Madras High Court
M/S.Sri Bala Builders & Promoters ... vs Premila on 27 November, 2023
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On 20.10.2023
Pronounced On 27.11.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.S.No.488 of 2019
(Comm. Div.)
M/s.Sri Bala Builders & Promoters (Pvt.)Ltd.,
Rep.by its Director G.Jayaraman ... Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Premila
2. Anitha ... Defendants
Prayer:- Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read
with Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section
7 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 praying to pass a Judgment and Decree
against the defendants as follows:-
(1) Directing the defendants 1 and 2 to pay a sum of
Rs.Rs.3,80,23,586.80/-( Rupees three crores eighty lakhs
twenty three thousand, five hundred and eighty six and
eighty paise only) to the plaintiff to pay future interest at
the rate of 24% per annum on Rs.3,48,13,723/- (Rupees
_____________
Page No.1 of 145
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
three crores forty eight lakhs thirteen thousand one
hundred and forty paise only) from the date of plaint till
the date of actual payment.
For Plaintiff : Mr. S.R.Rajagopal
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Selvi George
For Defendants : Mr.K.G.Vasudevan
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff, a Construction Company represented by its Director
has filed this suit to recover an amount of Rs.3,80,23,586.80/- (Rupees Three
Crores Eighty Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Six
and Eighty Paise Only) together with future interest at the rate of 24% per
annum from the date of plaint till the date of actual payment from the
defendants herein.
2. The aforesaid amount of Rs.3,80,23,586.80/- (Rupees Three
Crores Eighty Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Six
and Eighty Paise Only) is the alleged balance amount due from the defendants
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
to the plaintiff for construction of a school complex for the defendant.
3. The aforesaid amount is the alleged due for the construction of a
School Complex put up by the plaintiff measuring an extent of 24,439 sq.ft
undertaken by the plaintiff for the defendants on a land measuring an extent of
24,644 ½ Sq.ft of land (10 grounds and 228 Sq.ft) out of total extent of 1 Acre
and 9 Cents of land in S.No.51/1B3 in Seevaram Village, Perungudi, Chennai.
4. The facts in brief are that, the aforesaid land belonged to late
Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao, the father of the defendants. Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao who died
on 12.03.2018 by Ex.P.10 Settlement Deed dated 22.12.2016, late
Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao had settled the land measuring an extent of 10 Grounds
228 Sq.ft equivalent to 24,644 ½ Sq.ft (56.46 Cents) in S.No.51/1B3 in
Seevaram Village, Perungudi, Chennai in favour of the defendants, retaining
life interest over the property with himself.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
5. There was no written agreement between the plaintiff and late
Mr.S.Sreenivasa Rao for the exact amount to be paid for putting up the
construction of the School Complex. The plaintiff would contend that the terms
of agreement were reduced in writing photocopy of which was marked as
Ex.P5 agreement dated 07.11.2016. However, Ex.P5 was not signed by late
Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao. The plaintiff claims to have charged amounts based on the
Bill of Quantities (BOQ) in terms of Ex.P3 letter dated 20.09.2016 of Late
Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao issued to the plaintiff.
6. Ex.P19 dated 31.07.2017 is the copy of letter of the plaintiff to
first defendant and late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao enclosing an revised estimate
based on Bill of Quantity for a sum of Rs.9,90,38,727.46 After Ex.P19 dated
31.07.2017 the plaintiff had submitted the final bill for a sum of
Rs.9,20,86,791.00 to the defendants herein.
7. The plaintiff is said to have already received a sum of Rs.
4,90,01,336/- (Rupees Four Crores Ninety Lakhs One Thousand Three
Hundred and Thirty Six Only) during the course of construction from the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
defendants and from their father late Mr.S.Sreenivasa Rao during his life time.
8. The plaintiff has demanded a further balance amount of
Rs.3,80,23,586.80/- (Rupees Three Crores Eighty Lakhs Twenty Three
Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Six and Eighty Paisa Only) from the
defendants for putting up a construction of School Complex measuring an
extent of 24,439 sq.ft on 24,644 ½ Sq.ft of land (10 grounds and 228 Sq.ft)
out of total extent of 1 Acre and 9 Cents of land in S.No.51/1B3. I shall narrate
the facts in details in the ensuing paragraphs.
9. This Court had framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
recovery of money claimed under various heads
with interest?
2. Whether the defendants are liable to settle the
final bill raised by the plaintiff based on the bill
of quantity?
3. Whether the Director of the plaintiff company by
virtue of his disqualification is legally entitled to
continue to represent the company and prosecute
the suit?
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
4. Whether the approval of the bills made by the
Consultant from time to time binds the
defendants and the claims made based on the
same is sustainable?
5. Whether there was collusion between the plaintiff
and the consultant and thereby, the cost was
inflated to the benefit of the plaintiff and to the
detriment of the defendants?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other
reliefs?
10. On behalf of the plaintiff, proof affidavits were filed by PW1,
PW2, PW3 and PW4 and these persons were also examined as witnesses:-
PW1 Mr.Jayaraman, Director of the Plaintiff.
PW2 Mr.P.K.Srinivasan, Site Engineer, who is said to have
prepared Ex.P29 viz., Original Measurement Books.
PW3 Dr.Venugopal, Project consultant for Mr.Srinivasa Rao
and the Director of M/s.M.S.G.S. Infrastructure and
Hospitality.
PW4 Mr.M.Murali, Company Secretary.
11. On behalf of the plaintiff, following documents were marked as
Exhibits:-
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Date Exhibits Nature of Documents Admitted/D
enied
From Ex.P1 Original Axis Bank Savings Denied
01.09.2016 Account Statement of
to Mr.Jayaraman showing the entries
31.08.2017 for Financial Borrowings from
private financiers for this project.
15.09.2016 Ex.P2 Photocopy of the Lease Deed Contents
between Mr.Srinivasa Rao & Denied
M/s.Vallimuthu Educational Trust.
20.10.2016 Ex.P3 Original S.Srinivasan Rao given a Admitted
letter to Sri Bala Builders.
From Ex.P4 Original Bank Statement of M/s.Sri Denied
01.11.2016 Bala Constructions showing the
to cheque debit entry.
31.12.2016
07.11.2016 Ex.P5 Photocopy of the agreement Denied
between S.Srinivasa Rao and Sri
Bala Builders & Promotors Private
Limited., along with abstract of
quotation in MSGS Infrastructure &
Hospitality Pvt.Ltd.
The counsel for the defendant
objected for marking of Document 5
on the ground that original not
available with the defendants. Ex.P5
is marked with objection subject to
proof and relevancy.
17.11.2016 Ex.P6 Photocopy of the Cheque issued in Contents
favour of Mr.Srinivasa Rao from denied
M/s.Sri Bala Constructions,
Chennai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
The counsel for the defendant
objected for marking of document 6
on the ground that original not
available with the defendants. Ex.P6
is marked with objection subject to
proof and relevancy.
From Ex.P7 Original Photographs taken at site Denied
13.12.2016 on various dates from the very first
to day to till the end of the project.
30.06.2018
Photographs taken out from the
computer for which Certificate
under Section 65B Indian Evidence
Act is filed.
21.12.2016 Ex.P8 A Letter of plaintiff Sri Bala
Builders together with quotation to
Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao. Denied
The counsel for the defendant
objected for marking of Document 8
on the ground that original not
available with the defendants. Ex.P8
is marked with objection subject to
proof and relevancy.
From Ex.P9 The Original Material Test Report Denied
18.01.2017 from DAS Material Testing Private
to Limited for the materials like M-
17.11.2017 Sand, Steel, Cement, RMC
Concrete.
22.12.2016 Ex.P10 Photocopy of the Certified copy of Denied
the Deed of Settlement in favour of
Mrs.Premila. S & Mrs.Anitha Suri
by Mr.Srinivasa Rao.
14.02.2017 Ex.P11 Original Email from
Mr.Sathyanarayanan Architect with
attachment showing the existing
Ground level, excavation level and
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Filling level. Denied
documents
Email taken out from the computer and contents
for which Certificate under Section
65B Indian Evidence Act is filed.
09.04.2017 Ex.P12 Photocopy of the Lease Deed Denied
between Mr.Srinivasa Rao &
M/s.Sree Muragan Educational
Trust.
20.05.2017 Ex.P13 Photocopy of the Valuation Report Denied
by Er.B.S.Ushadevi valuer for
Federal Bank for the involvement of
defendant.
05.06.2017 Ex.P14 Photocopy of the Letter from
Mrs.S.Premila to The Manager,
Federal Bank, Anna Nagar, Denied
Chennai-40.
The counsel for the defendant
objected for marking of Document
13 and 14 on the ground that the
document has not come from the
proper custody. Ex.P13 and Ex.P14
are marked with objection subject to
proof, admissibility and relevancy.
From Ex.P15 Original Whatsapp Chat between
09.06.2017 Mr.G.Jayaraman and Mrs.S.Premila
to Rao. Denied
31.07.2018
Whatsapp Chat taken out from the i
Phone for which Certificate under
Section 65B Indian Evidence Act is
filed.
11.07.2017 Ex.P16 Photocopy of the Rental Lease Deed
between Mrs.Anitha Suri,
Mrs.S.Premila Rao and M/s.Sree Not disputed
Muragan Educational Trust
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
registered at Sub Registrar Office
Neelangiri.
14.07.2017 Ex.P17 Original Sri Bala Builders given a Denied
letter of Price variation to the
M/s.MSGS Infrastructure &
Hospitality Private Limited.
From Ex.P18 The Original Concrete Cube Test -
23.07.2017 Report from The India Cements
to Limited.
12.01.2018
31.07.2017 Ex.P19 Original Letter by the plaintiff to the Denied
1st defendant
05.12.2017 Ex.P20 Photocopy of the Planning Permit, Not disputed
Approval Letter from CMDA along
with Sanctioned Plan dated
05.12.2017.
From Ex.P21 Original Regular SMS Text Chats Denied
31.01.2018 between Mr.G.Jayaraman and
to Mrs.S.Premila Rao. SMS Text
19.02.2019 Chats taken out from the i Phone for
which Certificate under Section 65
B Indian Evidence Act is filed.
31.01.2018 Ex.P22 Photocopy of the Adhoc Running
Bill by M/s.Sri Bala Builders
Denied
The counsel for the defendant
objected for marking of Document
22 on the ground that they ought to
have been file at the time of filing
the suit. It could have been prepared
subsequently. Ex.P22 are marked
with objection subject to proof and
relevancy.
25.06.2018 Ex.P23 Original Final Certificate of MSGS Denied
Infrastructure & Hospitality Private
Limited, Final Bill No.3 and
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
supplementary final bill.
05.09.2018 Ex.P24 Original Sri Bala Builders given a
letter to the defendants.
The counsel for the defendant
objected for marking of Document Contents
23 and 24 on the ground that the denied
defendants have not received.
Ex.P23 and Ex.P24 are marked
with objection subject to proof,
admissibility and relevancy.
09.09.2018 Ex.P25 Photocopy of the plaintiff given a Contents
mail to 1st defendant along with denied
document.
Email taken out from the computer
for which Certificate under Section
65B Indian Evidence Act is filed.
The counsel for the defendant
submitted that Document 25
may be marked subject to
proof and relevancy.
24.10.2018 Ex.P26 Photocopy of the Lawyers Notice Admitted
given by the plaintiff
08.01.2019 Ex.P27 Photocopy of the Reply Notice Admitted
given by the defendants
02.03.2019 Ex.P28 Photocopy of the complaint letter Denied
given to the Commissioner of Police
by the plaintiff with
acknowledgement.
- Ex.P29 Original Measurement Books 3
Nos(Book 1, Book 2 and Book 3)
maintained by Site Engineer of
M/s.Sri Bala Builders for Civil
Work & Steel Work. Denied
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
The counsel for the Defendant
objected for marking of Document
29 on the ground that they ought to
have been file at the time of filing
the suit. It could have been prepared
subsequently. Ex.P29 are marked
with objection subject to proof and
relevancy.
Ex.P30 Printout of the company master data -
sheet (since other side gave consent
the document is marked)
12. On behalf of the defendants, proof affidavits were filed by DW1,
DW2 and DW3 and these persons were also examined as witnesses:-
DW1 Mrs.Premila
DW2 Mr.Rajinikanth, Assistant General Manager of M/s.Sri
Chaitanya Techno School, Perungudi
DW3 Mr.K.Natarajan, Former Chief Engineer of PWD and
Chartered Engineer and approved valuer
13. On behalf of the defendants, the following documents were
marked as Exhibits through DW3:-
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Date Exhibits Nature of Documents
19.11.2018 D1 Valuation Report
11.10.2020 D2 The Valuation report (Comparative Study)
14. The plaintiff had filed A.No.5957 of 2019 before this Court to
appoint an Advocate Commissioner and a Chartered Engineer to inspect the
School Complex constructed by the plaintiff and to give a report.
15. By an order dated 07.11.2019, this Court appointed an Advocate
Commissioner and a Chartered Engineer in A.No.5957 of 2019 to inspect the
School Complex and to give a report. The reports of the Advocate
Commissioner and the Chartered Engineer were marked as Ex.C1. Mr.
Malarvannan was examined as Court witness (CW1).
16. The report of the Chartered Engineer dated 25.07.2020
appointed by the court however does not give the extent of the construction put
by the plaintiff barring an oblique reference to construction of phase-I . As per
the above report, the total value of construction arrived is Rs.8,19,37,351/-
(Rupees Eight Crore Nineteen Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Three Hundred
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
and Fifty One only)
I shall now narrate the facts in detail:-
17. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a builder-cum-
promoter-cum-contractor and has been in the real estate business for the past
25 years. Due to the plaintiffs well established reputation, the Plaintiffs
representatives were invited to meet late.Mr.S.SrinivasaRao, (the father of the
Defendants) through their Consultant namely M/s.MSGS Infrastructure and
Hospitality Pvt ltd on 18.102016 for the proposed construction of a School
building in the property owned by late.Mr.S.SrinivasaRao situated at
S.No.51/1B, Corporation Road, Seevaram village, Perungudi, Chennai. It was
submitted that the 1st defendant was also present in the said meeting.
18. It was further submitted that in the aforesaid meeting, the
plaintiff was informed by late Mr.Srinivasa Rao and the 1st defendant that an
agreement was entered dated 15.09.2016 with M/s.Vallimuthu Educational
Trust. Late Mr.Srinivasa Rao had further indicated that the total construction
would be around 60,000 Sq.Ft., which would be required to be completed in
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
two phases, viz. The first phase being around 26000 Sq.ft., with a handing
over date of May 2017 and Phase-II for approximately 34000 Sq.Ft., which
was to be handed over by May 2018.
19. It was further submitted that it was stated by late Mr.
SrinivasaRao that the advance received from M/s Vallimuthu Educational Trust
was being used for other purpose and hence the plaintiff was requested to
commence the construction on credit basis upto a sum of Rs.2.5 crores with
the assurance that all pending bills will be paid after the approval of bank loan,
which Mr. Srinivasa Rao had applied for was sanctioned with an undertaking
to pay interest for delayed payments.
20. It was further submitted that accordingly after receiving Ex.P3
letter dated 20.10.2016 from late Mr. Srinivasa Rao, site was handed over to
the plaintiff and the preliminary work was started after a Bhoomi Pooja. The
plaintiff after completing the preliminary work submitted Ex.P8 quotation
dated 21.12.2016 for Bill of Quantities for Phase I by including infrastructure
development on the land area of 10 grounds and 228 square feet for a sum of
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Rs.8,86,37,898/- on 21.12.2006.
21. It was submitted that the defendant specially mentioned that the
construction of the building was to be of international standard and hence it
was mutually decided to put up the construction based on Bill of Quantities
and an item wise estimate was submitted. It was submitted that Ex.P5-
Construction Agreement dated 07.11.2016 was also prepared between the
plaintiff and Mr. Srinivasa Rao and was handed over to late Mr.Srinivasa Rao
after plaintiff signing the agreement. It was submitted that the agreement was
however never returned back with the signature of late Mr.Srinivasa Rao’s who
had informed that he would hand over the Ex.P.5 Construction agreement after
signing it on an auspicious day once the loan was approved by the bank. It is
submitted that based on such assurance, the plaintiff agreed to continue with
the work, without any payment on account of faith and trust.
22. It was further submitted that during the month of February
2017, M/s. Vallimuthu Educational Trust withdrew from the proposal and the
plaintiff was asked to stop the work till further instructions. A Bill for an
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
amount of Rs.80,91,336/- was raised and handed over to the first defendant
and late Mr. Srinivasa Rao for the work done up to February 2017.
23. It was further submitted that in July 2017, nearly 6 months after
the project was put on hold, it was informed to the plaintiff that another
agreement was signed with M/s.Sri Chaitanya Schools of Hyderabad Out of
the advance received from M/s.Chaitanya Schools of Hyderabad, the plaintiff
was paid the aforesaid sum of Rs.80,91,336/-. The plaintiff also brought to the
knowledge of late Mr. Srinivasa Rao and the first defendant about the increase
in cost of material by 12% during the intervening period and as a result of
which the cost had to be revised and Ex.P17- Letter dated 14.07.2017 was
addressed by the plaintiff to M/s.MSGS Infrastructure and Hospitality Pvt.
Ltd. in this regard. It was submitted that the plaintiff was asked to submit a
fresh quotation at the prevailing market rate as on July 2017 and thus the
plaintiff revised to Rs.9,90,30.727.46 vide Ex.P-19 dated 31.07.2017 which
included the bill raised and the sum paid by the defendants for a sum of
Rs.80,91,336/- with a discount of 5%.
24. It was submitted that the quotation was accepted by late Mr.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Srinivasa Rao and the first defendant and they requested the plaintiff to finish
the structural work by the end of 2017, so that the site could be handed over
for the school for M/s.Sri Chaitanya Schools of Hyderabad by 31.03.2018.
25. It was further submitted that the plaintiff proceeded with the
work and submitted a bill dated 29.11.2017 for a sum of Rs.3,12,11,964 to
which first defendant sought for an extension of time for payment. Later, the
plaintiff was informed that the bank loan was sanctioned for only Rs.6.6 crores
and made a payment of Rs.2,20,50,000/- to the plaintiff on 02.01.2018 with
the assurance that in due course, the balance would be settled along with the
final bill.
26. It was further submitted that on 07.02.2018, the first defendant
made a payment of Rs.1,20,00,000/- and a further sum of Rs.68,60,000/- on
02.03.2018 and requested the plaintiff to complete the construction.
Thereafter, a house warming ceremony was performed after completion of the
works on 04.03.2018. It was submitted that on 10.03.2018 Mr.SrinivasaRao
passed away and thus the property devolved on the first and second
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
defendants in terms of Ex.P.10- Deed of Settlement dated 22.12.2016 and the
defendants involved themselves actively in managing the affairs of the School
project.
27. It was further submitted that the plaintiff completed the entire
work in all respects having a constructed area of 24,439 square feet with all
facilities and amenities and raised a final bill on 15.06.2018 on the first and
second defendants directly on their instructions for a sum of Rs.4,92,21,879
including GST with a rebate of 5%.
28. It was submitted that the final bill was also duly certified by the
consultant of the defendant namely M/s.MSGS Infrastructure and Hospitality
Private Limited on 25.06.2018 vide Ex.P-23 and as per the certification, a sum
of Rs.4,63,92,105.35 was due after deduction of TDS and was payable by the
defendants to plaintiff. It was submitted that the defendants did not pay the
balance amount to the plaintiff despite the fact that they were receiving the
rents from the school leased out for M/s.Sri Chaitanya Schools of Hyderabad
29. It was further submitted that the plaintiff allowed the defendant
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
to take possession even before full payment in good faith owing good relations
the plaintiff had with late Mr.Srinivasa Rao and his family.
