M/S Modular Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Bitureks Fire Solutions and Anr.

2024 and RSA-2224-2025 shall stand dispose o f by this common judgment. 2. RSA-2734-2024 has been filed b y the appellant/defendant No.1- M /s Modular Infrat e ch Pvt. Ltd. against the resp o ndents/plaintiff-M/s Bitureks F ire TRIPTI SAINISolutions, a pr o prietary concern through its so l e proprietor Jatinder Chauhan, a nd 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

RSA-2734-2024 (O&M) and RSA-2224-2025 (O&M)

¶23

- 2 -

¶24

defendant No.2 - M/s MGF Toyota Pvt. Ltd., an d RSA-2224-2025 has been file d by the appellant/d e fendant No.2-Capital Vehicles Sales Ltd. (alleged to be wro n gly mentioned as M /s MGF Toyota Showroom ) against respondents/plaintiff- M /s Bitureks Fire S o lutions, a proprietary concern through its sole proprietor Jati n der Chauhan, and d efendant No.1-M/s Modular I n fratech Pvt. Ltd., challenging the concurrent fin d ings of the learned trial Cou r t and the Lower Appellate C o urt whereby the s u it of the plaintiff – M/s Bitu r eks Fire Solutions for manda t ory injunction was decreed and the appeal prefer r ed by M/s Modular Infratech P vt. Ltd. was dismissed.

¶25

Brief Facts

¶26

Th e case of the plaintiff, as set o ut in the plaint, is that defen d ant No.1, after mut u al discussions, allotted job wo r k to the plaintiff for installatio n of fire suppressio n systems and plumbing and s anitary works at the premise s of defendant No.2 vide work order dated 26.05. 2 012. The value of the work w as fixed at ₹37,35 , 404/- for fire suppression syst e ms and ₹36,88,225/- for plum b ing and sanitary wo r ks.

¶27

It w as alleged that while the wo r k was in progress, the defend a nts required certai n changes, including installation of Jaguar make fixtures in plac e of Hindware and p rovision of additional flexible s prinkler drops which were not p art of the original B OQ. After reminders, the revis e d rates for the changed items w ere approved throu g h emails dated 10.12.2012 and 1 4.12.2012. 5. Th e plaintiff completed the wo r k and raised a final bill d a ted 19.03.2013 fo r ₹82,05,964.28, comprising ₹ 51,99,988/- towards fire-figh t ing system and ₹3 0 ,05,975/- towards plumbing a n d sanitary works. Out of this, the TRIPTI SAINIdefendants pai d a total of ₹58,34,000/-, le a ving a balance of ₹27,71,9 6 4/2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

RSA-2734-2024 (O&M) and RSA-2224-2025 (O&M)

¶29

- 3 -

¶30

outstanding. T h e plaintiff further claimed ₹ 5,00,000/- as compensation for financial loss c a used due to non-release of pay m ent.

¶31

It w as pleaded that despite repeat e d demands, including legal no t ice dated 19.07.20 1 3, the defendants failed to pa y . Instead, defendant No.1 issu e d a baseless penalt y notice dated 28.03.2013 and t h ereafter proposed a “Memoran d um of Final Bill Settlement” dated 16.04.2013, which was wholly unfair a nd unreasonable a n d was rejected. The delay in e x ecution of the job, according to the plaintiff, was e n tirely attributable to the defen d ants, who had failed to hand o ver the premises i n time, altered specifications m i dway, and took time in finali s ing new rates. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for a decree of mandatory injunc t ion directing the d e fendants to pay ₹28,71,964/(balance plus compensation) w ith interest at 24 % per annum from the date o f submission of the final bill till realization.

¶32

Defendant no.1 filed written state m ent raising preliminary objections that the suit wa s not maintainable in the form of mandatory injunction and that the proper remedy w as a suit for recovery. It was also contended that the plaint w as liable to be rej e cted under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for non-payment of proper c o urt fee.

