[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Subhash Projects And Marketing Ltd. ... vs M/S Pilot Engineering Works And Others on 13 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-4045-2025 (O&M)
M/s Subhash Projects & Marke ng
Limited and another
Appellants/Defendants
Versus
M/s Pilot Engineering Works & Ors. Respondent /Plain ff
Reserved on : 12.03.2026
Pronounced on : 13.03.2026
Pronounced fully/
opera ve part : Fully
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present: Ms. Kuljeet Kaur, Advocate, for
Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Gagandeep Singh Virk, Advocate, for
the Respondent - Caveator.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the
defendants against the judgment & decree dated 11.08.2025 passed by the
learned Addi onal District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the appeal filed by the
plain ff was partly allowed, and the judgment & decree dated 25.01.2018
passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana were modified. By
virtue of the impugned judgment, the plain ff was held en tled to recover a
sum of ₹10,90,513/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of filing of the suit ll realiza on.
2.1 The facts necessary for adjudica on of the present appeal are that
the plain ff is a proprietorship concern engaged in the business of hydro
mechanical works. The defendants are companies engaged in the execu on of
hydro power projects. It is the case of the plain ff that the defendants
approached it for fabrica on of pen-stock pipes and other related works for
Page N: 1 of 5 Pages
1 of 5
hydro power projects being executed in Himachal Pradesh. A quota on dated
19.12.2007 submiHed by the plain ff was accepted and a leHer of intent/work
order dated 22.12.2007 was issued in favour of the plain ff. The plain ff
thereaIer executed fabrica on work and raised various bills with respect to
work carried out at Luni and IQU project sites. Some payments were
admiHedly made by the defendants from me to me.
2.2 According to the plain ff, despite comple on of the work, a
substan al amount remained unpaid. The plain ff ul mately raised a final bill
for a sum of ₹29,73,203/-. It was further alleged that certain tools and
machinery belonging to the plain ff were lying with the defendants. Since
repeated requests for release of payment did not yield any result, mee ngs
and communica ons took place between the par es. A mee ng between the
par es was held on 10.08.2011 and the minutes of the said mee ng were
recorded. As per the minutes of mee ng, the defendants agreed to release an
amount of ₹20,00,000/- to the plain ff towards seHlement of its claims. It was
further recorded that approximately 75 MT - 80 MT of steel plates were lying at
the yard of the plain ff at Machiyal and the plain ff agreed to shiI the said
material to the yard of the defendants at Luni site aIer receipt of the payment.
The minutes also recorded that the tools and plants belonging to the plain ff
lying at the defendants site would be returned aIer verifica on.
2.3 However, according to the plain ff, the defendants failed to
release the agreed amount of ₹20,00,000/- within the s pulated period.
Consequently, the steel plates lying at the yard of the plain ff were disposed of
and the plain ff received a sum of ₹18,82,690/- from the said sale. AIer
adjus ng the aforesaid amount, the plain ff filed the present suit seeking
recovery of ₹38,90,459/- along with interest @ 18% per annum.
3. The defendants contested the claim and while admiNng the
issuance of work order and the fact that fabrica on work had been entrusted
to the plain ff, the defendants alleged that the plain ff had not carried out the
work as per specifica ons. It was further pleaded that the plain ff had raised
bills without comple ng tes ng and erec on of the fabricated material. The
Page N: 2 of 5 Pages
2 of 5
defendants also took the stand that the seHlement amount of ₹20,00,000/-
men oned in the mee ng dated 10.08.2011 was condi onal upon return of
the steel plates lying with the plain ff. Since the plain ff did not return the said
plates and instead sold them, it was contended that the defendants were not
liable to pay any amount.