30. It was further submitted that the plaintiff never submitted bill for
the area of 24,439 Sq.ft. Rather the Bill was submitted for the work executed
as per site condition based on Bill of Quantity.
31. It was further submitted that though in Ex.P3 letter dated
20.10.2016 the project area is 10,228 sq.ft. the 1st defendant accepted during
cross examination that the Construction was as per the approved plan and as
per the CMDA rules the permissible construction was only in an extent of
24,665 sq.ft and the quotation was given based on Bill of Quantity only for
this area and not for 40,000sq.ft and as per the FSI norms in an extent of
10,228 sq.ft of area only 24,644.5 sq.ft of construction can be put up.
32. It was further submitted that the defendants cannot convert the
project cost to the square feet rate and this is totally untenable and that the
infrastructures like 10 Feet filling of the entire land, sump, compound wall,
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Overhead Tank, Septic Tank, Strom,Water trench, Drainage, TNEB Service
line, Main Gate Arch, Play Area, Paving area, Borewell 2 nos, adjoin plot
filling & Extra items cannot be calculated in square feet rate. It is submitted
that so far the plaintiff has received only Rs.4,90,01,336/- (Rupees Four
Crores Ninety Lakhs One Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Six Only) from
the defendants for the construction done.
33. It was further submitted that since the defendants failed to pay,
the final bill was submitted after entire work was finished as per the agreement
and the work done for the value of around Rs.2,39,000/- due to small pending
works which was to be finished at the time of submitting the final bill was not
included earlier. It was submitted that this Bill of Rs.2,39,000/- had been
submitted as Supplementary final Bill along with the Final Certificate issued
by the consultant directly to the defendants.
34. It was further submitted that the plaintiff issued Ex.P26 legal
notice dated 24.10.2018 on the defendants for seeking payment for the bill
amount claimed. Ex.P27 reply notice dated 08.01.2019 was issued by the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
defendant denying the liability by leveling baseless allegation against the
plaintiff company.
35. It was further submitted that the plaintiff had invested huge
money to complete the construction by borrowing funds at high interest and
that the defendants father late Mr. Srinivasa Rao had promised to pay interest
due to delay in payments but the defendants failed to pay the balance amount
despite several reminders.
36. It was further submitted that a police complaint was also lodged
by the plaintiff against the defendants and later felt that the case be decided in
a Civil Court and hence, the plaintiff approached this Court by filing this suit
to recover a sum of Rs.3,80,23,586.80 together with interest at the rate of 24%
p.a on the principle amount from the date of plaint till the date of actual
payment.
37. It was submitted that the defendants 1 and 2 are liable to pay the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
following sum to the plaintiff:
Certified Value - Rs. 8,74,21,757.92
Less Rebate 5% on BOQ Rates Rs. 38,92,226.15
Balance due after Rebate - Rs. 8,35,29,53 1.77
Add supplementary Bill - Rs. 2,39,951.46
Add Pooja expenses - Rs.45,000.00
Total value - Rs. 8,38, 14,483.23
Less payment received
during Construction Rs. 4,90,01,336.00
Balance amount to be paid Rs. 3,48, 13,147.23
Interest at the rate of 9% on Rs.3,48, 13,147.23 from
25.6.2018 To 4-7-2019 - Rs. 32,10,439.82
Nett due inclusive of interest
as on 4-7-2019 - = Rs. 3,80,23,586.80
GST @ 18% on total value of = Rs. 8,70,24,922.82
= Rs. 1,56,64,486.10
38. It was submitted that the defendant is also liable to pay Goods
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
and Service Tax G.S.T for the billed amount and this present suit is only for
Recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,80,23,586.80/- which is due to the plaintiff. It was
submitted that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,56,64,486.10/-
towards GST for the bill amount separately and the plaintiff is obliged to
recover this GST amount from the defendant separately and pay it to the Tax
department and the payment of GST is the liability of the defendant and hence
the plaintiff has not added this amount in this suit for recovery of the bill
amount.
39. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the
following decisions:-
i) Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain and
Others vs. Ramakant Eknath Jadoo, (2009)
5 SCC 713
ii) Narayan Govid Gavate and Others vs.
State of Maharashtra and Others, (1977) 1
SCC 133
iii) Anil Rishi vs. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5
SCC 558
Case of the Defendants:-
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
40. It was submitted that the plaintiff’s allegation as if the plaintiff
had several meetings with the defendants and there was a proper construction
agreement signed between late Mr.S.Sreenivasa Rao and the plaintiff was false.
41. It was submitted that the plaintiff was appointed/recommended
for the civil works contract by one Mr.Sunderrajan, director of M/s.MSGS
Infrastructure & Hospitality Private Limited, a trusted friend and advisor of
their father late Mr.S.Sreenivasa Rao.
42. It was submitted that late Mr.Srinivasa Rao, the defendant's
father developed serious neuro related problems from the year 2008 and since
then defendants father, Mr.S.Sreenivasa Rao had reposed immense trust on the
advice of the said Mr. Sunderrajan, Director of M/s.MSGS Infrastructure &
Hospitality Private Limited in all personal matters as well as business matters
which carried a lot of weight. It was submitted that Mr.Sunderrajan was the
one who brought in a proposal for a long term lease as per the requirement of
M/s. Vallimuthu Educational Trust wherein the proposal was to construct a
school building measuring 40,000 square feet and to let out the same to M/s.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Vallimuthu Educational Trust.
43. The defendants father late Mr.S.Sreenivasa Rao agreed to the
suggestion of Mr.Sunderrajan and engaged the services of plaintiff company
engaged on the recommendation of Mr. Sunderrajan to take up the civil
construction work of the school building on the land measuring an extent of 10
grounds 228 Sq.ft in Survey No 51/1B.
44. It was submitted that the total extent of the land in Survey
No.51/1B was l acre and 9 cents which was divided into two portions wherein
one portion was settled in favour of the defendants in 2014 to an extent of
22,934 Sq.ft and the other portion was retained by the defendant’s father Mr.
Srinivasa Rao ,which measured an extent of 10 grounds and 228 Sq.ft in
which the proposed construction was to take place pursuant to agreement with
M/s. Vallimuthu Educational Trust.
45. It was submitted that as per Ex.P2 lease deed dated 15.09.2016
and Ex.P3 letter dated 20.10.2016 relied on by the plaintiff, the construction
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
requirement of M/s.Vallimuthu Educational Trust was a school building having
a built up area of 40,000 Sq.ft built as a single unit with all facilities and
amenities for the requirement of running a school and not 60,000 Sq.ft was
alleged by the plaintiff.
46. It was submitted that during cross-examination, though PW-1
the Managing Director of the plaintiff was initially hesitant to admit the fact
that the initial requirement was to construct a school building measuring an
extent of 40,000 square feet. However, later was admitted to the same.
47. The defendants denied that the plaintiff submitted Ex.P8
Quotation on 21.12.2016 in bill of quantities form for Phase I of the project for
a sum of Rs.8,86,32,898/-. It is submitted that there was no question of
constructing the building in two phases in the initial stage when M/s.
Vallimuthu Educational Trust came up with a proposal for the school building.
48. It was submitted that vide Ex.P3 letter dated 20.10.2016 signed
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
by late Mr.Srinivasa Rao, the plaintiff was given the civil construction of
School meeting the requirement of M/s. Vallimuthu Educational Trust,
subject to approval of quotation by Mr. Srinivasa Rao as and when submitted
by the plaintiff also mentions the built up area to be 40.000 square feet only.
49. It was submitted that the alleged Ex.P5 Construction Agreement
dated 07.11.2016 between the plaintiff and the defendants father, relied on by
the plaintiff is not true and it is merely a document prepared on a plain sheet of
paper bearing only the signature of the plaintiff and is an inadmissible piece of
evidence.
50. It was submitted that the agreement with M/s. Vallimuthu
Educational Trust could not be pursued as they opted and withdrew from the
proposal. Mr.Sunderrajan later brought another offer from M/s.Muragan
Educational Trust, Hyderabad, who offered to take on lease the land measuring
10 grounds and 228sq.ft, (which Mr.Srinivasa Rao retained in his ownership)
together with a building to be constructed for running a school for their Sri
Chai?anya Educational Institutions. The said school was to be managed by
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
M/s.Muragan Educational Trust. It was further submitted that the Ex.P.12
lease agreement dated 09.04.2017 was signed by the first defendant in her
capacity as his power agent.
51. It was further submitted that the proposal was to construct a
school building measuring 60,000 square feet of built up to cover the entire
extent of 1 acre and 9 cents in two phases of 28,000 square feet during the first
phase and 32,000 square feet during the second phase. It was submitted that
the first phase of 28,000 square feet of buit up area was to be built on the land
owned by late Mr. Srinivasa Rao which was subsequently settled in favour of
the defendants vide Ex.P10 Settlement deed dated 22.12.2016. It was
submitted that there was no quotation submitted by the plaintiff after M/s.
Muragan Educational Trust came into the picture with a different proposal to
construct a building in two phases and for an extended area.
52. It was submitted that in the month of July 2017, the work was
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
once again resumed by the plaintiff and the construction of the school building
measuring an extent of 24,439 square feet was completed instead of 28,000
square feet according to the first phase.
53. It was submitted that the claim by the plaintiff that there was an
escalation in the cost, due to the delay caused in resuming the construction
work after it was stopped in the month of February 2017 and therefore a
proposal for inflating the bill by 12% was made to and accepted by
Mr.Srinivasa Rao as well as Mr.Sunderrajan of M/s.MSGS Infrastructure &
Hospitality Private Limited and that Mr.Srinivasa Rao even promised to pay
interest in case of any default in payments is not true. It was submitted that
there was no such agreement for enhancement of cost in the case of escalation
or for payment of interest.
54. It was submitted that Mr.Sunderrajan of M/s.MSGS
Infrastructure & Hospitality Private Limited took a major role in the tie up
with M/s.Muragan Educational Trust and was colluding with the plaintiff
which was not suspected by the defendants. It was submitted that the first
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
defendant made payments from time to time to the plaintiff as she was
instructed by her father, whenever any demand comes from him.
55. It was submitted that only after the death the defendants father
on 10.03.2018 and when the defendants took over the management it was
realized that Mr.Sunderrajan of M/s.MSGS Infrastructure & Hospitality
Private Limited and had misused/ taken undue advantage of the trust reposed
on him by late Mr.Srinivasa Rao and the defendants. It was submitted that
effort was taken by the plaintiff in their pleadings as well as in the cross-
examination to conceal this fact in order to shield Mr.Sunderrajan's much
deeper involvement in the entire project and instead mentioned the name of
M/s.MSGS Infrastructures and Hospitality Private limited in which Mr.
Sunderrajan and Venugopal PW3 were Directors.
56. It was submitted that the plaintiff appears to have raised an
adhoc bill for a sum of Rs.6,32,09,451.26 vide Ex.P22 dated 31.01.2018 and
similarly, a final bill was also raised and was duly certified by M/s.MSGS
Infrastructures and Hospitality private limited vide Ex.P23 dated 25.06.2018
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
assuming the role of consultant for the project. It was submitted that there was
no written agreement, which would spell out the extent of authority of
M/s.MSGS Infrastructures and Hospitality private limited as consultant and
that no documents have been produced as proof for having received any
remuneration for their alleged consultation work.
57. It was submitted that the plaintiff has been demanding money on
the basis of certification issued by M/s.MSGS Infrastructures and Hospitality
private limited for the final bill submitted by the plaintiff and thereafter the
defendants also received a legal notice from the plaintiff to which a reply notice
was also sent by the defendants agreeing to pay the remaining sum due after
verifying the accounts and the estimate with the help of another civil engineer,
by name Mr.Natarajan in good faith without knowing all the misdeeds of
Mr.Sunderrajan and the plaintiff resulting in exorbitant escalation of prices.
58. It was submitted that M/s.MSGS Infrastructures and Hospitality
private limited had approved the bills submitted by the plaintiff as a matter of
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
routine, without verifying the cost of materials, labour cost and other
incidentals incurred by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has not produced any
supporting bills to justify the cost demanded by them. It was submitted that
the alleged 12% hike in the overall cost during the period between February
2017 to July 2017 in a period of 6 months which is said to be accepted by
M/s.MSGS Infrastructures and Hospitality private limited/ Mr. Sunderrajan
was also without any supporting evidence from the plaintiff and that the so-
called consultant, who claims that he was appointed by Mr.Srinivasa Rao has
not also been cited as a witness on the side of the plaintiff and has not been
examined.
59. It was submitted that the allegation of the plaintiff that the
defendant and Mr.Srinivasa Rao was informed about the escalation in cost by
12% and about the proposal to raise bills at the enhanced rates is absolutely
false . It is was also denied that the defendant was liable to pay the defendants
based on the final Bill certified by the certified by M/s.MSGS Infrastructures
and Hospitality private limited
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
60. It was submitted that all the payments made by the defendants to
the plaintiff for the construction of the School Complex was only on the
instructions of the defendants father Mr.Sreenivasa Rao to pay as per the
demands made by Mr. Sunderrajan of M/s.MSGS Infrastructures and
Hospitality private limited who was hand in glove with the plaintiff and having
manipulated accounts claiming exorbitant sum in the present suit.
61. It was submitted that the defendants are not liable to pay the
amount as demanded by the plaintiff and that the defendant is liable to pay
only as per the quotation submitted at the initial stage working out the cost on
the same rate for a building measuring a built up area of 24,439 sq. ft after
giving credits to the payments already made by the defendants which hardly
sums up to only Rs.30 to 40 lakhs as due and to that extent alone, the plaintiff
will be entitled to the suit.
62. It was submitted that the plaintiff solely depends on the adhoc
bills vide Ex.P22 dated 31.01.2018 and the final bill approved by M/s.MSGS
vide Ex.P23 dated 25.06.2018 and no other document to support their claim.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
So far as the certification by the alleged consultant in the absence of any
agreement for having appointed M/s.MSGS Infrastructures and Hospitality
private limited as consultant or even if they had been appointed as consultant,
without knowing the extent of authority, they have been given, the unilateral
approval, without even any consent from the defendants or Mr.Srinivasa Rao
will not bind the defendants. It was submitted that the final bill or certification
will have no legal consequence to enable the plaintiff to depend on the same to
establish the suit claim.
63. It was submitted that no acknowledgment from Mr.Srinivasa
Rao or the defendants was given for having given consent for approval of the
bills, vide Ex.P22 and Ex.P23, which are the adhoc bills and final bill said to
have been submitted to M/s.MSGS and that no notice were given when the
bills were raised before it was certified by M/s.MSGS Infrastructures and
Hospitality private limited which has been submitted before this Hon'ble Court
to justify the plaintiff's claim for the suit claim or for enhancement in rates at
the rate of 12% or for the payment of interest.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
64. It was submitted that Ex P-29 M-Book has been prepared in a
haphazard manner apparently after the suit was filed and if had it been
available prior to the suit they ought to have filed along with the plaint, as it is
a record maintained during the course of business in any civil construction
project. It was submitted that no dates have been mentioned in the M-Book
and in fact, M-Book should contain all the bills with dates disclosing the
quantum of materials brought into the site, the amount of material consumed
on each day, showing proper delivery challans, etc. and lacking details. It was
submitted that M-Book should be prepared in such a manner that on seeing it
anybody will be able to understand the value of construction, the day- to-day
progress, time consumed etc. and therefore the Ex P-29 M-Book cannot be
relied as a document to support the plaintiff's case.
65. It was submitted that in the absence of any concrete evidence to
substantiate the plaintiff's claim, the plaintiff is seeking to depend on the report
that is filed by the Chartered Engineer appointed by this Hon'ble Court while
appointing an Advocate Commissioner to file a report, to assess the actual cost.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
66. It was submitted that the Chartered Engineer's report Ex.C1
dated 25.07.2020 is more like a final bill submitted by the plaintiff and that the
Chartered Engineer has not filed any written report analyzing the various
aspects of the case like the cost of materials, labour cost, etc. and also has not
even seen the Ex.P8 quotation dated 21.12.2016 that was originally submitted
by the plaintiff and how the plaintiff claims 12% enhancement or had taken
any effort to justify the enhancement sought for is reasonable and fair by
taking into consideration the market value of materials and the increase in the
cost of materials, labour cost, etc.
67. It was submitted that the Advocate Commissioner has not chosen
to put the parties on notice before the visit of the Advocate Commissioner and
his inspection.
68. It was submitted that the fact that the quotation given for 40,000
square feet by the plaintiff whether it be in square feet or bill of quantities rate
cannot be the same for constructing a building having a built up area of 24,900
square feet.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
69. It was submitted that as long as the plaintiff has not chosen to
file any document, displaying the consent of the defendants or their father Mr.
Srinivasa Rao to any of the bills raised by the plaintiff, to the plaintiff's claim
for escalation in cost, interest, et., the plaintiff will fail in their case.
70. It was submitted that as per Ex.P.8 quotation dated 21.12.2016
the cost of construction worked out for 40,000 Sq.ft is Rs.8,86,32,898.60/-
which will work out to Rs.5,41,52,485/- i.e Rs.2,215.82 per square feet for a
built up area of 24,439 Sq.ft. It was submitted that the plaintiffs claim is
Rs.3,48,13,147.23 after giving credits to all the payments made by the
defendants for a building having a built up area of 40,000 Sq.ft. /-. It was
submitted that the defendants will be liable to pay only Rs.51,51,149/- as per
the calculations given under:-
Total cost worked out for a building Rs.5,41,52,485/-
having a built up area of 24,439
The defendants have paid a sum of Rs.4,90,01,336/-
The defendants will be liable to pay Rs.51,51,149/-
only
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
71. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the plaintiff and the leaned counsel for the defendant. I have also
perused the plaint, written statement and proof affidavit filed by the respective
witnesses of the plaintiff and the defendants. I have also perused the deposition
of the respective witnesses during the cross examination.
72. I have also perused the report given by CW1, the Court
appointed witnesses namely the Chartered Engineer, pursuant to the order
dated 07.11.2019 in I.A.No.5957 of 2019.
73. Earlier, the defendants father late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao had
entered into Ex.P2 unregistered Lease Agreement dated 15.09.2016 with
M/s.Vallimuthu Educational Trust for leasing 10 Grounds and 228 Sq.ft
(equivalent to 24,644 ½ Sq.ft) of land together with a proposed school building
Complex to be constructed.
74. As per Ex.P2 Lease Deed dated 15.09.2016 the School building
Complex was to measure an extent of 40,000 Sq.ft. for M/s.Vallimuthu
Educational Trust for their Velammal New Gen School. The construction of the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
School building Complex was to be completed by 01.05.2017 as per the
specification of the said M/s.Vallimuthu Educational Trust in accordance with
an approved planning permit by CMDA.
75. Ex.P2 Lease Deed dated 15.09.2016 with M/s.Vallimuthu
Educational Trust further records that late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao had received a
sum of Rs.2 Crores as advance by way of four cheques drawn on Canara
Bank, Pudur, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 053 of Rs.50,00,000/- each as Interest
Free Deposit.
76. Under Ex.P2 Lease Deed dated 15.09.2016 signed with
M/s.Vallimuthu Educational Trust, latter had also undertaken to pay an
amount of Rs.1 Crore as additional Interest Free Deposit to late Mr.S.Srinivasa
Rao refundable within a period of eight months from the date of Ex.P2 Lease
Deed dated 15.09.2016 or on completion of the building measuring to an
extent of 40,000 Sq.ft. whichever was earlier.
