There was an appeal against a judgment dismissing a suit for recovery of professional fees. The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the lower court's decision due to paucity of evidence. The appeal was dismissed.
The appeal was dismissed; parties to bear their own costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
2nd February, 2011
SHR. N.L.GOYAL
...... Appellant Through: None.
VERSUS
M/S. MKR FROZEN FOOD EXPORTS (p) LTD. ...... Respondent Through: None
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
for professional charges rendered by the appellant to the respondent with respect to the job of designing, structural design supervision and assessing the quality of work of construction of the factory of the respondent. It was claimed that professional charges of Rs.50,000/- were paid leaving a balance of Rs.32,000/- and for the out of pocket expenses of Rs.45,000/- payable, only a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid thus leaving a balance of Rs.35,000/-. The appellant/plaintiff claims that he had rendered all required services and since the respondent/defendant failed to pay the balance amount due hence the suit for recovery was filed. The respondent appeared and contested the case. The case of the respondent was that there was no amount payable to the appellant and the figures of Rs.82,000/- and Rs.45,000/- towards professional fee and out of pocket expenses were self-generated figures which were not agreed to by the respondent/defendant. It was the further stand of the respondent/defendant that the services of the appellant were terminated on 12.6.91 because the appellant was guilty of negligence in performing his professional duties whereby it was found that there were cracks in the roof of the building and that payments were recommended to the contractor without checking the quality, specifications and drawings. It was argued that nothing was due to the appellant who had been paid the complete dues.
appellant. The Trial Court has also noted that although the appellant/plaintiff claimed the contract to be in writing, the said contract was not filed and proved on record. The Trial Court has also referred to the delay of the appellant in getting released the sanctioned plan. The relevant paragraphs 18 to 21 of the impugned judgment and decree read as under:-
“Ex.PW1/1 to 3 are the building plans. These bear the date of sanction as 18.8.90. Ex.PW1/4 is the fee receipt for the building plans. Amazingly, it is dated 23.1.91. Ex.PW1/5 is the letter of sanction plan. It is dated 22.8.90.
RFA No.109/2001
Page 3 of 5
plaintiff itself and finds mention in para 13 of the plaint. As its contents show it did not mention at all about „dues‟ t be paid by the defendant as out of pocket expenses and over head expenses. It simply specifies and confined the case of the plaintiff to the professional fee. Thus, it won‟t be safe to infer that any out of pocket expenses and over head expenses were payable as on 1.2.91 to the plaintiff by the defendant, regarding sanctioning of and providing of building. Plan/drawings etc. As recorded above, the building work started sometimes on 26.3.90(Ex.PW1/D4), whereas the building plan Ex.PW1/1 to 3 was sanctioned by the concerned authorities on 18.8.90 and sanctioning letter on 22.8.90. The fee in this respect was paid on 23.1.91(ex.PW1/4). How come that the plaintiff was still retaining the possession of these documents and also claimed charges for the same? It remains a mystry., whereas the defendant vide Ex.PW1/D24 imparted the gross negligence on the part of the plaintiff in performing its professional duties and further recommending improper payment to the contractor(PW2). Taking into account the contents of Ex.PW1/6; it is obvious that the plaintiff had abandoned the work even before the receipt of Ex.PW1/D24 letter dated 11.6.91.
been caused to the appellant. Appeal being devoid of merits, is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The Trial Court Record be sent back.
February 01, 2011 ak
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Page 5 of 5
RFA No.109/2001
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the impugned judgment and decree on appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri N.L. Goyal
M/S. MKR Frozen Food Exports (P) Ltd.
Valmik J. Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
