Madras High Court
Mr.R.K.Mani vs / on 6 July, 2021
C.S.No.990 of 2016 & A.No.8566 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date : 06.07.2021
Coram::
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
C.S.No.990 of 2016
& A.No.8566 of 2017
Mr.R.K.Mani,
Proprietor M/s.Project Management Services, Chennai,
No.16/6, Ramanathan Street,
Mahalingapuram, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034. ... Plaintiff
/versus/
Mr. Rama Mohan, Proprietor,
M/s.Priyanka Constructions,
No.122, Balasubramanian 3rd Street,
Near Makkal Poonga NSR Road,
Saibaba Colony,
Coimbatore. ... Defendant
Prayer: Plaint is filed under Order VII Rule (1) of Civil Procedure Code read with
order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules.
a). Pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,19,61,267/- (Rupees Two Crores
Nineteen Lakhs Sixty one Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Seven only) being
the aggregate of the Principal unpaid sum of Rs.1,51,11,851/- and interest thereon
being Rs.68,49,416/-.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.990 of 2016 & A.No.8566 of 2017
b). Pay Damages of a sum of Rs.57 Lakhs.
c). Pay Interest at 12% p.a compounded monthly on the Principal sum of
Rs.1,51,11,851/- from the date of filing of the suit until the date of actual
realization.
d). Pay the cost and expenses of the suit to the plaintiff.
For Plaintiff : Ms.Shubharanjani Ananth
For Defendant : set exparte
JUDGMENT
The suit is filed for recovery of money, though the defendant initially
represented by the Learned Counsel subsequently there is no representation for the
defendant. This Court, on considering the nature of the suit on 15.03.2018
determine the suit claim falls within the definition of Commercial dispute and
proceeded, following procedure as contemplated under Commercial Courts Act.
2. On 24.02.2018, the sole defendant set ex-parte since written
statement was not filed and no interest shown by the defendant to contest the
matter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.990 of 2016 & A.No.8566 of 2017
3. The plaintiff/Mr.R.K.Mani, Proprietor of the firm M/s.Project
Management Services, Chennai, was examined as P.W.1. 45 Exhibits were
marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.45.
4. The case of plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a Proprietary Concern,
engaged in the business of executing works contract, including civil, mechanical
and electrical project works. The Defendant is also a Proprietary concern, carrying
on the business of building construction. The plaintiff and the Defendant had
commercial relationships. The plaintiff was awarded a civil construction work by
M/s.DF Power Systems Private Limited of a 27MW power plant belonging to
M/s.Dalmia Cements, at Yadwad Village, Belgaum District, Karnataka. Time
limit was fixed for carrying on this project. The Defendant approached the
plaintiff and offered services as a special contractor. The plaintiff awarded a work
order dated 12.04.2013 to the Defendant. The Defendant was to supply labour for
civil structural works. They were also to purchase equipments and tools. Time was
the essence for such supply. Terms of payment were also given in the work order
dated 12.04.2013. However, even after the receipt of advance of one month
payment, the Defendant failed and neglected to commence the work and supply
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.990 of 2016 & A.No.8566 of 2017
labour. The plaintiff made their own arrangements to avoid delay to make up for
the loss of time.
5. It was the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was called
upon by their Principal, by email dated 15.05.2013 to immediately mobilise
batching plant since foundation casting of the boiler had already been delayed. In
turn, the plaintiff sent a series of emails to the Defendant. However, the Defendant
failed in his promise to organise the materials and machinery and also failed to
maintain the manpower required for the project. Since the Defendant was very
slow in executing the work, the plaintiff insisted on performance guarantee. The
Defendant completed only 13.29% of the work as against the contract of 60%
between April 2013 and September 2013.
6. The plaintiff was constrained to terminate the work order dated
12.04.2013 by email dated 03.10.2013, since the Defendant had caused repeated
breach of obligations, plaintiff called upon the Defendant to return the advance
amount and excess payment amounts due to him by emails dated 03.10.2013,
11.10.2013, 18.11.2013, 12.12.2013 and 27.12.2013. In the meanwhile, since the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.990 of 2016 & A.No.8566 of 2017
Principal of the Plaintiff demanded that the Plaintiff should settle the payments,
the Plaintiff had to make a further payment of Rs.38,94,690/- to the vendors and
suppliers on behalf of the Defendant. Consequently, it has been stated that the
Defendant was due and liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,02,00,000/- towards the
advance amount, a sum of Rs.10,17,232/- towards excess payment and a sum of
Rs.38,94,619/- towards payment made to vendors and suppliers, totalling
Rs.1,51,11,851/-. The cheques issued by the Defendant towards performance
guarantee had been returned by the ICICI Bank on the ground of 'insufficient
funds'. The plaintiff had to file C.C.Nos.2146, 2224 and 8229 of 2014 on the file
of the FTC-II, Egmore, Chennai. Seeking recovery of the amounts payable and
due by the Defendant.