77. As per Ex.P2 Lease Deed dated 15.09.2016, the said
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
M/s.Vallimuthu Educational Trust was to also pay a lease rental to late
Mr.Srinivasa Rao, the father of the defendants at the rate of Rs.29 per Sq.ft per
month for the built up area measuring an extent of 40,000 Sq.ft. from the date
of occupation of the premises. The lease was to be for a period of 32 years.
78. Although Ex.P2 Lease Deed dated 15.09.2016 with
M/s.Vallimuthu Educational Trust is under-stamped and is an unregistered
document and is therefore in admissible, the defendant have not seriously
contested its content. Ex.P2 Lease Deed dated 15.09.2016 is witnessed by the
defendants and by Mr. Sunderrajan, the consultant from M/s. MSGS
Infrastructure and Hospitality Pvt., Ltd. After Ex.P2 was executed
Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao, the late father of the defendants issued Ex.P3 letter dated
20.10.2016 to the plaintiff.
79. By Ex.P3 letter dated 20.10.2016, late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao, the
father of the defendants authorized the plaintiff to start preliminary works for
building the school for M/s.Vallimuthu Educational Trust. As per Ex.P3 letter
dated 20.10.2016, the plaintiff was permitted to carry out only the preliminary
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
works viz., Borewell, Temporary Worker’s Shed and obtain a Temporary EB
Connection alone.
80. As per Ex.P3 letter dated 20.10.2016, Late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao,
the father of the defendants merely asked the plaintiff to give a quotation based
on “Bill of Quantities” for the Project. The plaintiff was to proceed with the
construction only after further mutual discussion and after submission of
quotation on the drawings that were given to the plaintiff, for construction of
40,000 Sq ft. of building and with the approval of late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao.
81. Ex.P5 Agreement dated 07.11.2016 is an unsigned photocopy of
an unregistered construction agreement that was to be signed between Late
Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao and the plaintiff. Ex.P5 Agreement dated 07.11.2016 is
also in admissible piece of evidence.
82. Ex.P5 Agreement dated 07.11.2016 details the scope of the
work for constructing the School Complex. Ex.P5 was allegedly prepared by
the plaintiff and handed over to late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao for being signed.
However, Ex.P5 Agreement dated 07.11.2016 was never signed by late
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao. It is submitted that late.Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao had allegedly
stated that he would sign Ex.P5 Agreement dated 07.11.2016 on an auspicious
day and return the same to the plaintiff. However, there are no evidence
forthcoming to substantiate the said claim of the plaintiff.
83. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that Ex.P5 Agreement dated
07.11.2016 was drafted based on mutual discussion between plaintiff and late
Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao during his lifetime along with Mr.G. Sunderrajan, the
consultant appointed by Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao of M/s.MSGS Infrastructure and
Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.
84. According to the plaintiff, a part of the work was to be carried
out by the plaintiff inconsonance with Ex.P5 agreement dated 07.11.2016
although it was not signed by late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao.
85. Clause 5 and Clause 6 of Ex.P5 Agreement dated 07.11.2016
reads as under :-
Clause 5 Clause 6
The Scope of work is as per the The Scope of work includes
Schedule given but not limited to the Providing Borewell for temporary
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
same as there could be some use during construction, obtaining
additional related works that may be temporary power connection,
necessary or there could be some providing Site Office and Labour
exclusions as per the discretion of Sheds with facilities required by
the owner Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao and Statutory Authorities, appoint a full
the Consultants M/s.MSGS time Site Engineer to oversee the
Infrastructure & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. work, keep records of materials,
labour and work done.
86. Ex.P5 Agreement dated 07.11.2016 does not contain the
Schedule. Clause 6 merely states that the Scope of work includes providing
Borewell for temporary use during construction, obtaining temporary power
connection, providing Site Office and Labour Sheds with facilities required by
Statutory Authorities, appointing a full time Site Engineer to oversee the work,
keeping records of materials, labour and work done in tune with Ex.P3 letter
dated 20.10.2016.
87. Since Ex.P5 Agreement dated 07.11.2016 was not signed by late
Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao during his lifetime, it is an inadmissible piece of evidence
and cannot be relied upon.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
88. Ex.P7 are series photographs of the site from first day of
commencement of the project till completion of the project to demonstrate the
work carried out between 13.12.2016 and 30.06.2018 by the plaintiff.
89. By Ex.P8 letter dated 21.12.2016, the plaintiff claims to have
sent a quotation to late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao for carrying out the construction of
a school building for M/s.Valliammal Educational Trust for their Velammal
New Gen School based on the Architectural Drawings, Structural Designs and
the Schedule of Quantities approved by the aforesaid consultant namely
M/s.MSGS Infrastructure and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. The defendants have
denied as it was not countersigned by late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao.
90. Copy of Architectural Drawings, Structural Designs and the
Schedule of Quantities that was said to have been approved by the aforesaid
consultant namely M/s.MSGS Infrastructure and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. has not
been filed by the plaintiff.
91. In Ex.P8 dated 21.12.2016, the plaintiff has quoted a sum of
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Rs.8,86,32,898.60/- as the estimated cost of construction based on Bill of
Quantities for the proposed construction of a Velammal New Gen School
complex for M/s.Vallimuthu Educational Trust. In Ex.P8 letter dated
21.12.2016, there is also an endorsement by the Director of the plaintiff in
writing agreeing for a 5% discount/rebate purportedly at the request of late
Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao.
92. The plaintiff in Ex.P8 dated 21.12.2016 has given an estimate of
Rs.8,86,32,898/- for 40,000 sq.ft. Thus, the cost of construction for 40,000
sq.ft would works out to Rs.8,86,32,898 ÷ 40,000/- = Rs.2,215.82/-.per sq.ft.
93. The Ex.P8 quotation dated 21.12.1016 refers to Velammal New
Gen School. Thus, the Ex.P8 quotation of the plaintiff together with the
discount of 5% was for putting up construction of 40,000 sq.ft of built up area
for Velammal New Gen School of M/s.Velammal Educational Trust in
accordance with Ex.P2 Lease Agreement dated 15.09.2016.
94. Ex.P9 documents are series of Material Test Reports regarding
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
the materials allegedly utilized by the plaintiff between 18.01.2017 to
07.11.2017 for putting up construction for late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao, after
Ex.P2 Lease Deed dated 15.09.2016 was signed between Mr.Srinivasa Rao
and M/s.Vallimuthu Educational Trust for Velammal New Gen School and
Ex.P.12 Lease Deed dated 09.04.2017 between Mr.Srinivasa Rao and M/s.Sri
Muragan Educational Trust for their Sri Chaitanya Educational Institutions.
Most of Ex.P9 Material Test Reports are after execution of Ex.P12 Lease Deed
dated 09.04.2017 was signed. Although, Ex.P9 is disputed by the defendants,
they are immaterial as the construction was completed by the plaintiff.
95. Although Ex.P2 Lease Deed dated 15.09.2016 is not registered
and is an inadmissible piece of evidence, it has not been disputed either by the
plaintiff and defendants. It can be relied upon to confirm that the arrangement
between plaintiff and Late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao was for putting up a
construction of 40,000/- sq.ft. of built up area and the estimate of
Rs.8,86,32,898.60 in Ex.P8 dated 21.12..2016 was only for putting up a
construction of 40,000/- sq.ft. of built up area. The amount quoted on sq.ft
basis based on the details in Ex.P8 dated 21.12.2016 is Rs.2,215.82 per sq.ft.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
96. There are 40 Items in Ex.P8 dated 21.12.2016. They
correspondent with items A,B &C of Ex.P23 Final Certificate of Bills dated
25.06.2018 by aforesaid Consultant. The rate per sq.ft. on the 1 to 21 Items
corresponding to Items A&B of Ex.P23 Final Certificate of Bills dated
25.06.2018 comes to Rs.1959.35 Per sq.ft. for putting up construction of
40,000 sq.ft of built up area for Velammal New Gen School of M/s.Velammal
Educational Trust. I shall refer to Ex.P23 Final Certificate of Bills dated
25.06.2018 later in the course of this Judgment.
97. Ex.P.11 dated 14.02.2017 is a copy of the E-mail of
Mr.R.Sathyanarayana, Architect to M/s.MSGS Infrastructure and Hospitality
Pvt. Ltd., the consultant of late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao and to the representative of
M/s.Vallimuthu Educational Trust including proposed level chart for the
Perungudi site. However, the details have not been filed by the plaintiff.
98. For reasons not specified either by the plaintiff or the defendants,
the arrangement in Ex.P2 Unregistered Lease Deed dated 15.09.2016 between
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
the M/s.Vallimuthu Educational Trust and late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao for
construction of Velammal New Gen School fell through. Thus, the work which
was in progress was suspended.
99. In this background, a fresh lease arrangement vide Ex.P12 Lease
Deed dated 09.04.2017 was signed between late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao with
M/s.Sree Muragan Educational Trust for their school Sri Chaitanya
Educational Institutions.
100. Meanwhile, by Ex.P10 Settlement Deed dated 22.12.2016, late
Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao, the father of the defendants settled the land measuring an
extent of 10 Grounds and 228 Sq.ft [equivalent to 24,644 ½ Sq.ft. which land
was earlier intended to be leased to M/s.Valliammal Educational Trust for
putting up construction of a School Complex measuring 40,000 sq ft. of built
up area for their Velammal New Gen School to the defendants vide Ex.P.2
Lease Deed dated 15.09.2016. In Ex.P.10 Settlement Deed dated 22.12.2016,
late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao, the father of the defendants, retained life interest in
the aforesaid property with himself. The defendants could transfer or alienate
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
their rights over the aforesaid land settled in their favour in Ex.P.10 Settlement
Deed dated 22.12.2016,only after the life time of late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao.
101. Ex.P20 dated 05.12.2017 is a copy of Chennai Metropolitan
Development Authority (CMDA) approval for ground floor + two floors for the
Higher Secondary School Building at Perungudi response to application dated
14.11.2016 issued in the name of Late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao.
102. However, Ex.P20 dated 05.12.2017 does not disclose the extent
of the construction that was approved to be put up by the plaintiff over the
land, measuring an extent of 10 Grounds and 228.Sq.ft [equivalent to 24,644
½ Sq.ft in Ex.P10 settlement deed dated 22.12.2016]. However, it is evident
that, when application dated 14.11.2016 was filed with CMDA, late
Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao had an arrangement only with M/S Vallimuthu Educational
Trust vide Ex.P2 dated 15.9.2016 for 40,000 Sq.ft.
103. Ex.P10 Settlement Deed dated 22.12.2016 also made it clear
that the property was free from all encumbrance and that late Mr.S.Srinivasa
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Rao had a right to settle the property in favour of the defendants. Ex.P10
Settlement Deed dated 22.12.2016 was silent regarding the construction that
was proposed or the on going construction over the land measuring an extent
of 10 Grounds and 228 Sq.ft equivalent to 24,644 ½ Sq.ft.
104. Ex.P.10 Settlement Deed dated 22.12.2016 also reveals that
earlier by a Settlement Deed dated 10.04.2014, an extent of 22,934 Sq.ft of
land, out of 1 Acre and 9 Cents in S.No.51/1B3 had already been settled in
favour of the defendants by their father late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao. After, the
death of late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao on 12.03.2018, the defendants thus became
owners of entire extent of 1 Acre and 9 Cents in S.No.51/1B3 in Perungudi
Village.
105. Ex.P12 Lease Deed dated 09.04.2017 that was signed with the
said Sri Murugan Educational Trust was for construction of a total extent of
60,000 sq.ft.built up area in two phases of 28000 sq.ft. and 32,000 sq.ft. over
the entire extent of 1 Acre and 9 cents land in S.No.51/1B3 at Seevaram
Village formerly Saidapet Taluk, Sholinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
106. In Phase-I 28,000 Sq.ft., a School complex was to be built on
24,644 ½ Sq.ft., land which was settled in favour of the defendants vide
Ex.P10 Settlement Deed dated 22.12.2016. Thus, instead of 40,000 sq.ft of
School Complex as was originally intended only 28,000 sq.ft. of School
complex was to be built in the first phase for M/s.Sree Muragan Educational
Trust for their school Sri Chaitanya Educational Institutions.
107. Ex.P12 Lease Agreement dated 09.04.2017 shows that late
Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao had assured to complete the construction in Phase-I of
28000 sq.ft. and to hand over the same on 01.11.2017 in a fit condition for
occupation together with amenities like electricity and water. The lease period
in Ex.P12 Lease Agreement dated 09.04.2017 was to be for a period of thirty
two years.
108. Ex.P.12 Lease Deed dated 09.04.2017 sets out the following
timelines for putting up the construction:-
“Phase-I to be developed approximately 28000
Sq.ft., Building on 24644 ½ sq.ft.*, land – to be
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
delivered on 01.11.2017.
Phase-II to be developed approximately 32000
Sq.ft., Building on 22934 Sq.ft., land – to be
handed over on 31st March 2019.
The Lease Agreement for Phase-I to be executed
immediately i.e., this Agreement.
The Lease Agreement for Phase-II to be executed
before 31st October 2017.
The Building to be handed over as per the
Schedule above, which is more fully described in
the schedule hereunder, on lease and in this
connection the LESSOR and the LESSEE met
several times and discussed the terms of the
proposed lease and they have come to an
understanding.”
[* 10 grounds 228 sq.ft in Ex.P2,P3,P5]
109. Ex.P12 Lease Agreement dated 09.04.2017 also states that the
said M/s.Muragan Educational Trust had also expressed its desire to take on
lease the building for the upcoming Phase-II. The estimated time for
completion of the building in Phase-II was March 2019.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
110. The said M/s.Muragan Educational Trust also appears to have
paid late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao a lumpsum amount of Rs.3 Crores as an advance
which was refundable in one lump sum at the expiry of the period provided in
Ex.P12 Lease Agreement dated 09.04.2017.
111. As per Ex.P12 Lease Agreement dated 09.04.2017,
M/s.Muragan Educational Trust also agreed to pay late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao a
rent at Rs.30 per Sq.ft. for Phase-I. Over and above Rs.3 Crores, M/s.
Muragan Educational Trust also appears to have paid a sum of Rs.1 Crore 50
Lakh to late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao as refundable deposit within six months from
the date of execution of Ex.P12 Lease Agreement dated 09.04.2017.
112. Suffice to keep in mind that after the arrangement in Ex.P2
Lease Deed dated 15.09.2016 signed between Mr.Srinivasa Rao and
M/s.Vallimuthu Educational Trust fell through, Ex.P.12 Lease Deed dated
09.04.2017 was signed between Mr.Srinivasa Rao and M/s.Sri Murugan
Educational Trust and therefore a School Complex was to be constructed to
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
suit the needs of the said M/s.Sri Murugan Educational Trust.
113. The work that commenced on 26.12.2016 was stopped some
time in February 2017, as the arrangement in Ex.P2 Lease Deed dated
15.09.2016 signed between Mr.Srinivasa Rao and M/s.Vallimuthu Educational
Trust fell through. At that point, the work that was completed was only upto
foundation. It was resumed after Sri. Murugan Educational Trust evinced
interest in taking the proposed School Complex on lease over the entire extent
of 1.9 acres of land in S.No.51/1B3 in Perungudi Village and signed Ex.P12
Lease Agreement dated 09.04.2017 with late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao.
114. The arrangement in Ex.P12 Lease Agreement dated 09.04.2017
was later formalized in Exhibit P.16 Rental Lease Deed dated 11.07.2017.
Ex.P12 Lease Agreement dated 09.04.2017 was registered as Document
No.4877 of 2017. Ex.P.16 Registered Rental Lease Deed dated 11.07.2017 is
for a period of 30 years commencing from 01.06.2017 to 31.05.2047.
115. Thus, as per Ex.P12 Lease Deed dated 09.04.2017, the total
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
construction was to be for 60,000 sq.ft. of built up area and was Split into
Phase-1 and Phase-II as detailed below :-
Sl.No. Phases Land Built up Delivery
Area Date
1 I 24,644 ½ sq.ft. 28,000 01.11.2017
Sq.ft.
2 II 22,934 sq.ft. 32,000 31.03.2019
sq.ft.
116. As per Exhibit P.16 Rental Lease Deed dated 11.07.2017, land
measuring an extent of 56.46 Cents (24,644 ½ Sq.ft. or 10 grounds 228 Sq.ft.)
out of 1 Acre 9 Cents (47,578.5 Square Feet) alone was leased leased to
M/s.Sree Muragan Educational Trust. In Exhibit P.16 Rental Lease Deed dated
11.07.2017, it was agreed that a separate lease agreement will be signed for
leasing the school building. Relevant portion of the preamble to Ex.P16 reads
as under:-
“WHEREAS the LESSOR shall first register the Land
Less for Rental in favour of the Lessee for a period
of 30 years, renewable every 10 years, more fully
described in the Schedule. After completing the
Construction of 60000 Sq.ft., approximately and as
per the Specifications given by the Lessee and also
the norms of the Statutory Authorities, the LESSOR
wants to register a Separate Lease Deed for Leasing
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
the School Building for Rental.”
117. Thus, the entire extent of land measuring 1 acre and 9 cents in
S.No.51/1B3 in Seevaram Village, Perungudi, Chennai was to be developed in
two phases for construction of 60,000 sq.ft. of built up area of School
Complex.
118. After the said M/s.Valliammal Educational Trust exited from
Ex.P2 Lease Agreement dated 15.09.2016, the plaintiff had raised Bill No.1
during the first week of March on late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao. Meanwhile, the
plaintiff has also been paid a sum of Rs.80,01,336/- against Bill No.1 for the
work done up to February 2017 on 19.04.2017. Though Bill No.1 for the
work done up to February 2017 on 19.04.2017 has not been filed, it is evident
that it was for foundation work only. As per the plaintiff, the plaintiff has
raised Bill No.2 on 29.11.2017 for Rs.3,12,11,964/-. As against Bill No.2 on
29.11.2017 for Rs.3,12,11,964/, the plaintiff has also paid a sum of
Rs.2,20,50,000/- on 02.01.2018. This is after the construction resumed after
Ex.P12 Lease Agreement dated 09.04.2017 was later formalized in Exhibit
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
P.16 Rental Lease Deed dated 11.07.2017.
119. These amounts for Bill No.1 and Bill No.2 appear to have been
paid to the plaintiff only after Ex.P12 fresh Lease Deed dated 09.04.2017 was
executed with M/s.Sree Muragan Educational Trust for their Sri Chaitanya
Educational Institutions as is evident from Ex.P23 Final Certificate dated
25.06.2018. Certifying the Bills by the consultant appointed by late
Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao namely M/s.MSGS Infrastructure and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.
120. The Plaintiff has however for best reasons known to the
plaintiff has neither filed nor marked copies of Bills/Invoices raised on late
Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao for which the aforesaid amounts were paid. Bill No.1 for
the work done up to February 2017 appears to for the work upto foundation as
is evident from reading of Ex.P13 report dated 20.05.2017. Bill No.2 on
29.11.2017 for Rs.3,12,11,964/- appears to be for the work after Ex.P12 Lease
Deed dated 09.04.2017 was signed.