¶33

It w as further pleaded that the pl a intiff was negligent in execut i on, failed to compl e te the job within the stipulated 9 0 days, and caused heavy losse s of about ₹98 lakh s to defendant no.1, including p e nalties imposed by defendant n o .2. The plaintiff w a s alleged to have inadequate r esources and manpower, faile d to supply material s in time, and repeatedly default e d despite meetings and remind e rs. 9. Defendant no.1 relied upon cor r espondence between the par t ies, TRIPTI SAINIincluding minu t es of meeting dated 28.12.2012, wherein the plaintiff undertoo k to 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

RSA-2734-2024 (O&M) and RSA-2224-2025 (O&M)

¶35

- 4 -

¶36

complete jobs b y 10.01.2013, but failed to d o so. It is further submitted t hat defendant No.2 also addressed communication d ated 18.01.2013 pointing out m ore than 60 unfinis h ed jobs. It was further pleade d that due to lapses of the plain t iff, defendant No.2 procured certain items directl y and deducted amounts from the bills, while res t ricting the plaintiff at places o nly to labour charges. Defen d ant No.1 also plea d ed that it had to pay a penalty o f ₹77 lakhs to defendant no.2 ( ₹ 30 lakhs on acco u nt of incomplete job and ₹47 lakhs for delay), which loss w as caused solely b y the plaintiff’s defaults. Dis m issal of the suit with costs w as accordingly pra y ed for.

¶37

Defendant No.2, namely M/s MG F Toyota Pvt. Ltd., did not contest the proceedings despite service of notice and w a s proceeded against ex parte. 11. Re p lication was filed by the plain t iff reiterating the averments of the plaint and deny i ng the allegations made in the w ritten statement of defendant N o .1. 12. Fr o m the pleadings of the parties , the learned trial court framed the following issue s :

¶38

Whether the plaintiff is e n titled to a decree for manda t ory inj u nction as prayed for? OPP

¶39

Whether the suit is not main t ainable in the present form? OPD

¶40

Relief.

¶41

Bo t h the parties led the evidence i n support of their case.

¶42

Findings of the Trial Court:

¶43

Th e learned trial Court, after hea r ing the parties and examining the oral as well as d ocumentary evidence, came to t he conclusion that the plaintiff f irm had duly carrie d out the installation of the fire - fighting system and plumbing a nd TRIPTI SAINIsanitary works i n the premises of defendant n o .2 on the instructions of defen d ant 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

RSA-2734-2024 (O&M) and RSA-2224-2025 (O&M)

¶45

- 5 -

¶46

no.1. It was ob s erved that after completion of t he work, the plaintiff submitte d its final bill dated 1 9.03.2013 (Ex. P14). On appre c iation of the record, the court h eld that the plaintif f was entitled to recover a sum o f ₹23,71,864/- from the defend a nts on account of t h e said final bill.

¶47

It w as further noticed that the exe c ution of the works by the plai n tiff stood admitted , and the defendants had in fact benefited from such wo r ks. Therefore, the c ourt held that the plaintiff had s uccessfully proved its claim to the extent of the a m ount claimed towards the fin a l bill, and accordingly decreed the suit against def e ndants.

¶48

Findings of the Lower Appellate Court:

¶49

Th e learned Additional District J udge, while deciding the ap p eal preferred by ap p ellant/defendant no.1, examin e d in detail the grounds raised. T he principal conte n tion of the appellant was tha t the suit filed by the plaintiff for mandatory inju n ction was not maintainable an d that the proper remedy was a s uit for recovery. T h e appellate court, however, hel d that the court is not bound by the nomenclature o f the relief claimed and is requi r ed to decide the matter on the b a sis of pleadings an d evidence. With regard to the o bjection that the plaintiff oug h t to have filed a su i t for recovery and paid ad val o rem court fee, the appellate c o urt held that althou g h in practice suits for injuncti o n are sometimes filed to save c o urt fees, in the present case the plaintiff had pai d court fees, and in any event, the defendants had not raised any such plea of n on-payment of court fees. It w as clarified that the court is not bound by mere n omenclature and may mould r e lief based on facts p roved.

¶50

O n appraisal of the record, it wa s found that the plaintiff had been TRIPTI SAINIallotted the wo r k vide job order dated 26.05.2 0 12 (Ex. P1) valuing ₹37.35 lakhs 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶51

RSA-2734-2024 (O&M) and RSA-2224-2025 (O&M)

¶52

- 6 -

¶53

for fire suppression and ₹36.88 lakhs for p l umbing and sanitary works. T he defendants had delayed handing over the prem i ses in a fit condition for execut i on, and thereafter i n troduced changes in specificat i ons, including replacing Hind w are with Jaguar fix t ures. Emails and communicati o ns placed on record (Exs. P2, P3, P5, P9, P10, P 1 1, etc.) showed that such chan g es and delays were attributabl e to the defendants and not the plaintiff. It was a lso noticed that the plaintiff h ad completed the i n stallation work and raised the f i nal bill dated 19.03.2013 (Ex. P 14) for ₹82,05,964.28, supported by legal notice Ex. P17, but the same remai n ed unpaid.