4. Learned Trial Court framed necessary issues and upon
apprecia on of the evidence on record led by the par es, the learned Trial
Court partly decreed the suit and held the defendants liable to pay a sum of
₹1,17,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
filing of the suit ll realiza on.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the plain ff preferred an appeal. The learned
First Appellate Court re-appraised the evidence and observed that there was
no dispute regarding the fact that the defendants had awarded fabrica on
work to the plain ff and that the plain ff had executed the same. The
appellate court further observed that the minutes of mee ng dated
10.08.2011 had been admiHed by the defendants and clearly recorded that the
defendants had agreed to pay ₹20,00,000/- towards seHlement of the plain ffs
claim. The appellate court found that the Trial Court had erred in adjus ng the
sale proceeds of the steel plates against the seHlement amount of
₹20,00,000/-. According to the appellate court, the adjustment ought to have
been made against the original claim of ₹29,73,203/-, par cularly when the
defendants had failed to honour the seHlement by making payment within the
s pulated me. Consequently, the appellate court modified the decree and
held that the plain ff was en tled to recover ₹10,90,513/- (₹29,73,203 minus
₹18,82,690) along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
filing of the suit.
6. The defendants have now approached this Court in the present
Regular Second Appeal.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that
the First Appellate Court misinterpreted the minutes of mee ng dated
10.08.2011. According to the appellants, the payment of ₹20,00,000/- was
Page N: 3 of 5 Pages
3 of 5
condi onal upon return of the steel plates by the plain ff and since the
plain ff sold the plates instead of returning them, the defendants were not
liable to make any payment. It is further argued that the appellate court erred
in interfering with the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
plain ff/ caveator has supported the impugned judgment and submiHed that
the execu on of work and the issuance of work order are admiHed facts. It is
argued that the defendants had agreed to seHle the claim of the plain ff for
₹20,00,000/- but failed to make payment within the agreed period. Once the
defendants themselves commiHed breach of the seHlement, the plain ff was
jus fied in disposing of the material lying at its yard. It is further submiHed that
the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court are based on proper
apprecia on of evidence and do not call for any interference in the second
appeal.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the par es and have gone
through the record with their assistance.
10. At the outset, it may be no ced that the jurisdic on of this Court
in a Regular Second Appeal under Sec on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is
confined to cases involving substan al ques ons of law. The High Court cannot
re-appreciate the evidence merely because another view is possible.
Interference is warranted only when the findings recorded by the courts below
are shown to be perverse or based on misapplica on of legal principles.
11. In the present case, the issuance of the work order and the
execu on of fabrica on work by the plain ff stands admiHed. The dispute
essen ally relates to the quantum of liability of the defendants. The minutes of
mee ng dated 10.08.2011, which have been proved on record and admiHed by
the par es, clearly show that the defendants had agreed to release an amount
of ₹20,00,000/- towards seHlement of the plain ffs claim. The said minutes
further indicate that the payment of the aforesaid amount was to be made
within one week and that thereaIer the plain ff was to shiI the steel plates
lying at its yard.
Page N: 4 of 5 Pages
4 of 5
12. The First Appellate Court has rightly observed that the first
obliga on under the seHlement was on the part of the defendants to make
payment of ₹20,00,000/-. The defendants admiHedly failed to comply with the
said obliga on. In these circumstances, the plain ff cannot be faulted for
disposing of the material lying in its yard when the defendants themselves did
not honour the seHlement.
13. The approach adopted by the Trial Court in adjus ng the sale
proceeds of the steel plates against the seHlement amount of ₹20,00,000/-
was not legally correct. The First Appellate Court has rightly held that the sale
proceeds were required to be adjusted against the original claim of
₹29,73,203/-, par cularly when the defendants had failed to perform their part
of the seHlement agreement. The reasoning recorded by the appellate court is
based upon the documentary evidence on record and does not suffer from any
perversity.
14. The findings recorded by the First Appellate Court are essen ally
findings of fact based upon apprecia on of evidence. Learned counsel for the
appellants has not been able to point out any perversity or illegality in the said
findings. No substan al ques on of law arises for considera on in the present
appeal.
15. Consequently, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
The judgment and decree dated 11.08.2025 passed by the learned Addi onal
District Judge, Ludhiana are affirmed.
16. Pending applica ons, if any, also stand disposed of.
13.03.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
Page N: 5 of 5 Pages
5 of 5