121. Therefore, it has to be concluded that the quotation/estimate in
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Ex.P8 dated 21.12.2016 based on Bill of Quantity was for construction of
40,000 sq.ft of built up area of School Complex to suit the needs of
M/s.Vallimuthu Educational Trust for their Velammal New Gen School
pursuant to Ex.P2 Lease Deed dated 15.09.2016 pursuant to which, land
measuring an extent of 24,644 ½ sq.ft. was handed over to the plaintiff vide
Ex.P3 letter dated 20.10.2016.
122. There was however a change. The construction was restricted to
28,000 sq.ft. of built up area in phase-I as per Ex.P12- Lease Deed dated
09.04.2017 over the land measuring an extent of 24,644 ½ sq.ft. with M/s.Sree
Murugan Educational Trust for their Educational Institution namely M/s
Sri.Chaitanya Educational Institutions over the land settled in favour of the
defendants vide Ex.P10 settlement deed dated 22.12.2016.
123. At about the same time, the defendants had approached the
Federal Bank, Anna Nagar and submitted Ex.P14 Letter dated 05.06.2017
enclosing Ex.P.13-Valuation Report dated 20.05.2017 of an Approved Valuer
and a Chartered Engineer named, Er.B.S.Ushadhevi Ex.P.13-Valuation Report
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
dated 20.05.2017 was procured by the defendants from Er.B.S.Ushadhevi.
124. Ex.P.13 Valuation Report of Er.B.S.Ushadhevi dated
20.05.2017 was procured by the defendants from Er.B.S.Ushadhevi for
obtaining loan for the on going proposed Institutional Building
(Hr.Sec.School), at No.4, Corporation Road, Seevaram, Perungudi, Chennai –
600 096, which was under construction of the plaintiff before the death of late
Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao. It pertains to the same land over which the plaintiff was
putting construction for late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao. It is after the land measuring
10 grounds a228 Sq.ft. [24,644 ½ Sq.ft] was settled in favour of the defendants
vide Ex.P10 Settlement Deed dated 22.12.2016.
125. Ex.P.13 Valuation Report dated 20.05.2017 was procured from
the said Approved Valuer/Chartered Engineer for construction of School for Sri
Chaitanya School Project, on land measuring the same extent of 24,664 ½
sq.ft. As per Ex.P.13 Valuation Report, dated 20.05.2017, the extent of land as
per document was 24,664 ½ sq.ft and as per Site Measurement was 24,153
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
sq.ft. However, in the covering letter to Ex.P.13, Valuation Report dated
20.05.2017, the extent of land is 24594 sq.ft. and 24,153 sq.ft. as per site
measurement.
126. Ex.P13 Valuation Report dated 20.05.2017 also refers to
Ex.P10 - Settlement Deed dated 22.12.2016. It also qualifies that foundation
and basement work was completed as on 20.05.2017. Bill No.1 raised by the
plaintiff was also for Rs.80,01,336/-. It thus corroborates the conclusion that
Ex.P.8 estimate was for 40,000 sq.ft. The total extent of the proposed
construction and the estimated value of the plot and proposed building in
Ex.P13 - Valuation Report dated 20.05.2017 is extracted below :-
Plinth Area As per Plan
F.S.I area
G.Floor area 1748.28 sq.m
F.Floor area 1744.87 sq.m
S.Floor area 1744.87 sq.m
5238.02sq.m = 56361.09 sqft.*
Non F.S.I area
G.Floor area 85.13 sq.m
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
F.Floor area 64.45 sq.m
S.Floor area 64.45 sq.m
214.03 sq.m
= 2303 sq.ft.*
F.S.I .19
Plot Coverage 39.73%
Plot Value : Rs.12,08,00,000/-
Estimated value for the proposed
Construction of Hr.Sec.School : Rs.6,63,00,000/-
Total Value of the plot & building
after completion of construction : Rs.18,71.00,000/-
Value of the Plot & building
as present Inspection : Rs.12,74,10,000/-
(12,08,00,000+66,30,000)
* Total area =58,664 sq.ft [56,361.09 sq.ft.
F.S.I area +2,303 Non F.S.I area]
127. Ex.P13 Valuation Report dated 20.05.2017 records that only
the foundation of basement level was completed. It also records an estimated
value for the proposed construction of the building as Rs.6,63,00,000/- for
58,664 sq ft. and states that only ten percent of the work was complete and the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
current value of construction was approximately Rs.66,30,000/-. Thus, the
estimate in Ex.P13 Valuation Report dated 20.05.2017 records was for 58,664
sq ft. on 24,644.5 sq.ft of land i.e the land that was settled in favour of the
defendant by late Srinivasarao to the defendant vide Ex.P10 Settlement Deed
dated 22.12.2016. Ex.P13 – Valuation Report dated 20.05.2017 is after
Ex.P12, Lease Deed dated 09.04.2017. Thus, Ex.P.13 Valuation Report
dated 20.05.2017 was intended to maximize the loan.
128. Ex.P13 Valuation Report dated 20.05.2017, also stipulated that
building value can be considered subject to approval from CMDA after Ex.P12
dated 09.04.2017 was signed with M/s.Sree Muragan Educational Trust.
129. In the Ex.P13 Valuation Report dated 20.05.2017, the plot area
has been given as 0.5646 acres which is equivalent to 24644.5 sq.ft. which
corresponds to the extent of land in Ex.P2 Lease Deed dated 15.09.2016 and
the extent of land in Ex.P.12 – Lease Deed signed between late Mr.S.Srinivasa
Rao and M/s.Sri Murugan Educational Trust dated 09.04.2017.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
130. The extent of the land in Ex.P2 Lease Deed dated 15.09.2016,
Ex.P12- Lease Deed dated 09.04.2017 and Ex.P16 Rental Lease Deed
dated11.07.2017 are given in different units of measurement. However, they
are same. The extent of land in sq.ft., cents and grounds are one and the same
as detailed below:-
Exhibit Ex.P2 Ex.P12 Ex.P16
Date 15.09.2016 09.04.2017 11.07.2017
Nature of Lease Deed with Lease Deed with Rental Lease deed
Document Vallimuthu Sri Murugan of Land
Educational Trust Educational Trust
Extent of 24,546 24,644 ½ 24,644 ½ out of
Land in out of 1.09 acres out of 1.09 1.09 acres(47,578
Sq.ft acres(47,578 ½ ½ Sq.ft)
Sq.ft)
Extent in 10 G 228sq.ft 10 G 228sq.ft -
Grounds
Extent of - - 56.46 out of 1.09
Cent acres (47,578 ½
Sq.ft)
Extent of 40,000 28,000* -
Built up +32,000
area(sq.ft) =60000
*Schedule in Ex.P12 lease deed dated 09.04.2017 as First Phase of
Construction .
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
131. Ex.P14 dated 05.06.2017, which is a copy of the Proposal
submitted by the 1st defendant to the Federal Bank, Anna Nagar enclosing
Ex.P.13 Valuation Report dated 20.05.2017 estimate of the plaintiff. Ex.P14
Proposal dated 05.06.2017 estimates the cost of construction as
Rs.9,65,67,205/-. Though Ex.P.13 Valuation Report dated 20.05.2017 was
secured by the defendants for being submitted to Federal Bank, the estimated
cost of construction in Ex.P.13-Valuation Report dated 20.05.2017 given is
only Rs.6,63,00,000/- whereas, the estimated cost of construction in Ex.P14
Proposal dated 05.06.2017 is Rs.9,65,67,205/- as detailed below:-
Project Estimate:-
Building & Amenities estimated as per Sri Bala Rs.8,15,67,205.00
Builders & Promoters*
CMDA Planning Permit & Statutory Fees Rs.1,50,00,000.00
Total Cost of the Project Rs.9,65,67,205.00
(*The plaintiff)
132. The amount of Rs.8,15,67,205.00 in Ex.P14 Proposal dated
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
05.06.2017 has been matched with the estimate in Ex.P.8 dated 21.12.2016
for Rs.8,86,32,898.60. Ex.P14 Proposal dated 05.06.2017 is said to be based
on an estimate of the plaintiff given to the defendants for putting up
construction for a sum of Rs.9,65,67,205/- as detailed above. However, copy
of estimate based on the Bill of Quantities which is said to have been enclosed
by the defendant along with Ex. P14 letter dated 05.06.2017 addressed to
Manager Federal Bank, Anna Nagar after fresh arrangements under Ex.P.16
Rental Lease Deed dated 11.07.2017 registered as Document No.4877 of 2017
formalizing the arrangement in Ex.P.12 Lease Agreement dated 09.04.2017
with M/s.Sree Murugan Educational Trust was signed have not been filed
either by the plaintiff or the defendant. Thus, both plaintiff and defendants
have not given full informations.
133. Ex.P17 dated 14.07.2017is a copy of letter of the plaintiff to
M/s.MSGS Infrastructure and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., for price variation. It was
addressed to the Director of M/s.MSGS Infrastructure and Hospitality Pvt.
Ltd., namely M.S.Venugopal (PW3) and Mr.G.Sundararajan.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
134. Ex.P17 letter dated 14.07.2017 states that there was a delay in
the commencement of the construction on account of various factors and that
due to the delay, the cost of material had increased and that there was a
corresponding increase in the labour charges.
135. Ex.P17 letter dated 14.07.2017 also confirms that the work
was completed up to plinth level only. It is contrary to Ex.P13 report dated
20.05.2017 of approved valuer and Chartered Engineer that was complete only
upto foundation. It also records that the tax component had also increased
from 5% to 6% VAT to 12% GST etc., and therefore requested the said
consultant to inform the owners to reconsider their prices and agreement in the
light of the above.
136. In Ex.P17 letter dated 14.07.2017, the plaintiff stated that on
hearing from the said consultant of the late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao, the plaintiff
will give the actual current pricing for the approval as per Srinivasa Rao’s or
Consultant’s Bill of Quantities.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
137. However, copy of Bill of Quantities which is said to have been
given by late Srinivasa Rao or by their consultant namely M/s.MSGS
Infrastructure and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., have not been filed by the plaintiff. A
“Bill of Quantities” is also said to have been given by M/s.MSGS
Infrastructure and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd, the consultant of late Mr.Srinivasa Rao
to the plaintiff earlier after Ex.P2 lease agreement dated 15.09.2016 that was
signed between late Mr.Srinivasa Rao and M/s.Vallimuthu Educational Trust
for their Velammal New Gen School fell through. The plaintiff has also
responded and had given a quotation vide Ex.P8 dated 21.12.2016 Vallimuthu
Educational Trust for their Velammal New Gen School.
138. Ex.P.15 is a series of whatsapp messages exchanged between
plaintiff and the first defendant from 09.06.2017 to 13.07.2018. Ex.P.15
whatsapp messages indicate that a Pooja was held on 29.09.2017. It also
indicates a message by the defendant informing the plaintiff regarding passing
away of late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao by a whatsapp chat dated 12.03.2018.
139. Ex.P.15 also indicates a message from the Director of the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
plaintiff company to the first defendant on 14.06.2018 regarding handing over
of the bill and that by a reply, the first defendant appears to have requested
that the meeting can be held in office of their late father Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao on
15.06.2018.
140. In one of the messages dated 22.09.2018 in Ex.P.15 series, the
first defendant has stated that she had spoken to her auditor and that
arrangements were being made for payments. It also states that after their
father’s demise they have surrendered Service Tax Registration Number.
141. It is therefore clear that the estimate in Ex.P8 dated 21.12.2016
was for the Bill of Quantities for putting up construction of 40,000 sq.ft. of
built up area for the Velammal New Gen School (later pulled out from the
project) over the land measuring an extent of 10 Grounds and 228 Sq.ft
[equivalent to 24,644 ½ Sq.ft.] which land was settled by the father of the
defendants by Ex.P10 Settlement Deed dated 22.12.2016, in favour of the
defendants. M/s.Vallimuthu Educational Trust however later pulled out from
the project.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
142. Ex.P19 dated 31.07.2017 is yet another letter of the plaintiff
said to have been addressed to late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao during his lifetime and
to the first defendant in furtherance of Ex.P.17 letter dated 14.07.2017, stated
that the plaintiff was submitting a revised estimate on Bill of Quantities on
account of several factors of increased cost in construction material for a sum
of Rs.9,90,38,727/- for putting up the construction of school on behalf of
late.Srinivasa Rao based on the prevailing market Rate.
143. In Ex.P19 dated 31.07.2017, the plaintiff has however offered
5% discount. The defendants have denied the content and receipt of Ex.P19
letter dated 31.07.2017. Ex.P19 dated 31.07.2017 is for the same item of
construction in Ex.P8 dated 22.12.2016. The rate in per Sq.ft. in Ex.P19 dated
31.07.2017 is Rs.4,052/- per sq.ft. [Rs.9,90,38,727/- ÷ 24439 sq.ft]
144. Ex.P19 dated 31.07.2017 is after the dimension of the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
construction was reduced to 28,000 sq.ft. from 40,000 sq.ft. in the first phase
for Sri Murugan Educational Trust for their Sri Chaitanya Educational
Institutions vide Ex.P12 dated 09.04.2017 and Ex.P16 dated 11.07.2017.
145. Ex.P18 are the series of Concreted Cube Test Reports of The
India Cements Limited for the period between 23.07.2017 and 12.01.2018. It
overlaps with Ex.P9 Material Test Reports from between 18.01.2017 and
07.11.2017.
146. Ex.P21 is a series of SMS text chats messages allegedly
exchanged between the plaintiff and the first defendant between 31.01.2018 to
19.02.2019 requesting for payments for the work done till then. Ex.P.21 also
records that the first defendant had taken steps to initiate process for validation
of the bills by the consultant M/s.MSGS Infrastructure and Hospitality Pvt.
Ltd., and that the first defendant would revert thereafter.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
147. Ex.P22 dated 31.01.2018 is a copy of covering letter together
with Adhoc Running Bill for the construction based on the Bill of Quantities
by the plaintiff. In the Adhoc Bill, the plaintiffs has quantified a total sum of
Rs.6,32,09,451.26/- and has extended 5% rebate as was agreed earlier vide
Ex.P19 letter dated 31.07.2017 for a sum of Rs.9,90,38,727/-. There is no
explanation as to why in Ex.P22 dated 31.01.2018 is a copy of covering letter
together with Adhoc Running Bill for the construction based on the Bill of
Quantities was reduced to Rs.6,32,09,451.26/-.
148. The Adhoc Bill enclosed along with Ex.P22 letter dated
31.01.2018 records the payment already made by the defendants and after
adjusting the payments of Rs.3,01,41,336.00 and after giving the discount,
quantified a sum of Rs.4,07,16,458.86/- as due from the defendants. The
abstract of the Adhoc Bill in Ex.P.22 letter dated 31.01.2018 reads as under : -
TOTAL ABSTRACT
TOTAL AMOUNT A+B+C+D Rs.6,32,09,451.26/-
LESS REBATE 5% Rs. 31,60,472.56/-
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Total Rs.6,00,48,978.70/-
ADD:
GST 18% ON Rs.3,32,66,713.20/- Rs.1,08,08,816.17/-
TOTAL Rs.7,08,57,794.86/-
LESS: PAYMENT RECEIVED AS ON DATE Rs.3,01,41,336.00
NET BALANCE DUE PAYABLE Rs.4,07,16,458.86/-
(RUPEES FOUR CRORES SEVEN LAKHS
SIXTEEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY
EIGHT AND PAISE EIGHTY SIX ONLY)
149. Ex.P23 dated 25.06.2018 is a copy of Final Certificate issued
by the consultant of late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao namely M/s.MSGS Infrastructure
and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Ex.P23 dated 25.06.2018 certifies the amount
payable against Ex.P23 Final Bill submitted by the plaintiff for the works done
for construction of School meeting the requirement of Sri Chaitanya Schools.
Ex.P23 dated 25.06.2018 is said to have been certified by the Directors of
M/s.MSGS Infrastructure and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., namely Mr.M.S.Venugopal
[PW3] and by Mr.G.Sundararajan on 25.06.2018 and handed over to the first
defendant.
150. Ex.P23 Final Certificate dated 25.06.2018 states that the net
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
value of the contract after 5% discount for 26,000 sq,ft., as per revised
Quotation was Rs.9,20,86,791. The amount certified in Ex.P23 Final
Certificate dated 25.06.2018 is almost similar to the amount specified in
Ex.P19 dated 31.07.2017. It records and states that the balance amount
payable by the defendants was Rs.4,63,92,105.35/- after adjustment of
payment. It also admits to the amounts paid by the defendant earlier. The
details of the Final Certificate of M/s.MSGS Infrastructure and Hospitality Pvt.
Ltd. in Ex.P23 dated 25.06.2018 reads as follows:-
FINAL CERTIFICATE
Certificate No.MSGS/KVSN/BALA/Chaitanya/02/25.06.2018
Name of the Client (As Mr.S.Srinivasa
in Agreement) Rao
Name of the Project Building for Sri
Chaitanya
Schools-Perungudi
Name of the Sri Bala Builders
Contractor & Promoters
Pvt.Ltd
Net Value of Contract, Rs.9,20,86,791.00
after 5% Discount for
26000 Sq.ft., as per
Revised Quotation
Value of Bill submitted Rs.8,84,77,125.22
Value Certified Rs.8,74,21,757.92
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Less: Rebate 5% on Rs.38,92,226.15
BOQ Rates
Net Value after Rebate Rs.8,35,29,531.77
Less: Retention 2.5%
on Rs.5,24,00,525.69
(Rs.8,35,29,531.77
Bill No.2 & Part
Rs.3,11,29,006.08 =
Rs.5,24,00,525.69) Rs.13,10,013.14
Net after Retention Rs.8,22,19,518.63
Add: GST 18% on Rs.1,47,99,513.35
Rs.8,22,19,518.63
Total Value including Rs.9,70,19,031.98
GST
Details of Payment Rs.4,90,01,336.00
Made: (Rs.80,91,336/-
+ Rs.2,20,50,000/- +
Rs.1,20,00,000/- +
Rs.68,60,000/-)
Amount now payable Rs.4,80,17,695.98
on Bill
Add: Pooja Expenses Rs.45,000.00
incurred on House
warming ceremony
Amount payable as on Rs.4,80,62,695.98
date
TDS @ 2% on Rs.16,70,590.63
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Rs.8,35,29,531.77
Amount Now Payable Rs.4,63,92,105.35
after TDS
151. Ex.P23 dated 25.06.2018 also records that the Final Certificate
was for the work done for Sri Chaitanya Schools as was required by the
defendants. It also certifies the following note:-
“MSGS INFRASTRUCTURE & HOSPITALITY PVT LTD
B3, I Floor, “Srivastsam”, Old No.43, New No.58,
Thirumalai Pillai Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Tel:
28342693, Fax: 28342793.
25/06/2018
NOTE:
We have been asked by Mr.G.Jayaraman of M/s.Sri
Bala Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd., for Final
Certificate for the work done for Sri Chaitanya
Schools, as required by you.
The amount payable is apart from the Retention
Amount.
Any defects arising in the Construction work as
above shall be attended to at their cost by M/s.Sri
Bala Builders & Promoters Pvt.Ltd., for a period of
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
one year.
Retention Amount shall be reimbursed to M/s.Sri
Bala Builders & Promoters Pvt.Ltd., on completion
of one year from the date of this Certificate.
The TDS Amount for the Total Bill Value of
Rs.8,35,29,531.77, works out to Rs.16,70,590.63.
If you have already paid any amount out of the
above, the same may be deducted and the balance
remitted to the TDS A/c.
In such an event, TDS already so paid has to be
credited to M/s.Sri Bala Builders & Promoters
Pvt.Ltd., and the deduction of Rs.16,70,590.63 will
correspondingly reduce.”
