In a significant ruling by the Delhi High Court, a dispute between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 to 3 was examined closely. The case delves into issues surrounding the non-filing of Written Statement and its impact on the suit. Stay tuned to understand the nuances of this legal battle. #DelhiHighCourt #LegalJudgment #CaseSummary
Facts
- Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 failed to file Written Statement within 120 days of summons service
- Defendant No. 1 filed an application based on documents that could lead to plaintiff’s suit being decreed
- Defendants served with summons in July 2017
Arguments
- Reference to cases of M.C. Chacko vs. State Bank of Travancore, Trivandrum and K.P.M. Builders Private Limited vs National Highways Authority of India cited
- Reference to cases of Balraj Taneja & Anr v Sunil Madan & Anr and C.N. Ramappa Gowda v. C.C. Chandregowda made regarding disputed questions of fact in the plaint
- Contestation of the application by the defendants mentioned in the Reply
- Defendants argued against interference by Supreme Court and the need for factual proof before passing any judgment
- Defendant No.3/ Government of Maharashtra denies privity of Contract and liability in the case
- The plaintiff claims that there were breaches committed by the defendants and the suit cannot be decreed without evidence.
- Reasons for delay in completing the work include non-availability of site, unclear work front, issues with electrical wiring, etc.
- Plaintiff asserts entitlement to an express provision of Rs.79,44,713 for TDS by the defendants.
- Defendants were obligated to provide sites, drawings, and possession of the site, causing delays in completion of work.
- Work was completed after 36 months to the satisfaction of defendants, certified during Running Account Bills.
- Despite no defects found during the defect liability period, various claims of plaintiff remain unanswered.
- Quoted contract rates were only applicable for stipulated time, leading to heavy losses due to price rise.
- Plaintiff received mobilization advance and issued post-dated cheques, not returned after recovery of advance.
Analysis
- Non-filing of Written Statement is not penal in nature as per C.N. Ramappa Gowda (supra) and Maya Devi v. Lalta Prasad
- Decreeing the suit in a mechanical manner is not required if Written Statement is not filed
- Judicial mind must be applied as per Shantilal Gulabchand Mutha v. Tata Engg. & Locomotive Co. Ltd
- Court has discretion to require proof of facts in case of failure to file Written Statement as per Meenakshisundaram Textiles v. Valliammal Textiles Ltd
- The plaintiff has made several claims in the suit, including claims for work done but not paid, escalation of labor and material costs, overhead expenses, interest on delayed payments, and loss of profit.
- The plaintiff sought to have the defendant’s written statement taken off the record in a previous application, which was granted by the Supreme Court but relief (b) was not decided.
- The plaintiff later filed another application for the same relief, indicating that relief (b) is not barred for consideration.
- Failure to file a written statement may lead to judgment against the party under Rule 10.
- Even without the defendant’s written statement, the plaintiff has made detailed claims for various losses suffered.
- The plaintiff needs to prove these claims and support them with relevant documents.
- The plaintiff has submitted various documents in support of the claims totaling to Rs. 6,94,63,114/- with interest.
- The Court needs to determine if the plaintiff’s prayer is barred by the principle of res judicata.
- Complex issues raised by the plaintiff cannot be granted without evidence.
- Nature of claims by the plaintiff does not automatically make them admissible without proof.
- Defendants have the right to cross-examine to challenge plaintiff’s claims.
Decision
- Application dismissed
- Respondent No 1 not found to be in violation of RPC code
Case Title: SCG CONTRACTS INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. K S CHAMANKAR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & ORS. (2024:DHC:3888)
Case Number: CS(COMM)-199/2017
