VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2008 › High Court of Delhi

Bright Star Hotels P.Ltd v. Gobind Singh

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
20 October 2008
Bench
Pradeep Nandrajogauthor, J.R. Midha
Case no.
RFA 476/2007

Judgment

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

J.R. MIDHA, J. October 20, 2008 rk

Case details

Parties and counsel

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Judgment reserved on : September 30, 2008 % Judgment delivered on : October 20, 2008 + RFA 476/2007 BRIGHT STAR HOTELS PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Ashwini Kumar Matta, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Anupam Srivastava, Adv. VERSUS GOBIND SINGH ..... Respondent Through: Mr.A.K. Gupta, Advocate CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Pradeep Nandrajog Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.R. Midha 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Gobind Singh, carrying on business under the name and style of "M/s.The Refrigeration House" filed a suit for recovery of Rs.19.88,722/- against M/s. Bright Star Hotels (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Bright Star") alleging that under eight work orders, Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/8, he was awarded the work of supply of equipments, installation and commissioning a central air conditioning unit for the banquet hall, health club and dining space at Bristol Hotel, Gurgaon, Haryana being constructed by Bright Star. He alleged having completed the works and that as per the running account maintained by him a sum of Rs.13,45,549.50 was due and payable. He alleged that he was entitled to interest @ 18% w.e.f. 1.9.1999 till 26.4.2002. He calculated said interest, being Rs.6,43,172.52. Thus, the total suit amount was Rs.13,45,549.50 + Rs. 6,43,172.52 = Rs.19,88,722.02. Bright Star took the defence that Gobind Singh left the work incomplete and unfinished; he supplied sub-standard material; the executed work was sub-standard and defective. It was stated that Bright Star had to engage the services of M/s. Roots Cooling System Pvt. Ltd. as also M/s.Carrier Aircon Ltd. to complete the balance work and that the former company had been paid Rs.7,15,981/- and the latter Rs.64,000/- to complete the work. Jurisdiction of the Court at Delhi was challenged on the plea that the goods were delivered at Gurgaon and the work was executed at Gurgaon. 2. Gobind Singh succeeded after the trial. Vide impugned judgment and decree dated 25.4.2007 finding returned is that Bright Star was liable to pay Rs.13,45,549.50 as the amount remaining unpaid for the work executed by Gobind Singh. Holding that there was no agreement between the parties regarding interest being payable @ 18% per annum, interest @ 12% per annum has been awarded w.e.f. 1.9.1999 till realization. 3. The reasoning of the learned Trial Judge is centered around the proof of the running bills raised by Gobind Singh being Ex.PW-1/9 to Ex.PW-1/47 and Ex.PW-1/56; which bills were duly reflected in the statement of account maintained by Gobind Singh being Ex.PW-1/48. The same evidenced that Rs.13,45,549.50 was the payment outstanding. 4. The defence of Bright Star has been negated for the reason no evidence was led of having got executed any work from M/s. Roots Cooling System Pvt. Ltd. and M/s.Carrier Aircon Ltd. The work order placed on the said two companies, never saw the light of the day. No proof of any payment made to said companies by Bright Star was brought on record. The defence that the material supplied was sub-standard and that the work executed was sub-standard has been negated for the reason the sole witness of Bright Star examined at the trial, DW-1, was the liaison officer of the company and he failed to establish any sub-standard work executed or sub-standard material supplied. No evidence was brought on record by Bright Star that any of the bills raised on it was rejected on account of sub-standard material supplied or sub-standard work executed. No document, correspondence or a communication was proved as per requirement of Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 notifying the rejection of the goods or the works. Further reasoning of the learned Trial Judge is that the work orders have been issued on various dates between 21.2.1996 and 17.12.1996; evidencing according to the reasoning of the learned

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.