branch, observations of the
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
Digitally
concluded that
signed by
RAJESH RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date: 1) On 07.12.2012 Hon’ble High Court had given
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:47:52
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 57 of 71 )
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
with the need, immediate take steps for providing
Night Shelters at the said locations and to report on
the next date of hearing on the said list:”
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
Digitally
signed by
RAJESH RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date: 6) In the absence of any available parameter on
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:47:58
+0530
record, the Committee has placed reliance on the
Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 58 of 71 )
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
considered that total payment of agencies due w.e.f.
date of erection of Night Shelter to date of removal
of night shelter comes to Rs.1,12,54,665.42.
(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
Digitally
signed by
RAJESH RAJESH
calculations that only an amount of Rs 9,10,340 /-
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:48:04
+0530 which is due and outstanding may be released to theRahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 59 of 71 )
plaintiff ( Moment’s Expro).
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:-
(a) The work to identify the location and
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
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESHKUMAR
KUMAR GOEL
Date:
2025.04.05
prepared. The items required were also not
GOEL 15:48:11
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 60 of 71 )
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 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. This Court fails to swallow the contention of
the defendant that since the decision was taken by
Digitally
signed by
RAJESH RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:48:18
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 61 of 71 )
the committee therefore, no further amount is due
and outstanding against the defendant for the work
executed by the plaintiff for the simple 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 .
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:48:24 +0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 62 of 71 )
(d) Coming to the objections of the audit
department that the work was awarded without
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
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date: is pointing out that the night shelter branch did
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:48:29 +0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 63 of 71 )
not analyse the cost properly before awarding
the work and lapses relate to deficiency in the
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 ExPW1/3 and ExPW1/4 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
Digitally signed
balance payment of certain agencies including the
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR
GOEL
Date:
2025.04.05
15:48:35
plaintiff in respect of the night shelters. The said
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 64 of 71 )
report is running into around 8 pages and the first 6
pages are about the constitution of the
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
Digitally signed
with the above observation and may be placed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL before the HLCC for its perusal and appropriate
KUMAR Date:
GOEL
2025.04.05
15:48:40
consideration.”
+0530
Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 65 of 71 )
83. The aforesaid report ExDW1/2 is primarily
based upon the earlier report ExDW1/1 constituted
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 ExPW1/36. 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
Digitally
signed by
RAJESH
RAJESH KUMAR
KUMAR GOEL
Date:
terms and conditions of the supply order; reply given
GOEL
to the audit party and representations given by the
2025.04.05
15:48:46
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 66 of 71 )
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 payment
and any delay may result in more interest 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
Digitally signed shelter branch while awarding the work order to the
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL
2025.04.05
15:48:51
+0530
plaintiff therefore, despite the fact that payment was
Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 67 of 71 )
made initially in respect of few bills submitted by
the plaintiff, the rest of the claim was rejected just to
save the skin of 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 1,23,58,639/- wherein the principle
outstanding amount is Rs 67,71,857/-. The plaintiff
has also claimed the interest in the sum of Rs
55,86,782/- @ 18% p.a for the period from
1.11.2014 till 31.5.2019. As far as the principle
amount of Rs 67,71,857/- 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 62,65,793.07/- as observed at
page no.16 of the report ExDW1/1. Meaning
thereby, to the extent of Rs 62,65,793.07/-, the
calculation made by the plaintiff is correct. Without
going into further details, the plaintiff would be
entitled to recover Rs 62,65,793.07/- from the
Digitally
signed by
defendant as principle amount, in case the suit of the
RAJESH RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:48:56
+0530
plaintiff is decreed. Issue no. 1 is answeredRahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 68 of 71 )
accordingly.
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 55,86,782/- @ 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 orders ExPW1/3 and ExPW1/4 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
67,71,857/- till actual realization, in case the suit of
the plaintiff is decreed.
Digitally
signed by
RAJESH
RAJESH KUMAR
KUMAR GOEL
GOEL Date:
2025.04.05
15:49:01
+0530Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 69 of 71 )
Issue No.6 Relief
88. In view of my findings on the issue no.4, the
present suit of the plaintiff is 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
knowledge of Competent Authority. Accordingly,
Digitally signed
RAJESH KUMAR
by RAJESH
GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.04.05
15:49:07 +0530
let the copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief
Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 70 of 71 )
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
15:49:12 +0530(Rajesh Kumar Goel)
District Judge (Commercial)-02
Central, Tis Hazari Courts
05.04.2025Announced in the Open Court
today i.e: 05.04.2025Rahul Menandiratta Proprietor of M/s Moments Expro
Vs DSUIB & Ors Date of decision 05.4.2025 (page no. 71 of 71 )