Allowed

Sai Constructions & Anr. v. Pnc Infratech Ltd. & Anr.

Delhi HC1 Nov 2018RFA/280/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi allowed an appeal against the trial court's dismissal of a suit for recovery of Rs. 8,15,200. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs proved their case while defendants led no evidence, setting aside the impugned judgment and decreeing the suit with interest.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment was set aside; the suit was decreed for Rs. 8,15,200 with 12% per annum simple interest and costs.

Sai Constructions & Anr. Vs Pnc Infratech… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶2

+ RFA No. 280/2018

¶3

% 1^st November, 2018

¶4

SHRI SAI CONSTRUCTIONS & ANR.

¶5

..... Appellants Through: Mr. D.P.S. Dagar and Mr. R.P. Nafria, Advocates (9810123591)

¶6

versus

¶7

PNC. INFRATECH LTD. & ANR.

¶8

..... Respondents Through: Mr. A.S. Kulshrestha and Mr. Lalit Kumar, Advocates for R-1 and 2.

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

¶10

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶11

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

¶12

This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code

¶13

of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiffs in the suit impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 18.12.2017 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs. 8,15,200/alongwith interest filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for the work done

¶14

RFA No. 280/2018 Page 1 of 5

¶15

by appellants/plaintiffs for the respondents/defendants, despite the fact that the appellants/plaintiffs proved their case by stepping into the witness box, and the respondents/defendants led no evidence.

¶16

The facts of the case are that the appellant no.1/plaintiff no.1 is the sole proprietorship concern of the appellant no.2/plaintiff no. 2. It was pleaded that the appellants/plaintiffs from November 2012 to February 2013, did construction work for the respondent no. 1/defendant no.1/company at Tanda Sohawal, UP, which included works of excavation, concreting, rod winding (MT) template setting etc. As requested by the respondents/defendants, bills were submitted to the Head Office of the respondent no. 1/defendant no.1 at New Delhi. Bill dated 22.02.2013 was submitted by the appellants/plaintiffs to respondent no. 1/defendant no.1 for a sum of Rs. 6,90,671.90/-, and since this bill was not paid even after 17 months of waiting, a Legal Notice dated 07.08.2014 was sent to the respondents/defendants, and thereafter the subject suit was filed.

¶17

The respondents/defendants were served in the suit and

¶18

appeared, but they failed to file their written statement in the prescribed period, and hence their defence was struck off by the trial

¶19

RFA No. 280/2018 Page 2 of 5

¶20

court vide order dated 15.01.2015. This order has become final. The appellants/plaintiffs led evidence of two witnesses being the appellant no.2/plaintiff no.2 who was the proprietor of appellant no.1/plaintiff no. 1 and also one Sh. Vijay Kumar Singh.

¶21

The appellants/plaintiffs proved on record the material slips Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 showing that the respondents/defendants had supplied the materials for execution of the work done by the appellants/plaintiffs under the contract. The appellant no.2/plaintiff no.2 as PW-1 deposed that the Original Bill dated 22.02.2013 was retained by the respondents/defendants and he was given a photocopy of the same. In the cross-examination, appellant no.2/plaintiff no.2 admitted that some payments were received by cheques from the respondents/defendants but those payments were not for the works that were the subject matter of the suit, but were payments towards other works which were done by the appellants/plaintiffs for the respondents/defendants.

¶22

In my opinion, once the appellants/plaintiffs have proved

¶23

their case by leading evidence, mere cross-examination of witnesses of appellants/plaintiffs would not mean that the appellants/plaintiffs have

¶24

RFA No. 280/2018 Page 3 of 5

¶25

to fail. Though learned counsel for the respondents/defendants sought to rely upon certain documents, however, these documents cannot be

¶26

looked into by this Court at the appellate stage once such documents are not proved and exhibited in the trial court, and these documents of the respondents/defendants are not proved and exhibited as neither documents were put in the cross-examination of the appellant no.2/plaintiff no.2 and nor the respondents/defendants have led evidence to prove these documents.

¶27

Of course, I may clarify that the decree which will be

¶28

passed in the present case will only be against the respondent no. 1/defendant no.1 company, and respondent no. 2/defendant no.2 being only a Managing Director of the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 company, would not be personally liable for the debts of the company.

¶29

I may also note that the appellant no.1/plaintiff no.1 filed and proved on record the service of the Legal Notice dated 07.08.2014, Ex.PW1/4, postal receipts and tracking report Ex.PW1/5 (colly) to Ex.PW1/7 respectively, and therefore, appellants/plaintiffs will also be entitled to interest.

¶30

RFA No. 280/2018 Page 4 of 5

¶31

In view of the above discussion, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the trial court dated 18.12.2017 is set aside. The suit of the appellants/plaintiffs is decreed for a sum of Rs. 8,15,200/- along-with pendente lite and future interest at 12% per annum simple. The appellants/plaintiffs will also be entitled to costs of the suit as also of the appeal. Decree sheet be prepared. The trial

¶32

court record be sent back.

¶33

NOVEMBER 01, 2018/ ib VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

¶34

RFA No. 280/2018 Page 5 of 5

Sai Constructions & Anr. v. Pnc Infratech Ltd. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sai Constructions & Anr. v. Pnc Infratech Ltd. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Anand @ Titu Anand Vs Dr Baldev Raj Anand & Ors.

Beena Devi Vs Dharamveer

Suresh Kumar Vs Kavita Gurnani & Anr.

Sanjay Arora and Anr. Vs Surender Singh and Ors.

M/S Icici Bank Limited Vs Vikas Kumar Thakur

Dlf Commercial Developers Ltd. Vs Shiv Sharma & Anr.