7. The work order given to the defendant are marked as Ex.P.1 &
Ex.P.2. As per the terms of the work order, the plaintiff has tendered an advance of
Rs.72 lakhs being 5% + 5% of the total contract value of Rs.7,20,00,000/-. From
the communications through e-mail which are marked as Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.11, the
default of the defendant to mobilise the Batching Plant and other requirement is
established by the plaintiff. The defendant for the work done had raised four
invoices which are marked as Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.990 of 2016 & A.No.8566 of 2017
Sl.Nos. RA Bill No Date of Bill Bill Amount Exhibit No
1. 1 10.07.2013 Rs.40,59,011.29 P.12
2. 2 16.08.2013 Rs.33,78,602.61 P.13
3. 3 10.09.2013 Rs.17,43,859.08 P.14
4. 4 21.10.2013 Rs.16,33,677.03 P.15
8. In response, the plaintiff has tendered further advance of Rs.30.00
lakhs to the defendant and had insisted the defendant to issue Performance
Guarantee Cheque. The defendant has obliged and had given three cheques each
for a sum of Rs.36 lakhs. These three cheques were dishonoured for want of fund
and the notarized copies of the dishonoured cheques are marked as Ex.P.36 to
Ex.P.38.
9. Ex.P.17 to Ex.P.27 are the Debit Notes which indicates that the
defendant owes the following sum under each of the Debit Notes.
Sl.Nos. Debit Note Number Date Amount Exhibits
1. Debit Note No.DFPS/13-14/DCPVL/026 31.08.2013 78,609 P17
raised by M/s.D F Power Systems Pvt. Ltd
on the plaintiff.
2. Debit Note No.DFPS/13-14/DCPVL/028 31.08.2013 32,163 P18
raised by M/s.D F Power Systems Pvt. Ltd
on the plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.990 of 2016 & A.No.8566 of 2017
Sl.Nos. Debit Note Number Date Amount Exhibits
3. Debit Note No.DFPS/13-14/DCPVL/031 13.09.2013 46,367 P19
raised by M/s.D F Power Systems Pvt. Ltd
on the plaintiff.
4. Debit Note No.DFPS/13-14/DCPVL/034 24.09.2013 8,77,870 P20
raised by M/s.D F Power Systems Pvt. Ltd
on the plaintiff.
5. Debit Note No.DFPS/13-14/DCPVL/035 26.09.2013 3,67,814 P21
raised by M/s.D F Power Systems Pvt. Ltd
on the plaintiff.
6. Debit Note No.DFPS/13-14/DCPVL/036 26.09.2013 47,762 P22
raised by M/s.D F Power Systems Pvt. Ltd
on the plaintiff
7. Debit Note No.DFPS/13-14/DCPVL/038 30.09.2013 7,07,071 P23
raised by M/s.D F Power Systems Pvt. Ltd
on the plaintiff.
8. Debit Note No.DFPS/13-14/DCPVL/039 30.09.2013 86,312 P24
raised by M/s.D F Power Systems Pvt. Ltd
on the plaintiff.
9. Debit Note No.DFPS/13-14/DCPVL/046 19.12.2013 82,248 P25
raised by M/s.D F Power Systems Pvt. Ltd
on the plaintiff.
10. Debit Note No.DFPS/13-14/DCPVL/047 19.12.2013 1,55,242 P26
raised by M/s.D F Power Systems Pvt. Ltd
on the plaintiff.
11. Debit Note No.DFPS/13-14/DCPVL/062 25.03.2014 15,93,923 P27
raised by M/s.D F Power Systems Pvt. Ltd
on the plaintiff
10. After few communication and exchange of notice, the present suit
has been filed. The plaintiff has also resorted to criminal prosecution against the
defendant for dishonouring the cheques.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.990 of 2016 & A.No.8566 of 2017
11. On perusing the Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.45, it is clear that the defendant,
who has admitted the liability and failed to honour the cheques issued for a sum of
Rs.1,08,00,000 lakhs. Further the debit note substantially proves the suit claim of
Principal amount of Rs.1,51,11,851/- for which interest at the rate of 12% p.a
being claimed along with the damages of Rs.57 lakhs.
12. Since the facts and documents pleaded by the plaintiff stands
uncontroverted, the suit is decreed in respect of the suit claim of Rs.2,19,61,267/-
being the principal and interest. There is no evidence to substantiate the claim of
Rs.57 lakhs for damages. Hence, the said claim is rejected for want of proof. In
the result, the suit is partly Allowed. The money claim of Rs.2,19,61,267/- along
with the simple interest at the rate of 12% p.a, from the date of filing the suit till
the date of realization is decreed. The defendant shall bear the costs.
Consequently, connected Application is closed.
06.07.2021
Index : Yes/No.
Internet : Yes/No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.990 of 2016 & A.No.8566 of 2017
Dr.G.Jayachandran,J.
bsm
C.S.No.990 of 2016
& A.No.8566 of 2017
06.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