¶54

Th e Appellate Court rejected the p lea that the plaintiff was negli g ent or that the C V SL company was responsible , holding that no such agree m ent regarding CVS L had ever been initiated by eith e r party. It was also noticed that the defendants the m selves had acknowledged i m pediments caused due to unfit condition of th e premises and had even tendere d apology (Ex. P9). The changes in brand from Hi n dware to Jaguar, and the subsequent approvals, were proved by emails, and del a y caused thereby could not be a t tributed to the plaintiff.

¶55

Th e Court also disbelieved relian c e placed on the “Memorandu m of Final Bill Settl e ment” dated 16.04.2013 (Ex. P 16) by the defendants, noting t hat the same was n e ver accepted by the plaintiff an d did not explain the breakup o f the total claim. It w as further observed that def e ndant no.1, in cross-examinat i on, admitted havin g made payments of only abou t ₹60 lakhs, but could not exp l ain how this amou n t was adjusted against the total c laim.

¶56

Co n sequently, the appellate court f ound no irregularity or illegalit y in the findings of the trial court. The appeal w a s held to be devoid of merit a nd

¶57

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶58

RSA-2734-2024 (O&M) and RSA-2224-2025 (O&M)

¶59

- 7 -

¶60

dismissed. The judgment and decree of the t rial court dated 22.03.2018 w ere

¶61

affirmed.

¶62

Fe e ling aggrieved, the above-num b ered Regular Second Appeals have been preferred.

¶63

Upon notice, respondents have con t ested the appeals. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant:

¶64

Le a rned counsel for the appellant h as argued that the suit filed by the plaintiff for ma n datory injunction was not maintainable in law. It was conten d ed that the plaintif f ’s claim was essentially for rec o very of money, and under Sec t ion 41(h) of the Sp e cific Relief Act, 1963, a suit fo r injunction cannot be maintai n ed when an equall y efficacious remedy of recover y is available. Reliance was pl a ced on the judgme n t of the Hon’ble Supreme Co u rt in State of U.P. and another v. Tara Singh Jaiswal, 2012 SCC OnLine All 1876 , wherein it was held that w h ere the claim is for recovery of contractual dues, t h e remedy of injunction is barre d . It was argued tha t therefore, irrespective of cou r t fee paid, the suit as framed w as incompetent an d the learned courts below erred in decreeing the same.

¶65

It was next contended that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parti e s. The plaintiff failed to impl e ad CVSL, which was the ma s ter contractor and t he principal party to the transa c tion. Instead, the plaintiff wro n gly impleaded M/s MGF Toyota Showroom, wh i ch was neither a real nor juristic entity. It was u r ged that CVSL being the mai n contractor was a necessary p a rty, without whom n o effective decree could be pas s ed. Reliance was placed on the l aw laid down in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others, (2005) 6 SCC 733, and fur t her reiterated by th e Hon’ble Supreme Court in Moreshar S/o Yadaorao Mahajan v.

¶66

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶67

RSA-2734-2024 (O&M) and RSA-2224-2025 (O&M)

¶68

- 8 -

¶69

Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (D) C.A No.5755/5756 of 2011, decided on 27.09.2011 .

¶70

Submissions on behalf of the Respondents:

¶71

Le a rned counsel for the respo n dents/plaintiffs argued that the objection of m aintainability raised by the a p pellant is without merit. It w as contended that once the plaintiff had duly af f ixed ad valorem court fee on the amount claimed, the mere description of t he relief as one of “manda t ory injunction” inst e ad of “recovery” could not defeat the rights of the plaintiff. T he law is well settl e d that the court is not to be gui d ed merely by the form of the r e lief but by the substance of the pleadings and cause of action.