152. Though in Ex.23 Final Certificate dated 25.06.2018 the
consultant M/s.MSGS Infrastructure and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. has certified the
balance amount payable as Rs.4,63,92,105.35, the plaintiff has restricted the
suit claim for a sum of Rs.3,80,23,586.80 without GST as detailed below:-
Certified Value - Rs. 8,74,21,757.92
Less Rebate 5% on BOQ Rates Rs.38,92,226.15
Balance due after Rebate- Rs. 8,35,29,53 1.77
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Add supplementary Bill- Rs.2,39,951.46
Add Pooja expenses - Rs.45,000.00
Total value - Rs. 8,38, 14,483.23
Less payment received
during Construction Rs. 4,90,01,336.00
Balance amount to be paid Rs. 3,48, 13,147.23
Interest at the rate of 9% on
Rs.3,48, 13,147.23 from
25.6.2018 To 4-7-2019 - Rs.32,10,439.82
Net due inclusive of interest
as on 4-7-2019- Rs. 3,80,23,586.80
GST @ 18% on total value of
Rs. 8,70,24,922.82 = Rs.1,56,64,486.10
153. The certified amounts in Ex.P23 dated 25.06.2018 indicates
that there is a huge escalation between Ex.P22 Adhoc Bill and Final Bills
forming part of Ex.P23. In Ex.P23 dated 25.06.2018, there is a reference to a
revised quotation of the plaintiff for Rs. 9,20,86,791/-. However, in Ex.P19
dated 21.07.2017, the plaintiff has estimated an amount of Rs.9,90,38,727.46
as payable. On the aforesaid amount a rebate of Rs.49,51,936.373/- at 5% was
offered to arrive at an estimate of Rs.9,40,86,791.09. The amount in Ex.P22
Adhoc Bill dated 31.01.2018 and Final bills certified or payable in Ex.P23
dated 25.06.2018 by the said consultant are under five categories as detailed
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
below:-
Sl. Description of Items Ex.P22 Adhoc Ex.P23-Final Bill in Ex.P23 -
Bill dt- Rupees refer to in Certified
No 21.01.2018 in Ex.P23 Final Bill
Rupees dated
25.06.2018 in
Rupees
A General Builder 5,49,32,433.71 5,68,89,824.01 5,60,08,108.16
Works
B Services 14,50,000.00 72,19,934.00 71,93,134.00
C External Works 32,85,374.00 1,46,91,165.28 1,46,43,280.83
D Extra Items 35,41,643.15 84,92,605.20 83,93,638.20
Total A+B+C+D 6,32,09,451.26 8,72,93,528.5 8,62,38,161.2
E Bill for Adjoining - 11,83,596.73 11,83,596.73
Plot
Total A+B+C+D+E 6,32,09,451.26 8,84,77,125.22 8,74,21,757.92
After GST and Rebate
Description of Items Ex.P22 Adhoc Ex.P23-Final Bill Ex.P23-
Bill Certified
Final Bill
Total Abstract 6,32,09,451.26 8,84,77,125.22 8,74,21,757.92
Total Amount 6,00,48,978.70 39,40,046.16 38,92,226.15
Less: Rebate 5% (A+B+C) (A+B+C)
ADD: 1,08,08,816.17 - -
GST 18%
Total 7,08,57,794.86 8,45,37,079.1 8,35,29,531.77
Less: Retention 2.5% - *13,35,201.82 #13,10,013.14
on
Rs.5,34,08,072.97*
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Rs.5,24,00,525.69#
Balance Due - 8,32,01,877.23 8,22,19,518.6
ADD: - 1,49,76,337.90 1,47,99,513.3
GST 18%
Total - 9,81,78,215.13 9,70,19,031.9
Less: Payment 3,01,41,336.00 4,90,01,336 4,90,01,336
Received
Net Balance Due 4,07,16,458.86 4,91,76,879.13 4,80,17,695.9
*5,34,08,072.97 [Rs.8,45,37,079.1 - 3,11,29,006.08 (Bill 2 & part)]
#5,24,00,525.69 [ Rs.8,35,29,531.77 - 3,11,29,006.08 (Bill 2 & part]
154. Ex.P24 dated 05.09.2018 is a reminder letter sent by the
plaintiff to the first defendant tracing out the entire history with the request to
the first defendant to settle the amounts. In Ex.P24 reminder dated
05.09.2018, the plaintiff has informed the defendants that the pending
miscellaneous works were completed and a final bill was raised as was
instructed by the first defendant on 15.06.2018 for as sum of Rs. 8,35,29,531
(excluding GST and after rebate of 5 percentage)
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
155. Ex.P24 dated 05.09.2018 further states that the first defendant
had requested the bills to be certified by the said consultant namely M/s.MSGS
Infrastructure and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., to ensure that the amounts specified in
the bills raised were in order and the same was certified by the Directors of
M/s.MSGS Infrastructure and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd on 25.06.2018 vide Ex.P23.
156. Ex.P25 is a copy of E-mail dated 05.09.2018 of the plaintiff
addressed to the first defendant attaching the payment requests letter for
necessary action from the defendants.
157. Ex.P26 dated 24.10.2018 is a legal notice sent on behalf of the
plaintiff to the defendants calling upon the defendants to pay a sum of
Rs.4,63,92,105.35/- (after TDS) along with interest at the rate of 15% p.a,
with effect from 25.06.2018.
158. It further states that the Final Bill submitted was for the total
constructed area of 24,439 Sq ft of the building and infrastructure facility over
the total land area of 10 Grounds and 228 Sq ft being the Phase-I of the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
project and the remaining 1561 Sq.ft was not constructed as per the instruction
given by the first defendant and the school authority stating that the balance
area of 1561 Sq.ft, could be utilized for constructing Phase-II.
159. Ex.P27 dated 08.01.2019 is a reply of the defendants. In
Ex.P27 dated 08.01.2019 it is stated that the total cost of construction as per
the standard rates by taking into account of the material used and their brands
and the workmanship the final value of the entire construction was only
Rs.5,10,00,000/- and not Rs.9,70,19,031/- as was certified in Ex.P23 dated
25.06.2018 including GST at 18% and after giving rebate of 5% and retention
at 2.5%.
160. It further stated that the defendants were agreeable to settle the
remaining balance after giving due credits to the amounts paid out of
Rs.5,10,00,000/- and incase the plaintiff agreed, the same will be paid. In
other words, the defendants were agreeable to pay a sum of Rs.19,98,664/-
[ Rs.5,10,00,000/- _ Rs.4,90,01,336/-].
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
161. In the above background, the plaintiff has issued Ex.P28 police
complaint dated 02.03.2019 asking the Commissioner of Police, Greater
Chennai to take action against the defendants for cheating the plaintiff.
162. Ex.P29 is the copy of the M Book maintained at the site by the
plaintiff. It is submitted by the plaintiff that based on Ex.P29 M Book, the
final bills submitted by the plaintiff was duly certified by the consultant
namely MSG Infrastructure and Hospitality Private Limited vide Ex.P23 Final
Certificate dated 25.06.2018.
163. Ex.P30 is the copy of the Master Data Sheet of the plaintiff
company.
164. On behalf of defendants Ex.D1 valuation report dated
19.11.2018 was marked through DW3, a Chartered Engineer appointed by the
defendant. In his report, DW3 has stated that though the sanctioned plan is
58,799 sq.ft., the total constructed area is 24,430 sq.ft. and value of work was
arrived based on Sq.ft rate and not on Bill of Quantities. In Ex.D1 dated
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
19.11.2018, the Chartered Engineer of the defendant has estimated the total
cost of construction as Rs.5,10,000/- (approximately working out Rs.2000 per
sq.ft x 24430= Rs.4,88,60,000/-) which has been reiterated in Ex.P27 reply
notice dated 08.01.2019 given to the plaintiff.
165. As mentioned above, this Court by an order dated 07.11.2019
in A.No.5957 of 2019 had appointed an Advocate Commissioner/Chartered
Engineer. The Chartered Engineer deposed evidence as CW-1. CW-1 has given
Ex.C1 Report dated 25.07.2020. On perusal of Ex.C1 indicates that the site
was inspected on 15.03.2019 by CW-1, the Chartered Engineer. The Ex.C1 is
addressed to the Advocate Commissioner. Contents of Ex.C1 dated
25.07.2020 is extracted below:-
It is hereby certified that I have personally visited
and inspected the building for which the value of
construction is being assessed. Physical
measurements have been taken at all necessary
locations. I have taken hold of the drawings and
plans as prepared and approved for construction.
The structural and detailed construction drawings
have been used for estimation. It is noted that due
to the depth of foundation from the finished floor
level, at two levels the Tie beams are provided.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Excavation quantities include the building plan
areas.
Filling all ground and inside the plinth up to the
required heights is considered. Also, the filling
and development work on the vacant land on the
South Eastern side is also included. That the
compound wall has been raised by one extra foot
is noted. Entrance arches in RCC FRAMES also
been estimated. All underground and overhead
water reservoirs/tanks are also accounted for. The
bill of quantities has been systematically worked
out. On the BOQ so arrived at, the schedule of
rates has been applied to arrive at the value. The
value so arrived is Rs.8,19,47,351/- (Rupees
Eight Crores Nineteen Lakhs Forty-Seven
Thousand Three hundred and Fifty-One Only).
Based on the physical site inspection and
measurements taken during the inspection: Total
land area for Phase-1 Constructions ( As per
Drawing) is 10 Grounds nd 228 sq.ft. Adjoining
plot area on the rear side of the building provided
children’s play area, developed with compound
wall and separate gate for the area measuring a
total extent of 3 grounds. Height of the building
and rooms are constructed as per the Government
guidelines.
Based on the inspection and study of structural
drawings, the foundation of the building
structured and constructed towards provision for
additional two more floors in the building.
166. As per Ex.C1, Report dated 25.07.2020, marked through PW-
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
1, the total cost of the construction arrived is Rs.8,19,37,351/-(Rupees Eight
Crore Nineteen Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty One
only). The amount of Rs.8,19,37,351/- certified by CW1 in Ex.C1 dated
25.07.2020 almost mirrors with the amount of Rs.8,22,19,518/- certified in
Ex.P23 Final Certificate dated 25.06.2017 without GST component of 18%
and after giving rebate and deducting amounts towards retention.
167. The CW1 has not given the exact extent of construction put up
by the plaintiff for the defendant in Ex.C1 Report dated 25.7.2020. It merely
states that it is based on the inspection and study of structural drawings, the
foundations of the building structure constructed towards provisions for
additional two more floors in the building. The report of CW-1 cannot be relied
upon as it has merely reiterated Ex.P23 certificate dated 25.06.2018 of the
consultant and has merely extracted the amounts in Ex.P23 dated 25.06.2018.
I shall deal with this later in detail.
168. Ex.D2 dated 11.10.2020 is another Valuation Report of D.W.3
Mr.K.Natarajan examined on behalf of the defendant. In Ex.D2 Valuation
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Report dated 11.10.2020, D.W.3 has stated as follows:-
“I have worked out the cost of construction for the
year 2018 on plinth Area rates of Rs.2000/sft. And
cost of my valuation more or less tallies with the
total value of Rs.5,10,00,000/- for the above work.
The other valuer has estimated the cost of
Rs.8,20,00,000/- for the area of 24430 sft
constructed Area. The Plinth Area works out to
Rs.3400/sft which is abnormal. The construction
cost in the year 2020 as per Market rate is
Rs.2500/sft only. It is evident the valuer boosted the
rates in favour of contractor for all the items
mentioned in the Abstract Estimate. As there is no
construction Agreement between the Landlord and
the contractor. The Rates have been boosted to suit
the Advantage to the contractor. If the item rates
and plinth Area rates are mentioned in the
approved construction agreement the cost of
valuation will be approximately same in both the
valuation.
A detailed comparative study enclosed shows that
he has worked the cost of Rs.3,10,00,000/- above
the actual cost of Construction Area.”
169. The said Valuer refers to CW1. In Ex.D2 dated 11.10.2020,
DW3 has further stated that since there is no construction agreement between
the land lords (defendants) and the contractor (plaintiff), the value in Ex.C1
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Report dated 05.08.2020 of CW1, the Chartered Engineer appointed by the
court who has estimated the amount for a sum of Rs.8,20,00,000/- and who
deposed evidence as a Court witness for constructed area of 24,430 Sq.ft was
abnormal and that the CW1 had boosted the rate abnormally in favour of the
plaintiff. In Ex.D2, D.W3, Chartered Engineer appointed by the defendant has
also made a comparison between the the amount that has been certified by
Chartered Engineer in Ex.C1 and the amount arrived by him working out in
Bill of Quantities.
170. Thus, before this Court there are different set of estimates of the
plaintiff and the defendants at different point of time.
171. The first estimate of the plaintiff is in Ex.P8 dated 21.12.2016
was for a sum of Rs.8,86,32,898.60/-. This was for putting up a construction
over the land in Ex.P10 Deed of Settlement dated 22.12.2016 executed by Late
Srinivasa Rao in favour of the 1st and 2nd defendant measuring an extent of
56.46 cents or 24,644 ½ sq.ft.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
172. The estimate in Ex.P8 dated 21.12.2016 is said to have been
given by the plaintiff is immediately after execution of Ex.P2 Lease Agreement
dated 14.11.2016 with M/s.Vallimuthu Educational Trust for their Velammal
New Gen School. Therefore, the estimate was for putting up a construction of
40,000 sq.ft. over the land in Ex.P10 Deed of Settlement dated 22.12.2016.
173. This is evident from Ex.P.2-Lease Deed dated 15.09.2016 with
Vallimuthu Educational Trust and Ex.P.3 – Letter dated 20.10.2016 issued to
the plaintiff by late S.Srinivas Rao. Thereafter, application for planning
approval /building permit was filed with the CMDA on 04.11.2016. This
application was filed at the time when, the arrangement with the said
Vallimuthu Educational Trust was still there under Ex.P2 Lease Agreement
dated 14.11.2016.
174. However, the arrangement between late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao and
the said M/s.Vallimuthu Educational Trust fizzled out and thereafter a fresh
Lease Deed was signed in Ex.P12 dated 09.04.2017 between
late.Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao and M/s.Sree Muragan Educational Trust for
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
construction of Sri Chaitanya Educational Institutions in two phases measuring
an extent of 60,000 sq.ft. as mentioned above.
175. Under Ex.P.12 Lease Deed dated 09.04.2017 construction over
the land settled in favour of the defendant by late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao vide
Ex.P10 dated 22.12.2016 was reduced to 28,000 sq.ft. in the first phase.
176. It is not clear as to whether at the time of filing the application
for building approval on 04.11.2016, the application was filed for construction
of 40,000 sq.ft. of built up area as per Ex.P2 Lease Agreement dated
14.11.2016 or 60,000 sq.f.t as was contemplated later. On 04.11.2016, the
proposal in the application dated 4.11.2016 was over an extent of land covered
by Ex.P.10- Settlement Deed dated 22.12.2016 measuring an extent of 24,664
½ sq.ft. out of total extent of 1 acre and 9 cents which was earlier proposed to
be used for construction of School for 40,000 sq.ft. of built up area to suit the
requirements of Vellammal New Gen School of M/s.Vallimuthu Educational
Trust in terms of Ex.P.2 dated 14.11.2016.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
177. In Ex.P13 Valuation Report dated 12.05.2017, of
M/s.B.S.Ushadevi which was procured by the defendants for getting loan from
Federal Bank, Anna Nagar Branch, the Valuer estimated the total cost of
construction as Rs.6,63,00,000/-. This was after Ex.P12 dated 09.04.2017
was signed with M/s.Sree Muragan Educational Trust for construction of Sri
Chaitanya Educational Institutions in two phases measuring an extent of
60,000 sq.ft.as mentioned above over the entire extent of land measuring 1
acres and 9 cents. In Ex.P.13 Valuation Report dated 12.05.2017, however,
the said valuer has confirmed that only 10% of the work was completed up to
the plinth level amounting to Rs.66,30,000/-. In Ex.P.13 – Valuation Report
dated 12.05.2017, the extent of construction is 58,664 sq.ft., [56,361.09 sq.ft
FSI + 2,303.00 sq.ft NON FSI]. The first defendant herself has however
enclosed a copy of an estimate given by the plaintiff to the defendants in
Ex.P.14 dated 05.06.2017 for Rs.8,15,67,205.00.
178. The defendant in Ex.P.14 dated 05.06.2017 has also submitted
a revised estimate of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.9,65,67,205/-
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
.[Rs.8,15,67,205/- + GST Rs.1,50,00,000/-]. However, neither the plaintiff nor
the defendant have filed the copy of the estimates of the plaintiff which is said
to have been given by the plaintiff to the defendant which was said to have
been enclosed along with Ex.P14 dated 05.06.2017 addressed to The
Manager, Federal Bank, Anna Nagar, Chennai.
179. In Ex.P19 dated 31.07.2019, the plaintiff has further increased
the cost to Rs.9,90,38,727.46 without GST content for the item specified in
Ex.P8 Quotation dated 21.12.2016. On the aforesaid amount of
Rs.9,90,38,727.46 in Ex.P19 dated 31.07.2019, the plaintiff has given a rebate
of Rs.49,51,936.37 at 5% and had claimed a net amount to Rs.9,40,86,791.09
(Rs.9,90,38,727.46 –Rs. 49,51,936.37). The defendant has not admitted to
Ex.P.19 dated 31.07.2019. There is no proof it was received by the defendant.
180. In the Final Bill, that was submitted, the plaintiff reduced the
estimated amount for Rs.9,90,38,727.46 in Ex.P19 dated 31.07.2019 was
reduced to Rs.8,84,77,124.22/-. It includes a sum of Rs.83,93,638.20 for the
extra Items and Rs.11,83,596.75 for work carried out in the adjoining plot
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
which was not contemplated in the estimated amount of Rs.9,90,38,727.46 in
Ex.P19 dated 31.07.2019. The consultant has approved the Final bills
submitted by the plaintiff Vide Ex.P23 Final Certificate dated 25.06.2018 for
Rs.8,74,21,757.92/- as stated above.
181. The report of the CW-1, Chartered Engineer appointed by the
Court which was marked as Ex.C1 more or less corresponds to the amount in
Ex.P.23 Final certificate dated 25.06.2018 of the consultant. There is however
no discussion regarding the nature of work carried out by the plaintiff and a
comparison between the estimate that was given by the plaintiff in Ex.P8 dated
21.12.2016 for 40,000/-Sq.ft of built up area that was proposed to be put up
by the plaintiff and 28,000 sq.ft. under the changed circumstances after
M/s.Vallimuthu Educational Trust exited and paved way for M/s.Sree Muragan
Educational Trust to start a school complex measuring 60,000 Sq.ft of built up
area to be constructed in two phase viz., 28,000 Sq.ft and 32,000 Sq.ft.
182. There is no dispute that the plaintiff is entitled to charge the
defendants on the basis of “Bill of Quantities” for the construction in terms of
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Ex.P3 letter dated 20.10.2016. As per Ex.P.3 dated 20.10.2016, the plaintiff
was to give an estimate based on Bill of Quantities to late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao.
As per Ex.P.3 letter dated 20.10.2016 of late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao the Director
of plaintiff, Mr.G.Jayaraman, was to proceed with the construction after
approval of the project estimates and after mutual discussions. As per Ex.P.3
letter dated 20.10.2016, the plaintiff was merely permitted to put up a Bore
well, Temporary Workers Shed and obtain a temporary E.B.connection.
