Final Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL KUMAR SISODIA:
DISTRICT JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT-04:
CENTRAL: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CNRNO.DLCT010185192025
CS (COMM) 1268/2025
UMESH TYAGI
Sole Proprietor
M/s Amit Elevator Services
Office 732, Burari Village,
Delhi-110094 …........Plaintiff
Versus
1. MCD
(Previously Known as North DMC)
through its Commissioner,
10th Floor, Dr. S.P.Mukherjee Civic Centre,
J.L.Nehru Marg, New Delhi-110002.
2. The Ex. ENGINEER (E)
MCD, Primary School, Defence Colony,
Delhi-110054. ….…..Defendants
CS (COMM) 1268/25 Umesh Tyagi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. Page No. 1/11
-- 1 of 11 --
I.A. No. 01/2026 (Application u/O 12 Rule 6 CPC filed by the
plaintiff)
O R D E R
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of an application under
Order XII Rule 6 read with section 151 of CPC filed on behalf
of the plaintiff for judgment on the basis of admission made by
the defendant.
2. In this application, plaintiff has sought decree of the suit
on the basis of admissions made by the defendants in the
affidavit of admission/denial of documents where defendants
have admitted the demand of the passed bill at serial no. 6 of the
affidavit of admission-denial wherein defendants have admitted
their liability of Rs. 9,37,669/-.
3. Defendants have not filed any reply to the application and
counsel for the defendants has orally argued the application.
4. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff as well as
counsel for the defendants, who have argued on the lines of their
pleadings and have perused the record carefully.
CS (COMM) 1268/25 Umesh Tyagi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. Page No. 2/11
-- 2 of 11 --
5. Object of Rule 6 of Order 12 is to enable a party to obtain
speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief which
according to the admission of the defendant, plaintiff is entitled.
This rule is an enabling provision and confers discretion on the
court to pass judgment on the admitted fact. Judgment on
admissions cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The rule is
discretionary and has to be exercised judiciously on the facts and
circumstances of each case. For pronouncing judgment on
admission, it must be plain, clear and unqualified. Judgment
cannot be passed on the basis of qualified or conditional
admissions. Admissions can be in the pleadings of the suit or
otherwise. It may be oral or in writing.
6. Briefly stated the facts necessary for disposal of this
application are that plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of
12,25,857/- along with pendentelite & future interest of @ 12%
per annum against the defendants. It is stated that the plaintiff is
a duly enrolled contractor with the defendants and he has been
carrying on different woks for MCD since long. The plaintiff
being the government contractor participated in the work order
no.EE (E-IV)CNZ/SYS/2022-2023/46 dated 04.11.2022 for the
improvement of E.I. and fans and rewiring submersible pump
and street light pole in Sarai Kale Khan cremation ground in
CS (COMM) 1268/25 Umesh Tyagi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. Page No. 3/11
-- 3 of 11 --
ward no.56-s under CNZ. As pre-condition of the award of the
work order, plaintiff had also deposited the earnest money of Rs.
19,700/- on 22.08.2022 towards the above mentioned work
order. The plaintiff after the award of aforesaid work order,
entered into an agreement with defendant no. 2 pertaining to the
said work order as a precondition of the award of the work. The
said work order was completed by plaintiff to satisfaction of the
engineer in charge/defendant no.2 without any negative remark.
The plaintiff has submitted the Invoice bearing no. AES/2022-
23/118 dated 24.03.2023 of Rs.9,17,969/-. After receiving the
said bill, the defendant had prepared the bill and passed the bill
of Rs.9,17,969/- on 27.03.2023 and send that demand to the HQ
for the payment. After completion of the above mentioned
awarded work order, the plaintiff had made several requests for
passing of the bill but no heed was paid to the requests of the
plaintiff. Despite of passing of aforesaid bill neither the aforesaid
payments were released nor he was informed about the reason
for withholding the aforesaid payments. Defendant nos. 1 and 2
were not paying the aforesaid amount to the plaintiff. The
amount of Rs.9,37,669/- has been admitted amount, the
defendants were under obligation to release the amount to the
plaintiff within the aforesaid period of 2 months as laid down in
clause 9 or within a reasonable time but the defendants have
CS (COMM) 1268/25 Umesh Tyagi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. Page No. 4/11
-- 4 of 11 --
failed to release the payment of passed bill amount in favour of
the plaintiff. The defendant are liable to pay interest @ 12% P.A
after two months from the date of passing of the respective bills.
