Peregrine Security Pvt. Ltd. vs Crowne Plaza Surya
2001 Latest Caselaw 1323 Del

ORDER

A.K. Sikri, J.

IA. 8014/2001 in S.No. 1779/2001.

1. Learned counsel for the plaintiff undertakes that deficiency in court fees will be made up within one week.

IA stands disposed of.

S.No. 1779/2001 & IA. 8013/2001.

2. The plaintiff has filed the instant suit for permanent injunction. By an Agreement dated September 4,1995 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff agreed to provide security personnel comprising of Ex-servicemen and Civilian Guards at the defendant's Hotel for round the clock security arrangement fro all seven days of the week. This Agreement was initially for a period of one year which was extended from time to time. As per the last extension given on 30-3-2001, this contract was extended up to 31-3-2002. Clause 10 of the Agreement reads as under:

"10. Before termination of the agreement, the second party shall make full and final payment and clear all dues prior to the withdrawal of the security staff by the first party from the premises".

By letter dated 20-8-2001 the defendant had terminated the contract w.e.f. 1-9-2001. The present suit is filed seeking decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from forcibly removing the Security Guards placed in their Hotel on the ground that defendant has not, before termination of the Agreement, made full and final payment and cleared all dues of the plaintiff. It is stated that a sum of Rs. 8,28,075/- is still payable by the defendant to the plaintiff as per letter dated 18-8-2001 and the defendant has also to clear the bills for months of July and August, 2001. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, unless these dues are cleared, there cannot be a termination of the Agreement as envisaged in Clause 10 of the Agreement referred to above.

3. On 30-8-2001 when the matter came up first time, Mr. R.K. Chadha appeared on behalf of the defendant and accepted the notice. He was given complete set of paper-book and the matter was listed for today. The defendant has filed written statement as well as reply to application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 which are taken on record. I have also heard counsel for both the parties at length. Along with the plaint, plaintiff has filed a copy of letter dated 18-8-2001 claiming arrears of Rs. 8,29,075/-. As per this letter details are given in Appendix-A to this letter. However, this Appendix-A is not annexed with the aforesaid letter. Be that as it may, the defendant has also filed a copy of this letter along with Appendix-A. It is not disputed that as per the demand of arrears made by letter dated 18-8-2001 claim is for difference in minimum wage rates. There are various annexures to Appendix-A which show that the difference is claimed w.e.f. 1-2-98. The defendant has enclosed a copy of letter dated 27-8-2001 sent to the plaintiff in reply to plaintiff's letter dated 18-8-2001. It is, inter alia, stated in this reply that the claim of Rs. 8,29,075/- by the plaintiff is devoid of any merit as a sum of Rs. 2,36,114/- up to August, 2000 in the shape of full and final settlement on account of difference in minimum wage was paid to the plaintiff. It is further stated that this amount was worked out and agreed at the meeting held in the last week of September, 2000. For subsequent period the defendant has been paying the amounts as per the aforesaid settlement. The defendant has also produced a chart during the course of arguments as per which after the revision of minimum wages w.e.f. 1-2-2000 the existing rate of Security Supervisors was increased from Rs. 2575/- to Rs. 2893/- and that of Security Guards from Rs. 2252/- to Rs. 2570/- and payments were made in this manner. On the basis of these averments it is contended by learned counsel for the defendant that no amount towards arrears on account of increase in minimum wage is payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.

4. A perusal of the Agreement dated 4-9-95 would show that certain rates were agreed to between the parties for Security Guards/Lady Searcher and Supervisors and in para-4 of the Agreement it was mentioned that these charges were based on the prevailing minimum wages Act in Delhi and in future if there is any revision takes place the increase in professional charges would be made accordingly. Learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that for the period in dispute the plaintiff has been raising a bill for payment of the charges as per the Agreement every month which was being paid to the plaintiff. However, for arrears on account of difference in minimum wages the plaintiff has been raising bills from time to time and that is how the aforesaid dues are payable.

5. The aforesaid sequence of events would show that whereas as per the plaintiff the arrears on account of minimum wage are payable as they are not fully cleared, the stand of the defendant is that as and when there is an increase in the minimum wages, parties have been discussing about the said increase and as per the agreed revised rates plaintiff is paid accordingly. It cannot be disputed that from time to time the defendant has been increasing the rate and paying accordingly. On account of increase the plaintiff was given a cheque in the sum of Rs. 2,36,114/- in December, 2000. The case of the defendant is that this represented payment of entire arrears up to 31-8-2000. The defendant has further pleaded that after the minimum wages were revised by the Government of India from 1-2-2000 rates of Security Supervisors and Security Guards were increased by R. 318/- per person and payments have been made for period subsequent to September, 2000 also in this manner.

6. In view of the respective stands of the parties, it cannot be said that the amount claimed by the plaintiff is an admitted amount which is due from the defendant. There are disputes about the same. The stand of the defendant is that nothing is payable. The defendant has raised bona fide dispute. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be granted the relief as claimed for in this suit till the aforesaid dispute is decided. If such a relief is granted, it would amount to perpetuating the contract thereby allowing the plaintiff to continue with the contract for providing the security services in spite of aforesaid termination. The claim, if any, of the plaintiff when there are contentious issues and disputed facts for which evidence would be required can be taken out in the appropriate proceedings which the plaintiff would be at liberty to initiate against the defendant. The balance of convenience is also not in favor of the plaintiff. If the injunction is granted and ultimately it is held that no amount is payable by the defendant to the plaintiff, it would amount to giving unjust premium to the plaintiff in allowing the plaintiff to continue to security contract even when the same stands terminated. On the other hand the plaintiff can be adequately compensated if ultimately it is held that plaintiff is entitled to the dues from the defendant, inasmuch as Along with the dues the court can pass appropriate orders for payment of interest and costs. Insofar as amount for July, 2001 is concerned, the defendant has handed over a cheque in the sum of Rs. 96,192/- to the plaintiff in Court today. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that for the month of August, 2001 bill has not been raised by the plaintiff so far and gives un undertaking to the court that on raising the bill by the plaintiff, the payment would be made within one week.

7. It is agreed by the parties that the period of injunction claimed in IA and Suit being the same, when this relief is denied to the plaintiff at the interim stage, nothing survived in the main suit also.

8. In view of the aforesaid, suit and IA. 8013/2001 stand disposed of.