183. Whether estimate in Bill of Quantity (BOQ) was to be certified
by the consultant namely M.S.G.Infrastructure & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.,
appointed by late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao or not is not clearly discernible. In any
event, Bill of Quantity (BOQ) for putting up 28,000 sq.ft of building on
24,644 ½ sq.ft. of land is not available after the circumstances changed.
184. The admitted position is that the plaintiff has put up only
24,439 Sq ft of construction out of 28,000Sq.ft in the First Phase of
construction as has been admitted in Ex.P26 legal notice dated 24.10.2018.
This is confirmed by the plaintiff and the defendants. This extent more or less
confirmed by Ex.D2 valuation report dated 11.10.2020 wherein it is stated that
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
the total constructed portion was 24,430 sq.ft.
185. A reading of Ex.P22 dated 31.12.2018 enclosing Adhoc Bill
indicates that the aforesaid bill was for the construction of a School Building to
suit the requirement of Chaitanya School of Sri Murugan Educational Trust in
1st phase. However, by Ex.P23 – Final certificate dated 25.06.2018, the
plaintiffs consultation MSGS Infrastructure and Hospitality Pvt.Ltd., have
certified the net amount payable as Rs.9,70,19,031.98/- inclusive of GST of
Rs.1,47,99,513.35.
186. The final Certificate of the Consultant in Ex.P23 Final
certificate dated 25.06.2018 was after the death of the father of the defendants,
late S.Srinivasa Rao on 12.03.2018. In the suit claim, the plaintiff has not
claimed GST and has included Rs.13,10,013.14 towards retention amount and
TDS of Rs.16,70,590.63 at 2 % on Rs.8,35,29,531.77 as was certified in
Ex.P23 Final certificate dated 25.06.2018.
187. In Ex.P23 dated 25.06.2023, the Consultant has itemised the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
work into five categories as detailed below:-
SL.No Work description Sl.No Amount (in Rs.)
A General Builders Work 1 to 16* 5,60,08,108.16
B Services 17 to 21* 71,93,134.00
C External Work 22 to 40* 1,46,43,280.83
D Extra Items 1 to 55 83,93,638.20
E Adjoining Work - 11,83,596.73
* Corresponds to Item No.1-40 in Ex.P8 Quotation dated 21.12.2016.
188. It is not clear how the amount of Rs.6,32,09,451.26 less rebate
for a sum of Rs.31,60,472.56 amounting to Rs.6,00,48,978.70 + GST at 18%
of Rs.1,08,08,816.17, totaling to Rs.7,08,57,794/-estimated in Ex.P22 Adhoc
Bill dated 31.01.2018 was increased to Rs.9,70,19,031.98 in Ex.P23 dated
25.06.2018.
189. In Ex.P22 dated 31.08.2018, the total value of the Adhoc Bill
as per the plaintiff was Rs.7,08,57,794/- including GST at 18% at
1,08,816.17. The total value of the Final bill submitted was for
Rs.8,84,77,125/-. Out of the aforesaid amount, the consultant certified the
value of Final bill at Rs.8,74,21,757/-. After giving 5% rebate and retention
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
and adding 18% GST the gross amount has been arrived at
Rs.9,70,19,031.98/-.
190. After giving credit of the amounts of Rs.4,90,01,336/- paid by
the defendant to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.4,80,17,695/- was certified as due
and payable by the said consultant in Ex.P23 dated 25.06.2018 after adding a
sum of Rs.45,000/- towards the pooja expenses incurred on Warming
Ceremony. Mis-expenses was added and TDS was deducted to arrive at
Rs.4,63,92,105.35.
191. In Ex.D1 dated 19.11.2018 marked through DW3 on behalf of
the defendants, DW3 has confirmed that as per sanctioned plan viz., E.P20
dated 05.12.2017, the area sanctioned by CMDA is 58,799 sq.ft. Ex.P20
dated 05.12.2017 was for construction of GF+2F (Ground Floor + 2 Floors).
It more or less confirms and corresponds with the total extent of 60,000 sq.ft.
GF+2F to the area that was proposed to be constructed in two phases of
28,000 and 32,000 sq.ft for M/s.Sri Murugan Educational Trust for their Sri
Chaitanya Educational Institutions in terms of Ex.P12 lease deed dated
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
09.04.2017.
192. The CW1 Chartered Engineer appointed by this Court has
worked out the cost of the construction based on Bill of Quantities in Ex.C1
dated 25.07.2020 as Rs.8,19,37,351/-(Eight Crore Nineteen Lakh Thirty
Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty One only). It works to Rs.3,353/-
per sq.ft. (Rs.8,19,47,351÷24,439).
193. On the other hand, the defendant has worked out the cost at the
rate of Rs.2086/- per sq.ft. (5,10,00,000 ÷ 24,439) in Ex.D1 dated 19.11.2018
marked through DW3. The consultant in Ex.P23 Final Certificate dated
25.06.2018 has certified the cost of construction at Rs.3,577/- per
sq.ft.(Rs.8,74,21,757.92 ÷ 24,439).
194. During the cross examination, P.W3 has also stated that the
plaintiff was one of the builder whose name was suggested by M/s.MSGS
Infrastructure and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. No documents have been produced by
PW3 to show that amounts were paid by late Srinivasa Rao to them for the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
work undertaken by them as consultant. Thus, there are sufficient indications
that the amounts were inflated in Ex.P23.
195. There are also no records to show that M/s.MSGS
Infrastructure and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., was formally authorized by late
Srinivasa Rao for negotiating the rate with the plaintiff as their consultant
which also stands admitted by P.W3. There are also no documents filed to
substantiate that the said consultant was appointed or any letter was issued
appointing them as consultant.
196. It thus emerges, no Bill of Quantity either of the consultant
appointed by the defendants father late Mr.Srinivasa Rao or defendant for the
changed work was arrived. Perhaps, the plaintiff expected the defendants to
give the work for the construction of entire extent of 60,000 sq.ft of built up
area on the entire land of 1 acre and 9 cents as per Ex.P.12 dated 09.04.2017
under the changed scenario. However, the defendant restricted the work of the
plaintiff to 28,000 sq.ft in 1st phase of construction as per Ex.P12 dated
09.04.2017 and Ex.P16 dated 11.07.2017.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
197. Though in the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that even when
Ex.P.2 was signed on 15.09.2016, the arrangement was split into two phases
of 26,000 sq.ft. and 34,000 sq.ft. totalling an extent of 60,000 sq.ft. However,
there are no records to substantiate the same.
198. P.W.3 has also confirmed that the construction that was to be
originally built for M/s. Velammal New Gen school was only 40,000 sq.f.t and
that the construction did not proceded further after it commenced. P.W3 has
also confirmed that the construction for M/s.Velammal Educational Trust in
terms of Ex.P2 Lease Agreement datd 15.09.2016 for 40,000 sq.ft was to be
constructed in a single phase and not in two phase. The deposition of PW3
reads as under:-
Q.20. As per the lease deed requirement M/s Valliammal
Educational Trust required a building measuring 40,000
sq.ft. Are you aware?
A: am not aware of that 40,000 sq.ft. Now only after
seeing the agreement I came to know that the 40,000 sq.ft.
Q.21. The 40,000 sq.ft as per the Ex.P2 was to be
constructed in single phase. Is it correct?
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
A: Yes
199. The revised quotation in Ex.P.19 dated 31.07.2017 for
Rs.9,40,86,791/- without GST and Ex.P.23 dated 25.06.2018 are after Ex.P.12
dated 09.04.2017 was signed with Sri Murugan Educational Trust and later
formalised in Ex.P16 dated 11.07.2017. Therefore, it has to be concluded that
estimate of Ex.P.8 was for 40,000 sq.ft. and not an extent of 26,000 sq.ft. as
has been alleged in the plaint.
200. When Ex.P.3 a letter dated 26.10.2018 was issued to the
plaintiff by late S.Srinivasa Rao, late S.Srinivasa Rao had already entered into
an unregistered lease deed for land in Ex.P2 dated 15.09.2016 with
M/s.Vallimuthu Education Trust. In terms of the Ex.P2 Lease Agreement dated
15.09.2016, late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao was to construct a school complex merely
40,000 Sq.ft for Velammal New Gen School of M/s.Vallimuthu Education
Trust on the land measuring an extent of 10 grounds and 228 sq.ft situated at
S.No.51/1B, Corporation Road, Seevaram village, Perungudi, Chennai which
land was later settled in favour of the defendants by late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao by
Ex.P10 Settlement Deed dated 22.12.2016.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
201. It is also not clear from the records as to when the construction
started. However, Ex.P.17 dated 14.07.2017 records that the construction
began some time in August/September 2016, though as per Ex.P3 letter dated
20.10.2016, the land was given only in late October 2016 for carrying
preliminary work. Neither, the plaintiff nor the defendants have also reduced
terms of contract in a document to that effect. Fact however remains that
CMDA gave its approval for construction vide Ex.P20 dated 05.12.2017.
202. Although, the plaintiff would state that the amounts in Ex.P23
dated 25.6.2018 was duly certified by the consultant of the defendant namely
M/s.MSGS Infrastructure and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., based on Ex.P29 M-Book
maintained by P.W.2, the fact remains that the certificate in Ex.P.23 is based
on Ex.P5 which is an unsigned photocopy of agreement dated 07.11.2016.
203. There is a drastic difference in amount specified in Ex.P22
Adhoc Bill dated 31.01.2018 and the amounts certified in Ex.P23 Final
Certificate dated 25.06.2018. Ex.P22 adhoc bill dated 31.01.2018 for 24,439
sq.ft of built up area of Rs.7,08,57,794.86/- inclusive of GST of
Rs.1,08,08,816.17/- appears improbable and shows the plaintiff has taken
advantage of the situation on account of death of late.Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Ex.P22 – Adhoc Bill is dated 31.01.2018. The death of late.Mr.S.Srinivasa
Rao was on 12.3.2018.
204. The undated Bill No.3 and Final Bill of the plaintiff which has been
certified by the aforesaid consultancy namely MSGS Infrastructure Hospitality and
Private Limited on 25.06.2018 vide Ex.P23 is for the same extent of construction of
24,439 sq.ft. It is highly exaggerated and is not based on any contract based on any
approved “Bill of Quantities” for construction of 24,439 sq.ft. It was perhaps
exaggerated on account of refusal of the defendant to settle the amounts and refusal to
hand over the work to the plaintiff for Phase-II.
205. The defendants perhaps gave an indication to the plaintiff that
the plaintiff will be allowed to put construction of building in the second phase
after completion of the first phase of 28,000Sq ft. of building in terms of
Ex.P.12 Lease Deed dated 09.04.2017 with Srimurugan Educational Trust.
The truth however lies hidden in between. Both the plaintiff and the
defendants are silent.
206. Although, Ex.P23 Final Certificate dated 25.06.2018 is signed
by P.W.3 and by Mr.G.Soundararajan, the said Mr.G.Soundarrajan who
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
appears to be the friend of defendant’s father late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao, he
should have appeared and deposed as a witness before this Court. Therefore,
adverse inference has to be drawn against plaintiff for not producing
Mr.G.Soundarrajan as a witness. At the same time, there is no dispute that the
plaintiff has done the construction work for the defendants.
207. Item wise, comparison between the amount specified in Adhoc
bill in Ex.P22 dated 31.01.2018 and Final Bill-3 and corrections made by the
consultant pursuant to which, Ex.P23 –Final Certificate dated 25.06.2018 are
tabulated below:-
S.No. Description of Ex.P.22 Adhoc Final Bill No.3 Ex.P.23-
items Bill in Rupees Certified Final
Given for Bill
certificate in
Ex.P.23 in
Rupees
A GENERAL
BUILDER
WORKS
1.00 Site 6,93,000.00 6,93,000.00 6,93,000.00
Development
2.00 Earth Work 10,821,118.82 10,81,186.62 10,81,186.62
Excavation
3.00 Sand Filling - -
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
4.00 Plain Cement 4,90,586.25 8,67,994.05 8,67,994.05
concrete (PCC)
5.00 Reinforced 99,97,219.51 1,10,29,640.55 1,09,22,174.46
Cement concrete
(RCC)
6.00 Shuttering 45,24,626.53 43,06,753.53 41,98,328.53
(Form Work)
7.00 Super Structure 49,24,997.79 50,97,678.58 50,10,464.21
Brick Work
8.00 Internal Vertical 65,11,063.00 57,54,065.75 55,42,764.63
Masonry
Surfacs-Wall
Plastering,
Ceiling
Plastering &
External wall
plastering
9.00 Vetrified Floor 37,05,950.00 48,30,407.49 48,31,099..14
tiling & wall
Dado
10.00 Joineries- 30,39,150.00 23,30,578.50 22,76,794.77
carpentry doors
& windows
11.00 Reinforcement 1,12,93,128.00 1,06,52,019.84 1,06,52,019.84
Steel work
12.00 Painting & 18,82,500.00 33,05,750.27 29,89,128.06
Polishing
13.00 Basement filing 67,88,093.73 52,94,657.52 52,94,657.52
inside and
outside
14.00 Weathering - - 16.48,496.32
Course and
pressed tile work
TOATL 5,49,32,433.7 5,68,89,824.01 5,60,08,108.16
B SERVICES
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
1.00 Electrical Works 7,00,000.00 36,23,551.00 36,23,551.00
2.00 Plumbing Works 7,50,000.00 35,96,383.00 35,69,583.00
Total 14,50,00,000 72,19,934.00 71,93,134.00
C EXTERNAL
WORKS
1.00 Interlock Paving 26,15,158.42 26,09,311.74
2.00 Compounding 9,91,544.40 23,51,835.40 23,49,636.28
Wall & Gate
3.00 External - 17,62,050.10 17,86,891.45
Elevation Work
4.00 STP, UG Sump, 20,05,080.00 60,48,351.04 59,83,671.04
Rain water soak
pit & all other
external works
5.00 Borewell Two 2,88,750.00 19,13,770.32 19,13,770.32
Nos.
6.00 Solar System -
Total Amount 32,85,374.40 1,46,91,165,28 1,46,43,280.83
Total Amount 5,96,67,808.01 7,88,00,923.29 7,78,44,522.99
A+B+C
D Extra Items
1.00 Extra Items 35,41,643.15 84,92,605.20 83,93,638.20
Total Amount 6,32,09,451.26 8,72,93,528.5 8,62,38,161.2
A+B+C+D
Bill No.3 & 11,83,596.73
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Final
Total Amount 8,84,77,125.22 8,74,21,757.92
A+B+C+D+E
208. A comparison of Ex.P22 Adhoc Bill dated 31.01.2018 and the
Final Bills Certified in Ex.P23 dated 25.06.2018 which were submitted by the
plaintiff to the said consultant M/s.MSGS Infrastructure and Hospitality Pvt.
Ltd., indicate that the amounts have increased manifold times for the items
specified under the heading Services and External work as compared with
Ex.P8 dated 31.12.2016 being the alleged estimate given by the petitioner for
putting up construction for 40,000 sq.ft for M/s.Vallimuthu Educational Trust
for which the plaintiff had quoted only a sum of Rs.8,86,32,898/- in Ex.P8
dated 31.12.2016.
209. The increase in Ex.P22 Adhoc Bill dated 31.01.2018 and the
Final Bills certified in Ex.P23 dated 25.06.2018 is for a lesser area as
compared to the area that was initially proposed to be constructed pursuant to
Ex.P2 agreement dated 15.09.2016 with M/s.Vallimuthu Educational Trust. It
shows that the plaintiff has exaggerated the cost of construction without a
revised estimate for Bill of Quantities for lesser extent of 28,000 sq.ft of land
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
after Ex.P12 Lease Deed dated 09.04.2017 and Ex.P16 Rental Lease Deed
dated 11.07.2017 were signed.
210. What is evident is that the Bill of Quantities may have been
prepared for putting up a construction of a School Complex pursuant to Ex.P2
dated 15.09.2016 with M/s.Vallimuthu Educational Trust for their Velammal
New Gen School. After the arrangement between the said M/s.Vallimuthu
Educational Trust and late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao, fell through, the work came to
stand still. Only foundation work and work up to plinth level was completed
after the said arrangement fell through under Ex.P2 Lease Deed dated
15.09.2016 as is evident from Ex.P13 Valuation Report dated 12.05.2017 and
Ex.P14 Proposal dated 05.06.2017, there was hiatus in the construction.
211. Thereafter, a fresh arrangement was signed in Ex.P12 dated
09.04.2017 by late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao with M/s.Sri Murugan Educational
Trust for their Sri Chaitanya Educational Institutions, in Ex.P12 dated
09.04.2017, which split the construction into two phases for 28,000 sq.ft and
32,000 sq.ft.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
212. The application on 14.11.2016 that was filed before CMDA for
obtaining planning permit has to be construed and having filed for 40,000 sq.ft
of built up area. The area of construction later altered to 60,000 sq.ft of area, in
view of fresh arrangement vide Ex.P12 dated 09.04.2017 with M/s.Sri
Murugan Educational Trust for their Sri Chaitanya Educational Institutions.
213. In Ex.P12 dated 09.04.2017, the splitting of construction into
two phases of 28,000 sq.ft and 32,000 sq.ft on the land measuring extent of
24,644 ½ sq.ft that was later settled in favour of the defendants by late
Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao, vide Ex.P10 dated 22.12.2016 and on the balance extent
of 22,934 sq.ft of land, which was earlier settled in favour of the defendants
herein by way of settlement deed dated 10.04.2014.
214. Thus, the approval that was secured in Ex.P20 planning permit
dated 05.12.2017 was for 58,664 sq.ft. and the construction was confined to
28,000 sq.ft of built up area in the land measuring to an extent of 24,664 ½
sq.ft for 60,000 sq.ft. The construction in the first phase was however actually
confined to only 24,439 sq.ft of built up area as has been admitted by both the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
parties in Ex.P26 – legal notice dated 24.10.2018 and Ex.P27 / reply dated
03.01.2019.
215. Since, the copy of the Bill of Quantities for the revised schedule
for 28,000 sq.ft of built up area was not given by defendant or on their behalf
of the defendant to the plaintiff, it has to be construed that there was no
concluded contract based on Bill of Quantities. In a construction based on a
Bill of Quantity, the rate and estimate has to be given prior to the work. Later
it has to be matched with actual. Thus, the amounts payable as certified vide
Ex.P23 Final Certificate dated 25.06.2018 determined by the consultant
appointed by late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao based on the Ex.P22 Adhoc Bill dated
31.01.2018 cannot be the basis for awarding exaggerated amount towards suit
claim.
216. The amounts arrived by the Court appointed Chartered
Engineer CW1 and by the defendants witness D.W.3 - Mr.K.Natarajan,
Former Chief Engineer of PWD and Chartered Engineer and Approved Valuer,
indicate that the amounts can also be arrived on square feet basis. Ex.C.1
dated 25.07.2020 of CW1 has worked out the amounts at the rate specified in
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
last column.
217. The defendants have worked out the calculation at Rs.2,086/-
per sq.ft in Exs.D1, D2 & P27. Later the defendants have come forward to
work out the rate at Rs.2,215.82/-.per sq.ft in a memo filed as follows :-
As per Ex.P.8 quotation dated 21.12.2016 the cost of
construction worked out for 40,000 Sq.ft is
Rs.8,86,32,898.60/- which will work out to Rs.2,215.82 per
square feet for a built up area of 24,439 Sq.ft, and the amount
will be Rs.5,41,52,485/-.