Calculation of the same are given below:-
S.No. Details Amount (Rs)
1. Bill passed dated 27.03.2023 9,17,969/-
2. Interest @ 12 % from
26.05.2023 till the filing of the
suit
2,76,748/-
3. EMD 19,700/-
4. Interest @12% from
26.05.2023 till the Filing of the
suit
5,940/-
Total amount Rs.12,20,357/-
It was stated that plaintiff is also entitled for pendentelite
and future interest over the principle amount from the date of
filing of the suit until the remission of the entire amount by the
defendants. The plaintiff being aggrieved from the callous and in
responsible attitude of the defendants, plaintiff through his
counsel under section 477/478 of DMC Act read with section 80
of CPC got issued a legal demand notice dated 27.11.2024
demanding the outstanding payment however, the defendants
failed to reply to the notice despite its service on 29.11.2024.
CS (COMM) 1268/25 Umesh Tyagi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. Page No. 5/11
-- 5 of 11 --
Finding no other alternative, plaintiff has filed the present suit.
7. Defendants contested the suit by filing WS. Defendants
raised preliminary objections that the suit is pre-mature, without
any cause of action and plaintiff has approached this court with
unclean hands and has concealed material facts. It is stated that
the plaintiff has not disclosed the true facts in his plaint. It is
further stated that the Plaintiff failed to submit the bills for
payment as required under Clause 7 of GCC and fulfill the
guidelines laid down in the EDMC v. Ashwani Kumar Aggarwal
in the judgment dated 22.03.2018. The plaintiff failed to submit
tax invoices nor paid the GST. It was further stated that Hon’ble
High court in North Delhi Municipal Corporation VS Sanjeev
Kumar (RFA 430/2017) decided on 22.03.2018 has laid down
guidelines on the processing of the payment but plaintiff failed
to comply with the same. It was also stated that plaintiff is not
entitled for refund of security deposit as plaintiff has failed to
comply with Clause 17 and 45 of the GCC.
On merits, the defendant has not disputed the facts that the
plaintiff was awarded the work order no. 46 dated 04.11.2022
and that plaintiff had deposited the earnest money and executed
the agreement with defendant no. 2. It is also not disputed that
plaintiff completed the work without any complaint and to the
CS (COMM) 1268/25 Umesh Tyagi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. Page No. 6/11
-- 6 of 11 --
satisfaction of the defendant. Other contents of the plaint were
denied.
8. Plaintiff filed replication to the WS of defendants and has
reiterated the contents of the plaint and have denied the contents
contrary to it.
9. The defendant has also filed affidavit of admission/denial
to the documents filed by the plaintiff. Perusal of the same
would show that defendant has admitted the copy of the work
order no. 46 and demand of the passed bill sent by the
defendants.
10. During the course of the arguments, counsel for defendant
informed the court that defendant has paid a sum of Rs.
7,99,973/- to the plaintiff after deducting the necessary charges
from the bill passed on 27.03.2023. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
also admitted this fact.
11. After the payment of the outstanding bill amount, the
present application is now confined to the refund of the EMD
and interest claimed by the plaintiff from 26.05.2023 @12% p.a
on the bill passed by the defendant from 26.05.2023 till the
CS (COMM) 1268/25 Umesh Tyagi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. Page No. 7/11
-- 7 of 11 --
payment of the bill by the defendant.