¶72

Re l iance was placed on the jud g ment of the Hon’ble Punjab a nd Haryana High C ourt in Food Corporation of India and others v. Kaka Ram and another, RSA No. 3297 of 2017, decided on 31.08.2018 , wherein it was held t hat although techni c ally a suit for recovery would b e the proper remedy, yet where the plaintiff has aff i xed ad valorem court fee, the m ere nomenclature of the suit as o ne for injunction d oes not render it incompetent. I t was observed that once the c o urt fee has been pa i d, a technical misdescription ca n not defeat substantive rights. 27. Co u nsel further relied on Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh, (1985) 2 SCC 332 and Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement, (2008) 14 SCC 58 , to contend that th e court has wide discretion to m ould relief to do complete justice, and misdescript i on of the relief cannot nullify a n otherwise valid claim. 28. It was further submitted that s i nce the plaintiff had establis h ed through eviden c e that work was executed and the final bill remained unpaid, the decree granted b y the courts below was just an d proper, and could not be set a s ide TRIPTI SAINIon the hyper-te c hnical ground of maintainabilit y . 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶73

RSA-2734-2024 (O&M) and RSA-2224-2025 (O&M)

¶74

- 9 -

¶75

Findings of this Court

¶76

Af t er hearing learned counsel fo r the parties, the following po i nts arise for determination in this RSA:

¶77

Maintainability of the Suit (Injunction v. Recovery):

¶78

Th e appellant’s strongest objectio n rests upon the contention that the suit was not m a intainable as framed, since an i njunction cannot be granted w h ere an equally effi c acious remedy of recovery exi s ts, in view of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. Reliance was placed on State of U.P. v. Tara Singh Jaiswal, 2012 SCC OnLine All 1876 , where the Allaha b ad High Court held that a plai n tiff seeking recove r y of contractual dues canno t disguise such relief as one for injunction. Tha t judgment indeed laid down tha t where the real relief is recover y of money under a contract, injunction is barred u nder Section 41(h) of the Spe c ific Relief Act, as t h e plaintiff has an equally effica c ious remedy of a recovery suit. 31. However, the reliance on this ju d gment is misplaced in the pre s ent case. The plain t iff herein did not attempt to e v ade his obligation of court fe e or disguise the cl a im. Rather, he affixed full a d valorem court fee on the cl a im amount of ₹23, 7 1,964/-, which is precisely the f ee payable for a recovery suit. T he Punjab & Hary a na High Court, in Food Corporation of India v. Kaka Ram (RSA 3297 of 2017) , h as dealt with an identical objec t ion and held that once proper c o urt fee is paid, a m e re misdescription of the relief a s “mandatory injunction” does not render the suit n on-maintainable. The coordina t e bench emphasized that the C o urt is not shackled by nomenclature, but must m o uld relief in accordance with the pleadings and e v idence.

¶79

Th e refore, while the principle in Tara Singh Jaiswal’s case (supra) TRIPTI SAINIgoverns cases w here injunction is invoked to b ypass recovery proceedings, in the 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶80

RSA-2734-2024 (O&M) and RSA-2224-2025 (O&M)

¶81

- 10 -

¶82

facts at hand th e plaintiff has complied with all substantive requirements, inclu d ing payment of the requisite court fee. The ratio o f Kaka Ram’s case (supra) , bei n g a direct decision o f this Court, is fully applicable. Hence, the suit is maintainable. 33. In t he present case, the pleadings, t h e evidence led, and the docum e nts produced all cl e arly establish that the plaintiff executed the works, raised its b ill, and remained u npaid for the balance. Thus, e ven if the relief could have been styled differently, the courts below rightly m oulded the relief to do comp l ete justice. The obj e ction of maintainability therefo r e fails.

¶83

2. Exhibit P-14 (Final Bill or Summary):

¶84

Re g arding Bill Ex.P-14 not to be r e lied upon as contended by lear n ed counsel for th e appellant, Ex.P-14, dated 19. 0 3.2013 records the total cont r act value as follow s :-

¶85

Fire-fighting system: ₹51,99,988.7 8

¶86

Pl u mbing & sanitary works: ₹30,0 5 ,975.50

¶87

To t al: ₹82,05,964.28

¶88

Le s s paid: ₹58,34,000.00

¶89

Ba l ance due: ₹23,71,964.28

¶90

Th e appellant contends that Ex. P 14 was only a “summary of bill amount” and th u s cannot be relied upon to dire c t appellant to make payment. T his Court finds no f orce in that plea. Ex. P14 was duly served on the defendants a nd bears acknowl e dgment of receipt. Substanti a l payments (₹58–60 lakhs) w ere admittedly ma d e by the defendants with dire c t reference to Ex. P14. In cr o ssexamination, D W-1 conceded that these amo u nts had been released. Once the defendants have acted upon Ex. P14 by re l easing major payments, they are TRIPTI SAINIestopped from d isputing its character as the fin a l operative bill. 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶91