218. As mentioned elsewhere, there is no concluded contract on the
rates quoted in Ex.P8 Quotation dated 22.12.2016 based on Bill of Quantities
for 40,000 sq.ft. of built up area.
219. A Comparison of the value given in each Exhibits is also
detailed below:-
Exhibits Sl.No Amounts Area in Rate calculated per Sq.ft.
Sq.ft.
Ex.P8 1-21 Rs.7,83,75,343.00 40,000 Rs.1959.35 (Rs.7,83,75,343
(A&B) ÷40,000)
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Ex.P23 A&B(1- Rs.6,32,01,242.00 24,439 Rs.2586
21) (Rs.6,32,01,242÷24,439)
Ex.D1 1-21 Rs.4,15,89,517.20 24.439 Rs.1701.7
(Rs.4,15,89,517.2÷24,439)
220. Since neither the plaintiff nor the defendant or the Court
appointed Chartered Engineer who deposed evidence as C.W.1 whose report
dated 25.07.2020 was marked as Ex.C1 have not given a clear picture, the
Court arrived at the A-General Builders Work and the B-Services at Rs.2,500/-
per sq.ft., based on the calculations and reasons detailed below.
221. In Ex.D2 dated 11.10.2020, DW1 has also indicated the
market rate at Rs.2,500/- per sq.ft., in the year 2020.
222. The value was initially worked out at Rs.1959.35/- per sq.ft.,
based on the quotation in Ex.P8 dated 21.12.2016 for 40,000 sq.ft of the built
up area for the Items listed in General Builders Work (A) and Services (B) as
calculated in the table above.
223. The plaintiff would have been entitled to Rs.4,78,84,554.7
(Rs.1959.35 x 24439 = Rs.4,78,84,554.7) since the admitted position is that
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
the built up area was reduced to 28,000 sq.ft. in the first phase and the actual
construction was confined to 24,439 sq.ft. However, on account of stoppage in
the construction of School Complex from November 2016 to July 2017 due to
change in circumstances and completion of school project only in May 2018,
there could be escalation in the cost of Construction materials. That apart, the
plaintiff has carried the initial construction without payment of any amount in
advanced.
224. Therefore, the principle of “quantum meruit” has to be applied
under the circumstances. The plaintiff deserves a reasonable amount towards
compensation for the work carried out by the plaintiff for the defendants for
putting up construction of 24,439 sq.ft of built up area on the land that was
settled in favour of the defendants by their father Late Mr.Srinivasa Rao vide
Ex.P10 dated 22.12.2016 without receiving advance.
225. In Final Certificate of Bills in Ex.P23, the plaintiff has claimed
a Sum of Rs.2,42,20,515/- for the Items C, D & E namely External Work,
Extra Items and Work for Adjoining Plot.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
226. The defendants have not categorically denied execution for the
work in Items C, D & E namely External Work, Extra Items and Work for
Adjoining Plot. However, the defendant have categorically denied the rates
adopted in Ex.P23 dated 25.06.2018 for the Super structure i.e School
Complex built to suit the requirement of Sree Murugan Educational Trust for
Shri Chaitanya Educational Institutions in the first phase for 28,000 sq.ft of
built up area over the land settled in favour of the defendants vide Ex.P.10
dated 22.12.2016. The defendants have also disputed the rates adopted in
Ex.P23 dated 25.06.2018 for Items C,D and E by the plaintiff.
227. Considering the fact that there was a delay in the project and
reduction in the total built up area and taking note of the fact that the plaintiff
would have borrowed money from third parties for executing work as the work
was commenced without any payment of advance amount from the defendant's
father late Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao during his life time which is admitted and
considering the fact that the plaintiff would have spent money out of pocket,
the plaintiff is entitled for a reasonable compensation for the work done in
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
advance to cover the interest on amounts deployed by the plaintiff for the
project apart from the cost of construction. Therefore, for the Items A-General
Builders Work and B-Services, which corresponds with item No.1 to 21 in
Ex.P8 Quotation dated 22.12.2016, the cost of construction was fixed at
Rs.2,500/- per sq.ft. This was indicated to both the plaintiff and defendant on
18.10.2023.
228. When the case was listed on 18.10.2023 and 20.10.2023, the
counsels were called upon to assist the Court to arrive at the just and equitable
amount to be paid for the items C, D & E namely External Work, Extra Items
and Work for Adjoining Plot in Ex.P23. It was clearly indicated that the rate
will be worked out at Rs.2,500/- per sq.ft for the Items Viz.,A-General Builders
Work and Item B-Services for the construction of a School complex measuring
to an extent of 24,439 sq.ft of 10 grounds and 228 sq.ft as settled in favour of
the defendant vide Ex.P10 dated 22.12.2016.
229. Pursuant to the hearing held on 18.10.2023 and 20.10.2023,
the plaintiff have given a detailed chart. However, the defendants have not
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
given any breakup to assist the Court to arrive at the just and equitable amount
to be paid for the Items C, D & E namely External Work, Extra Items and
Work for Adjoining Plot in Ex.P23.
230. In the Chart given by the plaintiff, for the Items C, D & E
namely External Work, Extra Items and Work for Adjoining Plot of Ex.P23, the
plaintiff has categorized it into seven major heads. The first 5 heads pertains
to the External work ‘C’ of Ex.P23. The sixth head pertains to extra Items ‘D’
of Ex.P23 and the seventh head pertains to the work done in adjoining plot ‘E’
of Ex.P23.
231. In Ex.P23 dated 25.6.2018, a Sum of Rs. 1,46,43,280.83 was
certified against Items 'C' for the external work, the plaintiff has claimed the
same amount of Rs. 1,46,43,280.83 as certified in Ex.P23 .
232. For the extra Items ‘D’, the plaintiff has re-quantified a sum of
Rs.29,92,945/- from Rs.83,93,638/-in the Chart. For the Work done in
adjoining plot ‘E’ of Ex.P23 , the plaintiff has claimed the same amount of
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Rs.11,83,596.73 as certified in Ex.P23.
233. Comparison of the rates and quantity quoted in Ex.P8
Quotation on Bill of quantity dated 21.12.2016 and the rates and quantity in
Ex.P23 Final Ceritificate dated 25.06.2018 for the Items C, D & E namely
External Work, Extra Items and Work for Adjoining Plot and the chart
furnished by the plaintiff indicates that the plaintiff has reduced the amount for
Extra Items Viz., D to Rs.29,92,945/- from Rs.83,93,638/- as detailed below :-
Sl.No Ex.P8 Material Qnty Unt Rate Amount I Ex.P23 # Material Qnty Unt Rate Amount in
Rupees Rupees
6 Extra Not contemplated 1-54 Extra 29,92,945
Items/ Items
Extra
*
works
#Amounts in Ex.P23 dated 25.06.2018 as modified in the chart submitted
by the plaintiff.
*Reduced from Rs.83,93,638.20 to Rs.29,92,945/- by reducing a
sum of Rs.54.00,693.00
234. The plaintiff has explained the reasons for reducing the amount
to Rs.29,92,945/- from Rs.83,93,638/- for the Extra Items ‘D’ of Ex.P23 dated
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
25.06.2018 as follows in the remarks in the Table to the Chart. It is extracted
below:-
Extra Items Adhoc Bill amount was Rs.35,41,643/-. Final Work Done
was Rs.83,93,638/. Normally Extra Items are the items which was not
mentioned in the BOQ and it will be executed in site as necessity for
the work to carry out and it will be billed according to the nature of
work. We have claimed Extra Items for Rs.29,92,945/- because
based on Square Feet cost @ Rs.2,500/- an amount amounting to
Rs.54,00,693 was included in square foot rate.
235. In Ex.P8 Quotation dated 21.12.2016 for Sl.No.22 to 40, the
plaintiff has quantified the amount as Rs.1,02,57,555/-. Sl.No.22 to 40 of
Ex.P8 Quotation dated 21.12.2016 corresponds to Items C-External Work of
Ex.P23. In Ex.P23 Final Certificate dated 22.12.2016, the plaintiff has
quantified an amount of Rs.1,46,43,281/- . A comparison of the rates in Ex.P8
Quotation dated 21.12.2016 and Ex.P23 Final Certificate dated 22.12.2016 is
detailed below:-
Ex.P8 Material Qn Unt Amount Ex.P23 Material Unt Rate
Rate Qnty Amount in Rupees
ty in Rupees
22 Material 180 m 10,39,500 22 a Compound wall 88.30 5,71,124.40
5775 6,468
- 1.5m high with
pillasters, M
plinth beam,
coping on the
top and suitable
foundations as
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Ex.P8 Material Qn Unt Amount Ex.P23 Material Unt Rate
Rate Qnty Amount in Rupees
ty in Rupees
per design
Compound wall 103.9 6,72,089.88
b - 1.5m high- Do
6,468
0.6 m extra hight 81.50 2,600 2,11,900.00
c above 1.5 m
with brick
work,plastering
and scaffolding
as per design
1.5 m extra hight 21.33 70,389.00
d 3,300
1.5 m extra hight 34.20 7,500 2,56,500.00
e with extra beam,
0.7m extra hight 57.35 3,300 1,89,255.00
f
230 mm brick
plastering
Total 386.5 19,72,257.00
23 Gate as 2 Mt 1,73, 3,46,500 23 Gate as per 1.95 MT 1,94,0 3,78,378.00
24 Borewell 2 2 no 1,44, 2,88,750 24 Borewell 2 Nos 2 No 1,44,3 2,88,750.00
26 OH Water 40 Kl 23,1 9,24,000 26 OH Water 62.81 Kl 25,872 16,25,020.32
Tank 63000 00 Tank 63000
Litres Litres
28 a-Elevation LS 5,77,500 28 a-Elevation 29.93 M 155 51,142.20
Extern feature Externa feature civil
al civil work l work Groove
elevat elevati for walls
ion on
b-
Elevation
feature 1917 Sq.f 452 8,66,529.20
b- Elevation
Aluminium
250 Sq.ft 10,10,625 feature t
paneling 0 Aluminium
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Ex.P8 Material Qn Unt Amount Ex.P23 Material Unt Rate
Rate Qnty Amount in Rupees
ty in Rupees
25 paneling
c- Elevation 1884. Sq.f 375 7,06,770.03
feature Cera 72 t
Board Work
d-Elevation 171.0 Sq. 950 1,62,450.00
feature 0 m
Pergola
Plastering
29 Interlock 120 Sq.m 1,96 23,56,200 1187. Sq 2,198 26,09,311.74
Paving 0 3.5 13 m
Blocks
30 Genset 60 sqm 2,31 1,38,600 30 Genset 7.52 Sq 2,587 19,454.24.00
Foundation 0 Foundation m
work(for 2 work(for 2
Gensets in Gensets in
RCC to RCC to
design.) design.)
31 UG Sump 70 kl 28,8 20,21,250 31 UG Sump 70 Kl 67.28 Kl 32,340 21,75,835.00
compartme compartments
nts
32 STP LS At 32 STP (sewage 43,84 Kl 23 10,08,320.00
(sewage exec treatment 0
treatment ution plaint)
plaint)
33 Staircase 60 m 4,73 2,84,130 33 Staircase SS 66.20 M 5,303 3,51,058.60
SS 5.50 Handrail
Handrail
35 Rain Water LS 1,73, 1,73,250 35 Rain water 10 Nos 20,000 2,00,000.00
Soak pit 250 Harvesting
36 Storm 5,77,500 36 Storm water 192.3 RM 8,500 16,34,975.00
water drainage 5
drainage
37 Fire LS 37 Fire Fighting LS 1,50,000.00
Fighting system as
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Ex.P8 Material Qn Unt Amount Ex.P23 Material Unt Rate
Rate Qnty Amount in Rupees
ty in Rupees
system as required
required
38 External 150 m 2,31 3,46,500 38 External 75.20 M 3,500 2,63,200.00
drainage 0 drainage work
work ( 4 ( 4 change to 6
change to 6 inch dia)
inch dia)
Rain Water 1 39 Rain Water 1 No 45,000 45,000.00
39 collection collection sump
sump
Total 1,02,57 1,46,43,280.83
,555
236. The defendants have also not questioned the quantum of work
in Ex.P23 Final certificate dated 25.06.2018. In Ex.D1 dated 19.11.2018, the
defendant have merely quoted a lesser rate as against each of the Items. A
comparison of the Rates quoted in Ex.P23 certificate dated 25.06.2018 and the
rate in Ex.D1 dated 19.11.2018 for the Items C, D & E namely External Work,
Extra Items and Work for Adjoining Plot of Ex.P23 are reproduced below for
comparison :-
Ex.P23& Material COMMON Ex.P23 Ex. D1
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
D1 Qnty Unt Rate Amount in Rate Amount in
Rupees Rupees
Item-C
22 a Compound wall – 88.30 m 6,468 5,71,124.40 1,400 1,23,620.00
1.5m high with ilasters,
plinth beam, coping on
the top and suitable
foundations as per
design.
b Compound wall – 103.91 6,468 6,72,089.88 1,400 1,45,474.00
1.5m high- Do
c 0.6 m extra hight 81.50 2,600 2,11,900.00 600 48,900.00
above 1.5 m with brick
work,plastering and
scaffolding as per
design
d 1.5 m extra hight 21.33 3,300 70,389.00 800 17,064.00
e 1.5 m extra hight with 34.20 7,500 2,56,500.00 900 30,780.00
extra beam, 230 mm
brick plastering
f 0.7m extra hight 230 57.35 3,300 1,89,255.00 600 34,410.00
mm brick Plastering
23 Gate as per design 1.95 MT 1,94,040 3,78,378.00 85,000 1,65,750.00
24 Borewell 2 Nos 2 no 1,44,375 2,88,750.00 90,000 1,80,000.00
26 OH Water Tank 63000 62.81 Kl 25,872 16,25,020.32 1,500 94,215.00*
Litres
28 a-Elevation feature 329.93 m 155 51,142.20 100 32,995.00
External civil work Groove for
elevation walls
b- Elevation feature 1917 Sq.ft 452 8,66,529.20 200 3,83,420.00
Aluminium paneling
c- Elevation feature 1884.72 Sq.ft 375 7,06,770.03 100 1,88,472.00
Cera Board Work
d-Elevation feature 171.00 Sq.m 950 1,62,450.00 400 68,400.00
Pergola Plastering
29 Interlock Paving 1187.13 Sqm 2,198 26,09,311.74 700 8,30,991.00
Blocks
30 Genset Foundation 7.52 sqm 2,587 19,454.24 700 37,600.00
work(for 2 Gensets in
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
RCC to design.)
31 UG Sump 70 Kl in 3 60 kl 32,340 19,40,400.00 1100 66,000.00
compartments
UG Sump 7.28 kl 32340 2,35,435.00 1,100 8,008.00
32 STP (sewage treatment 43,840 kl 23 10,08,320.00 1,200 5,26,080.00
plaint)
33 Staircase SS Handrail 66.20 m 5,303 3,51,058.60 3,000 1,98,600.00
35 Rain water Harvesting 10 Nos 20,000 2,00,000.00 7000 70,000.00
system
36 Storm water drainage 192.35 RM 8,500 16,34,975.00 300 57,705.00
37 Fire Fighting system as LS 1,50,000.00 -
required
38 External drainage work 75.20 m 3,500 2,63,200.00 500 37,600.00
( 4 change to 6 inch
dia)
39 Rain Water collection 1 no 45,000 45,000.00 6,000 6,000.00
sump
40 Earth pit for Electrical 7 no 19,404 1,35,828.00 1,200 8,400.00
works (4m depth)
Total 1,46,43,280.83 33,60,484.00
Item-D
1-54 Extra Items 83,93,638.20 52,64,922.40
Item-E
1-13 Bill for Adjoining plot 11,83,596.00 7,91,348.60
Total 2,42,20,515.00 94,16,754.4
*The defendant has admitted a sum of Rs.10,42,150/- in D2 as
against Rs.94,215 for OH Water Tank of 63,000 Liters capacity
(Sl.No.26)
237. On the other hand CW1, the Court appointed Chartered Engineer
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
who prepared Ex.C1 dated 25.07.2020 on the other hand has certified an amount of
Rs. 2,20,65,377/- for the Items C, D & E. The comparison between the amounts
certified in Ex.P23 certificate dated 25.06.2018 and Ex.C1 dated 25.07.2020 of the
Chartered Engineer appointed by this Court is reproduced below :-
Ex.P23& Material COMMON Ex.P23 Ex. C1
C1 Qnty Unt Rate Amount in
Rupees
Item-C
22 a Compound wall – 1.5m 88.30 m 6,468 5,71,124.40
high with pillasters, plinth
beam, coping on the top
and suitable foundations as
per design.
b Compound wall – 1.5m 103.91 6,468 6,72,089.88
high- Do
c 0.6 m extra hight above 1.5 81.50 2,600 2,11,900.00
m with brick
work,plastering and
scaffolding as per design
d 1.5 m extra hight 21.33 3,300 70,389.00
e 1.5 m extra hight with extra 34.20 7,500 2,56,500.00
beam, 230 mm brick
plastering
f 0.7m extra hight 230 mm 57.35 3,300 1,89,255.00
brick Plastering
Total 19,72,257.00 14,95,950
23 Gate as per design 1.95 MT 1,94,040 3,78,378.00
24 Borewell 2 Nos 2 no 1,44,375 2,88,750.00
26 OH Water Tank 63000 62.81 Kl 25,872 16,25,020.32 15,70,250
Litres
28 a-Elevation feature civil 329.93 m 155 51,142.20
External work Groove for walls
elevation b- Elevation feature 1917 Sq.ft 452 8,66,529.20
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Aluminium paneling
c- Elevation feature Cera 1884.72 Sq.ft 375 7,06,770.03
Board Work
d-Elevation feature Pergola 171.00 Sq.m 950 1,62,450.00
Plastering
29 Interlock Paving Blocks 1187.13 Sqm 2,198 26,09,311.74 24,17,800
30 Genset Foundation 7.52 sqm 2,587 19,454.24
work(for 2 Gensets in RCC
to design.)
31 UG Sump 70 Kl in 3 67.28 kl 32,340 21,75,835.00
compartments
32 STP (sewage treatment 43,840 kl 23 10,08,320.00 10,96,000
plaint)
33 Staircase SS Handrail 66.20 m 5,303 3,51,058.60 17,50,000
35 Rain water Harvesting 10 Nos 20,000 2,00,000.00
system
36 Storm water drainage 192.35 RM 8,500 16,34,975.00 16,36,675
37 Fire Fighting system as LS 1,50,000.00
required
38 External drainage work ( 4 75.20 m 3,500 2,63,200.00
change to 6 inch dia)
39 Rain Water collection sump 1 no 45,000 45,000.00
40 Earth pit for Electrical 7 no 19,404 1,35,828.00
works (4m depth)
Total 1,46,43,280.83 1,03,11,370
Item-D
Extra Items 83,93,638.20 1,17,53,957 *
Item-E
Bill for Adjoining plot 11,83,596.00
Total 2,42,20,515.00 2,20,65,327 /-
[#For 55 Items
*No Breakup or details given but has merely mentioned it for 68 Items]
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
238. The above comparison shows that Ex.C1 dated 25.07.2020 is
superficial and does not deal with each of these items in detail. Not only there
is no break up but CW1 has unilaterally increased the amounts and certified a
sum of Rs. 1,17,53,957/- for 68 Items in Item-D as against Rs.83,93,638.20
certified in Ex. P23 Final Certificate dated 25.06.2018 in Item D for 55 Items.