12. Admittedly, the plaintiff has deposited the earnest money
of Rs. 19,700/- with the defendant. Ld. Counsel for the
defendants argued that plaintiff is not entitled for refund of the
earnest money as plaintiff has failed to comply with the clause
17 and 45 of the GCC.
Perusal of clause 17 of GCC makes it clear that plaintiff
cannot claim the security deposit before the expiry of 12 months
after the issue of the final certificate of completion of the work
or till the time final bill has been prepared and passed, whichever
is later. Clause 45 of the GCC also provides that security deposit
of the work will not be refunded till the contractor produces a
clearance certificate from the labor office. However, it further
says that if no complaint is pending on record till after three
months after completion of the work and/or no communication is
received from the labor officer to this effect till 6 months after
the date of completion, it will be deemed to have received the
clearance and the security deposit will be released, if otherwise
due.
13. In the present case, the plaintiff has placed on record
work completion report dated 10.02.2023 which shows that the
CS (COMM) 1268/25 Umesh Tyagi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. Page No. 8/11
-- 8 of 11 --
work was completed by the plaintiff on 10.02.2023. The said
report has been signed by the JE, AE as well as Executive
Engineer of the defendant. Although, defendants in the WS
denied the work completion report but defendants failed to state
as to when the work was completed if the same was not
completed on 10.02.2023. The denial in the WS is vague and
bald and is liable to be rejected outrightly. The defect liability
period of one year has already expired on 10.02.2024 and
admittedly, there is no complaint pending on record against the
plaintiff as defendants have not filed any copy of pending
complaint against plaintiff on record. Therefore, the labour
clearance is deemed to have been received after expiry of six
months of the date of completion of work and plaintiff is entitled
for the release of the security amount. Hence, plaintiff is
entitled to recover EMD of Rs. 19,700/- from the defendants.
14. The plaintiff has further claimed interest @ 12% p.a from
26.05.2023 till the receipt of the payment i.e. 27.04.2026 on the
bill passed by the defendants on 27.03.2023. Counsel for
plaintiff has placed reliance on the judgment of M/s Jha
Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. MCD & Anr, 2025:DHC:7766
passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, wherein Hon’ble High
court had awarded the interest @ 10.9% per annum which is
CS (COMM) 1268/25 Umesh Tyagi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. Page No. 9/11
-- 9 of 11 --
current rate of interest for unsecured dates, payable from the
expiry of 9 months from the date of passing of the bills be
awarded to the plaintiff.
15. I have perused the judgment referred above. In para 14 of
the judgment, Hon’ble High Court has awarded the principal
amount along with interest @ 10.9% per annum. Clause 9 of
the GCC provides that no interest will be paid to the contractor
in case of delay in payment on account of non availability of the
funds in the particular head of the account of MCD for a period
of 9 months if the tendered value of the work exceeds Rs. 5
lakhs. In the present case, the tendered value of the work order
is more than Rs. 5 lakhs. Therefore, the plaintiff will be entitled
to interest only if the payment of the bill is not made within nine
months after passing of the bill by the defendants. In the present
case, since the bill was passed on 27.03.2023, the plaintiff would
be entitled for interest only after expiry of nine months i.e.
26.12.2023. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that
plaintiff is entitled for simple interest @ 10.9% from 27.12.2023
till 26.04.2026 on the bill amount of Rs. 9,17,969/- which comes
to Rs. 2,33,470/-.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the suit is decreed in
CS (COMM) 1268/25 Umesh Tyagi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. Page No. 10/11
-- 10 of 11 --
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. A decree of
Rs. 2,53,170/- is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the
defendants. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to the simple
interest @ 9% per annum on the decreetal amount till its
realization. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to the cost of the
suit.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Suit stands disposed of with application u/O XII Rule 6
CPC.
File be consigned to record room after necessary
compliance.
Announced in the open Court (ANIL KUMAR SISODIA)
Dated 19th May, 2026 District Judge (Commercial Court-04)
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi.
CS (COMM) 1268/25 Umesh Tyagi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. Page No. 11/11
-- 11 of 11 --