RSA-2734-2024 (O&M) and RSA-2224-2025 (O&M)

¶92

- 11 -

¶93

Al s o an attempt to rely on Ex. P 16 (“Memorandum of Final B ill Settlement”) is futile, as it was never signed o r accepted by the plaintiff, and thus carries no legal force. On the contrary, the cu l mination of Ex. P14 coupled w ith part payments demonstrates beyond doubt t h at the balance of ₹23,71,96 4 .28 remained due. T here is no illegality in the impu g ned judgments and decrees pa s sed by the learned L ower Courts on the admissibilit y of Ex.P/14.

¶94

3. Liability of Defendant No.2:

¶95

Th e learned trial Court decreed t h e suit against both defendant n o.1 and defendant n o.2. However, on a careful pe ru sal of the record, this Court finds that the liabilit y cannot be extended to defendant no.2. The work order (Ex. P1) was admittedl y issued by defendant no.1 t o the plaintiff. All negotiati o ns, correspondence , and payments were made by defendant no.1 alone. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant no.2. Merely because the works were e x ecuted at the premises of d e fendant no.2 and for its ben e fit, defendant no.2 cannot be saddled with dire c t liability in the absence of a ny contractual und e rtaking. The principle of contr a ctual privity requires that pay m ent liability rests solely on the party with who m the plaintiff contracted, na m ely defendant No.1 . It is relevant to mention here t hat defendant No.2 by mentio n ing its name as Ca p ital Vehicles Sales Ltd. filed R SA No.2224-2025 challenging the impugned judg m ents and decrees of both the C ourts below making him liabl e to pay the decret a l amount along with defendan t No.1. It is further submitted on behalf of the a p pellant-Capital Vehicles Sales L td. that its name has been wro n gly mentioned as M /s MGF Toyota Showroom inst e ad of Capital Vehicles Sales Lt d . 38. Without commenting upon the co r rectness of the name of defen d ant TRIPTI SAININo.2, this Cou r t concludes that defendant No. 2 cannot be made liable to pay the 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶96

RSA-2734-2024 (O&M) and RSA-2224-2025 (O&M)

¶97

- 12 -

¶98

decretal amoun t along with defendant No.1. A c cordingly, while the decree aga i nst defendant no.1 f or the balance sum of ₹23,71,9 6 4/- is upheld, the decree insofa r as it fastens liabili t y upon defendant no.2 cannot b e sustained and is set aside.

¶99

Conclusion :

¶100

Th e suit, though styled as on e for mandatory injunction, w as maintainable i n substance as a recovery sui t since ad valorem court fee w as affixed.

¶101

Ex . P14 constituted the operati v e final bill, acknowledged by defendants and acted upon by releasing part pa y ments, the balance of ₹23,71,9 6 4/is due.

¶102

Defendant no.1 alone is liable fo r the decretal amount. The de c ree against defenda n t no.2 is unsustainable and is s e t aside. 42. With these observations both the above-numbered Regular Sec o nd Appeals are pa r tly allowed to the extent that th e impugned judgments and dec r ees dated 22.03.20 1 8 and 24.04.2024 against defe n dant No.2 are set aside. Howe v er, the same again s t defendant no.1-M/s Bitureks Fire Solutions, are maintained for the sum of ₹23, 7 1,964/- with interest as awarde d by the courts below. 43. Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.

¶103

September 09, 2 025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE

¶104

W h ether speaking/non-speaking : Speak i ng W h ether reportable : Yes/N o .

¶105

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

M/S Modular Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Bitureks Fire Solutions and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Modular Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Bitureks Fire Solutions and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hardeep Inder Singh Vs Karnail Singh and Ors.

Tulsa Devi Vs Padam

Narinder Kaur Vs Pritpal Singh etc.

Harjit Ram Andors Vs Balkar Singh

Kelo Devi and Others Vs Sandeep and Others

Capital Vehicles Sales Ltd. Vs M/S Bitureks Fire Solutions and Another