There is no explanation by CW1 in Ex.C1 dated 25.07.2020 as to why there is
no breakup given for the items and the rates. Thus, the evidence of CW1 and
Ex.C1 report dated 25.07.2020 are unreliable.
239. Thus, for the for the Items C, D & E namely External Work,
Extra Items and Work for Adjoining Plot respectively the amount in Ex.P23,
D1 & C1 are in variance as detailed under under:-
Ex.P23 Ex.D1 Ex.C1 Chart
Rs.2,42,20,515 Rs.94,16,754.4 Rs.2,20,65,327 /- Rs.*1,88,19,822
* Rs.1,88,19,822 =[ Rs.2,42,20,515 - Rs.54,00,693] The plaintiff has restricted the
claim to 29,92,945 for Item D- Extra Items.
240. The works in the Items C, D & E namely External Work, Extra
Items and Work for Adjoining Plot are not dependent on the area of
construction of a School Complex measuring to an extent of 24,439 sq.ft. in
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Item A&B. However, as mentioned above there is no dispute regarding the
above work.
241. There is absence of truth in the claim of the plaintiff in Ex.P23
dated 25.06.2018. The rates quoted by D.W.1 in Ex.D1 dated 19.11.2018 also
does not help the Court to come to a proper conclusion. Equally, there is also
no truth in the admission of the Defendants in Ex.D1 dated 19.11.2018 for the
works in Items C, D & E namely External Work, Extra Items and Work for
Adjoining Plot.
242. The parties have also not given the correct rates of material by
filing suitable invoices evidencing the rates that have been adopted in these
exhibits.
243. Both the plaintiff and defendants have resorted to exaggeration
and have hidden the truth on oath not only by themselves but also through
their respective witnesses
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
244. The truth lies hidden in between. The only inference that can be
drawn from the materials available and the evidence of the witnesses is that the
plaintiff has completed the work by putting up construction of 24,439 sq.ft of
built up area on the land measuring to an extent of 10 grounds and 228 sq.ft
settled in favour of defendants in vide Ex.P10 dated 22.12.2016. There is also
no point in either dismissing the claim of the plaintiff altogether by accepting
the falsehood in Ex.D1 dated 19.11.2018 or accepting the inaccuracy in the
evidence of C.W.1 in Ex.C1 dated 25.07.2020.
245. The Court has been forced to sift through each of the items in
Exhibits mentioned above. However, no conclusion could be arrived based on
rates quoted in Ex.P8 Quotation dated 22.12.2016 as there is no concluded
contract for the rates quoted in Ex.P8 Quotation dated 22.12.2016 on Bill of
Quantities for 24,439 Sq.ft. of built up area.
246. Thus, the work that was carried out in the form of
superstructure as detailed in serial number 1 to 21 i.e Item A &B for a sum of
Rs.7,83,75,343 in Ex.P8 dated 21.12.2016, was proportionately reduced to
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Rs.4,78,84,554.7 (1959.35 x 24439=4,78,84,554.7) at Rs.1959.35 per square
feet.
247. However, considering the reasons given elsewhere above, the
rate of 1959.35 per sq.ft was increased to Rs.2,500/-per sq.ft for Item A&B
[Sl.No.1 to 21] to factor interest on borrowed capital and escalation in cost of
material and labour and reasonable compensation for reducing the
construction. Therefore, to balance the interest of both plaintiff and
defendants, a sum of Rs. 6,10,97,500/- [2500 x 24439] is quantified in Item A
&B against a sum of Rs.7,78,44,523/- quantified in Ex.P23 dated 25.06.2018.
248. For Items C, D & E of Ex.P23 namely External Work, Extra
Items and Work for Adjoining Plot, considering the fact that in Ex.D1 dated
19.11.2018, since the defendants have not disputed the quantum of work in
respect of the work, amounts are quantified based on preponderance of
probability.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
249. For Item C [Sl.No 22 to 40 of Ex.P8 and Ex.P23] a sum of
Rs.82,73,813.00 is quantified as below:-
Sl.No Material Qnty Unt Rate Amount in Rupees
22 a |Compound wall – 1.5m high 88.30 m 4500 3,97,350
with ilasters, plinth beam,
coping on the top and suitable
foundations as per design.
b Compound wall – 1.5m high- 103.91 4500 4,67,595
Do
c 0.6 m extra hight above 1.5 m 81.50 1250 1,01,875
with brick work,plastering and
scaffolding as per design
d 1.5 m extra hight 21.33 2500 53,325
e 1.5 m extra hight with extra 34.20 4000 1,36,800
beam, 230 mm brick plastering
f 0.7m extra hight 230 mm brick 57.35 1800 1,03,230
Plastering
23 Gate as per design 1.95 MT 1,20,000 2,34,000
24 Borewell 2 Nos 2 no 1,44,375 2,88,750.00
26 OH Water Tank 63000 Litres 62.81 l 16,592.10* 10,42,150#
28 External a-Elevation feature civil work 329.93 m 110 36,292.3
elevation Groove for walls
b- Elevation feature Aluminium 1917 Sq.ft 350 6,70,950
paneling
c- Elevation feature Cera Board 1884.72 Sq.ft 200 3,76,944
Work
d-Elevation feature Pergola 171.00 Sq.m 750 1,28,250
Plastering
29 Interlock Paving Blocks 1187.13 Sqm 975 11,57,451.75
30 Genset Foundation work(for 2 7.52 sqm 2,587 19,454.24
Gensets in RCC to design.)
31 UG Sump 70 Kl in 3 60,000 l 13* 7,80,000
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
compartments
UG Sump 7,280 l 13* 94,640
32 STP (sewage treatment plaint) 43,840 l 15* 6,57,600
33 Staircase SS Handrail 66.20 m 3500 2,31,700
35 Rain water Harvesting system 10 Nos 15,000 1,50,000
36 Storm water drainage 192.35 RM 3000 5,77,050
37 Fire Fighting system as LS 1,50,000
required
38 External drainage work ( 4 75.20 m 3,500 2,63,200
change to 6 inch dia)
39 Rain Water collection sump 1 no 25000 25,000
40 Earth pit for Electrical works 7 no 18,600.85 1,30,206
(4m depth)
Total 82,73,813.00
*Calculated Rate Per Litre
# Rate for Sl.No 26(OH Water Tank)calculated from Ex.D2
250. For the Item D in Ex.P23 dated 25.6.2018, the plaintiff has
quantified a sum of Rs.29,92,945/- in the chart as against Rs.83,93,638.20
certified in Ex.P23 dated 25.06.2018 for the reasons aforesaid in the Table.
The same is accepted.
251. For the Item E in Ex.P23 dated 25.6.2018, the plaintiff has
quantified a sum of Rs.11,83,596.73. As against the above, the defendant in
Ex. D1 dated 19.11.2018 has admitted a liability of Rs.7,91,348.6. There is
not much difference between Rs.11,83,596.73 and Rs.7,91,348.6. Therefore
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Rs.11,83,596.73 is accepted.
252. Claim for Item C, D & E are awarded for a sum of
Rs.1,24,50,354.70.
Exhibit Ex.P8 Ex.P23 Ex.D1 Ex.C1 Amount Awarded
Item-C Rs.1,02,57,555 Rs.1,46,43,280.83 Rs.33,60,484 Rs.1,03,11,370 Rs.82,73,813.00
Item-D - Rs.83,93,638.20 Rs.52,64,922.4 Rs.1,17,53,957 Rs.29,92,945.00*
(Rs.29,92,945.00)*
Item-E - Rs.11,83,596.73 Rs.7,91,348.6 - Rs.11,83,596.73
Total Rs.2,42,20,515.80 Rs.94,16,755 Rs.2,20,65,327 Rs.1,24,50,354.70
(Rs.1,88,19,822.6)*
*Defendants had limited their claim for the reasons aforesaid as
stated in the chart filed.
253. Therefore, in all the following amounts are arrived for the work
done.
Description Amounts in Rupees
Item A &B 6,10,97,500.00
Item C 82,73,813.00
Item D 29,92,945.00
Item E 11,83,596.73
Add Supplementary Bill* 2,39,951.46
Add Pooja Expenses* 45,000.00
Total 7,38,32,806.20
Less payment Received during 4,90,01,336.00
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Construction
Balance Amount to be paid 2,48,31,470.20
(*No dispute raised by the defendant)
254. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of
Rs.2,48,31,470/- from the defendant.
255. In the result, the issues framed by this Court are answered as
follows:
a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
recovery of money claimed under various heads with
interest?
Ans: Yes, however the plaintiff is entitled for part of
the amount as prayed for above for a sum of
Rs.2,48,31,470/-.
b) Whether the defendants are liable to settle the final
bill raised by the plaintiff based on the Bill of
Quantities?
Ans: No, in view of the answer to (a).
c) Whether the Director of the plaintiff company by
virtue of his disqualification is legally entitled to
continue to represent the company and prosecute
the suit?
Ans: Not a relevant issue. It was also not argued
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
seriously.
d) Whether the approval of the bills made by the
Consultant from time to time binds the defendants
and the claims made based on the same is
sustainable?
Ans: No, as no Bill of Quantities has been filed for
putting up construction of 28,000 sq.ft of built
up area pursuant to Ex.P12 dated 09.04.2017
after the arrangement in Ex.P2 dated
15.09.2016 with M/s.Vallimuthu Educational
Trust for their New Gen Velammal New Gen
School fell through. That apart, rates in
Ex.P8 Bill of Quantities is not agreed.
e)Whether there was collusion between the plaintiff
and the consultant and thereby, the cost was
inflated to the benefit of the plaintiff and to the
detriment of the defendants?
Ans: Not relevant in the light of the answer to
issues (a), (b), (c) & (d).
f) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other reliefs?
Ans: Yes, liberty to file a separate suit to recover the
tax on the works contract entered on by the
plaintiff with the defendant together with
interest payable to the Authorities under the
TNVAT act, 2006, Finance Act, 1994 and
towards Central GST and State GST under the
provisions of Central GST Act, 2017 and State
GST Act, 2017 with interest.
256. Since, the plaintiff is bound to pay VAT, Service Tax and GST
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
at 18% on the total amount of Rs.7,38,32,806, right of the plaintiff to file a
suit to recover the same is preserved.
257. The plaintiff is entitled to interest on Rs.2,48,31,470/- as
follows:-
i. From 25.06.2018 i.e date of Ex.P23 Final
Certificate to 25.07.2019 being the date of suit –
9%;
ii. From 26.07.2019 to 27.11.2023 during the
pendency of the suit - 9%;
iii. From 28.11.2023 being the date of Decree still date
of realization – 12%.
258. Considering the fact that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants
have assisted the Court to arrive at a proper conclusion earlier by forcing the
Court make calculations on the items C, D & E in Ex.P23 as mentioned above,
Court is of the view that both plaintiff and defendants should be ordered to pay
a cost for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- each to Adyar Cancer Institute, Adyar,
Chennai.
259. To obviate the practical difficulties in the remittance of the cost,
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to be paid by the defendants is added to the decree
amount. It is to be recovered by the plaintiff from the defendants in accordance
with law. The amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as ordered towards cost payable to
Adyar Cancer Institute, Adyar, Chennai shall be paid by the plaintiff within a
period of 30 days from the date of hosting of a copy of this Judgment in the
website.
260. Only Subject to payment of the aforesaid cost of Rs.5,00,000/-
to Adyar Cancer Institute, Adyar, Chennai as ordered and reporting
compliance therefore before the Registry within a period of 30 days from the
date of hosting of a copy of this Judgment in the website, the Registry shall
draft the decree to enable the plaintiff to move Execution Petition to execute
the Decree of this Court today.
261. If the plaintiff fails to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards cost
within time stipulated above, the Registry shall not draft the decree and this
judgment shall not be available for execution by the plaintiff before the
Execution Court under Order XXI of CPC, 1908.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
262. In the result, suit is partly decreed for a sum of
Rs.2,50,81,470/- [Rs.2,48,31,470/- + Rs.2,50,000/-] in favour of the plaintiff,
together with interest as detailed above. Parties to bear their own cost.
27 .11.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
rgm/kkd
Plaintiff's side witness:
Mr.Jayaraman, : PW1
Mr.P.K.Srinivasan : PW2
Dr.Venugopal : PW3
Mr.M.Murali : PW4
Defendants' side witness:
Mrs.Premila : DW1
Mr.Rajinikanth, : DW2
Mr.K.Natarajan DW3
Court Witness:-
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Mr.V.Malarvannan : CW1
Documents exhibited by the Plaintiff:
Date Exhibits Nature of Documents Admitted/D
enied
From Ex.P1 Original Axis Bank Savings Denied
01.09.2016 Account Statement of
to Mr.Jayaraman showing the entries
31.08.2017 for Financial Borrowings from
private financiers for this project.
15.09.2016 Ex.P2 Photocopy of the Lease Deed Contents
between Mr.Srinivasa Rao & Denied
M/s.Vallimuthu Educational Trust.
20.10.2016 Ex.P3 Original S.Srinivasan Rao given a Admitted
letter to Sri Bala Builders.
From Ex.P4 Original Bank Statement of M/s.Sri Denied
01.11.2016 Bala Constructions showing the
to cheque debit entry.
31.12.2016
07.11.2016 Ex.P5 Photocopy of the agreement Denied
between S.Srinivasa Rao and Sri
Bala Builders & Promotors Private
Limited., along with abstract of
quotation in MSGS Infrastructure &
Hospitality Pvt.Ltd.
The counsel for the defendant
objected for marking of Document 5
on the ground that original not
available with the defendants. Ex.P5
is marked with objection subject to
proof and relevancy.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
17.11.2016 Ex.P6 Photocopy of the Cheque issued in Contents
favour of Mr.Srinivasa Rao from denied
M/s.Sri Bala Constructions,
Chennai.
The counsel for the defendant
objected for marking of document 6
on the ground that original not
available with the defendants. Ex.P6
is marked with objection subject to
proof and relevancy.
From Ex.P7 Original Photographs taken at site Denied
13.12.2016 on various dates from the very first
to day to till the end of the project.
30.06.2018
Photographs taken out from the
computer for which Certificate
under Section 65B Indian Evidence
Act is filed.
21.12.2016 Ex.P8 A Letter of plaintiff Sri Bala
Builders together with quotation to
Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao. Denied
The counsel for the defendant
objected for marking of Document 8
on the ground that original not
available with the defendants. Ex.P8
is marked with objection subject to
proof and relevancy.
From Ex.P9 The Original Material Test Report Denied
18.01.2017 from DAS Material Testing Private
to Limited for the materials like M-
17.11.2017 Sand, Steel, Cement, RMC
Concrete.
22.12.2016 Ex.P10 Photocopy of the Certified copy of Denied
the Deed of Settlement in favour of
Mrs.Premila. S & Mrs.Anitha Suri
by Mr.Srinivasa Rao.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
14.02.2017 Ex.P11 Original Email from
Mr.Sathyanarayanan Architect with
attachment showing the existing
Ground level, excavation level and
Filling level. Denied
documents
Email taken out from the computer and contents
for which Certificate under Section
65B Indian Evidence Act is filed.
09.04.2017 Ex.P12 Photocopy of the Lease Deed Denied
between Mr.Srinivasa Rao &
M/s.Sree Muragan Educational
Trust.
20.05.2017 Ex.P13 Photocopy of the Valuation Report Denied
by Er.B.S.Ushadevi valuer for
Federal Bank for the involvement of
defendant.
05.06.2017 Ex.P14 Photocopy of the Letter from
Mrs.S.Premila to The Manager,
Federal Bank, Anna Nagar, Denied
Chennai-40.
The counsel for the defendant
objected for marking of Document
13 and 14 on the ground that the
document has not come from the
proper custody. Ex.P13 and Ex.P14
are marked with objection subject to
proof, admissibility and relevancy.
From Ex.P15 Original Whatsapp Chat between
09.06.2017 Mr.G.Jayaraman and Mrs.S.Premila
to Rao. Denied
31.07.2018
Whatsapp Chat taken out from the i
Phone for which Certificate under
Section 65B Indian Evidence Act is
filed.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
11.07.2017 Ex.P16 Photocopy of the Rental Lease Deed
between Mrs.Anitha Suri,
Mrs.S.Premila Rao and M/s.Sree Not disputed
Muragan Educational Trust
registered at Sub Registrar Office
Neelangiri.
14.07.2017 Ex.P17 Original Sri Bala Builders given a Denied
letter of Price variation to the
M/s.MSGS Infrastructure &
Hospitality Private Limited.
From Ex.P18 The Original Concrete Cube Test -
23.07.2017 Report from The India Cements
to Limited.
12.01.2018
31.07.2017 Ex.P19 Original Letter by the plaintiff to the Denied
1st defendant
05.12.2017 Ex.P20 Photocopy of the Planning Permit, Not disputed
Approval Letter from CMDA along
with Sanctioned Plan dated
05.12.2017.
From Ex.P21 Original Regular SMS Text Chats Denied
31.01.2018 between Mr.G.Jayaraman and
to Mrs.S.Premila Rao. SMS Text
19.02.2019 Chats taken out from the i Phone for
which Certificate under Section 65
B Indian Evidence Act is filed.
31.01.2018 Ex.P22 Photocopy of the Adhoc Running
Bill by M/s.Sri Bala Builders
Denied
The counsel for the defendant
objected for marking of Document
22 on the ground that they ought to
have been file at the time of filing
the suit. It could have been prepared
subsequently. Ex.P22 are marked
with objection subject to proof and
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
relevancy.
25.06.2018 Ex.P23 Original Final Certificate of MSGS Denied
Infrastructure & Hospitality Private
Limited, Final Bill No.3 and
supplementary final bill.
05.09.2018 Ex.P24 Original Sri Bala Builders given a
letter to the defendants
The counsel for the defendant
objected for marking of Document
23 and 24 on the ground that the Contents
defendants have not received. denied
Ex.P23 and Ex.P24 are marked
with objection subject to proof,
admissibility and relevancy.
09.09.2018 Ex.P25 Photocopy of the plaintiff given a Contents
mail to 1st defendant along with denied
document.
Email taken out from the computer
for which Certificate under Section
65B Indian Evidence Act is filed.
The counsel for the defendant
submitted that Document 25
may be marked subject to
proof and relevancy.
24.10.2018 Ex.P26 Photocopy of the Lawyers Notice Admitted
given by the plaintiff
08.01.2019 Ex.P27 Photocopy of the Reply Notice Admitted
given by the defendants
02.03.2019 Ex.P28 Photocopy of the complaint letter Denied
given to the Commissioner of Police
by the plaintiff with
acknowledgement.
- Ex.P29 Original Measurement Books 3
Nos(Book 1, Book 2 and Book 3)
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
maintained by Site Engineer of
M/s.Sri Bala Builders for Civil
Work & Steel Work. Denied
The counsel for the Defendant
objected for marking of Document
29 on the ground that they ought to
have been file at the time of filing
the suit. It could have been prepared
subsequently. Ex.P29 are marked
with objection subject to proof and
relevancy.
Ex.P30 Printout of the company master data -
sheet (since other side gave consent
the document is marked)
Documents exhibited by the Defendants:
Date Exhibits Nature of Documents
19.11.2018 D1 Valuation Report
11.10.2020 D2 The Valuation report (Comparative Study)
Documents exhibited by the Court witness :-
Date Exhibits Nature of Documents
25.07.2020 C1 Commissioner Report
07.02.2020 C2 Letter
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
CSNJ
C.SARAVANAN, J.
rgm/kkd
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.488 of 2019
Pre-Delivery Judgment
in
C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.488 of 2019
27.11.2023
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
