Bombay High Court Allows Recovery Suit for Unpaid Work in Machinery Tools Contract — Plaintiff Entitled to Principal Sum with 6% Interest from Filing Date. Court held that plaintiff proved work done and bills submitted, and defendant failed to produce evidence of payment; interest awarded at 6% per annum under Section 34 CPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Prosecution
  • 129
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The plaintiff, A.P. Thomas, filed two suits (Suit No. 349 of 1993 and Suit No. 2092 of 1993) against the defendants, Messrs Monarch Machinery Tools Pvt. Ltd. (defendant no.1) and Mrs. N. Kohli (defendant no.2), for recovery of sums of money allegedly due for work done by the plaintiff for defendant no.1. The plaintiff claimed that he had submitted bills for the work, and the balance remained unpaid. The plaintiff sought recovery of the principal amounts as per Exhibits 'I' and 'G' in the respective suits, along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. The defendants denied the claim, but the court found that the plaintiff had proved the work done and the bills submitted. The defendants failed to produce any evidence of payment or settlement of the accounts. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to the principal sums claimed. Regarding interest, the court noted that under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court has discretion to award interest at a reasonable rate. Considering the facts, the court awarded interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization, instead of the claimed 18%. The court decreed the suits in favor of the plaintiff with costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Recovery Suit - Interest - Section 34 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Plaintiff claimed balance for work done under bills; defendant failed to produce evidence of payment or settlement - Court held that plaintiff proved the work and bills, and defendant's denial was not supported by evidence - Interest awarded at 6% per annum from date of suit till realization, not 18% as claimed, as court has discretion under Section 34 CPC (Paras 1-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the balance amount for work done for defendant no.1, and whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest at 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Suits decreed in favor of the plaintiff with costs. Plaintiff entitled to principal sums as per Exhibits 'I' and 'G' with interest at 6% per annum from date of filing of suit till realization.

Law Points

  • Contractual obligation to pay for work done
  • Interest rate discretion under Section 34 CPC
  • Burden of proof on defendant to challenge bills
  • No evidence of payment or settlement
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (02) 327

Suit No. 349 of 1993 with Suit No. 2092 of 1993

2005-02-14

A. S. Aguiar J

Mr. K. T. Varghese for plaintiff, Mr. Ashis Panikkar i/b M/s. Khaitan & Jaykar for defendant no.2

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for recovery of money for work done

Remedy Sought

Plaintiff seeks recovery of principal sums with interest at 18% per annum from date of filing till realization

Filing Reason

Defendant no.1 failed to pay balance amount for work done by plaintiff as per bills submitted

Issues

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the balance amount for work done for defendant no.1? Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest at 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization?

Submissions/Arguments

Plaintiff argued that he did work for defendant no.1 and submitted bills, but balance remains unpaid. Defendants denied the claim but did not produce evidence of payment or settlement.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff proved the work done and bills submitted; the defendant failed to produce evidence of payment or settlement. Under Section 34 CPC, the court has discretion to award interest at a reasonable rate; 6% per annum is appropriate in this case.

Judgment Excerpts

The plaintiff has filed the above suits against the defendants for recovery of sums of money as per the particulars of claim at Exhibit 'I' in suit no.349 of 1993 and Exhibit 'G', in suit no. 2092 of 1993 and further interest on the principal sums at the rate of 18% per annum, from the date of the filing of the suit till realization. The amount claimed in both the suits is the balance allegedly due from defendant no.1 to the plaintiff for the work done by the plaintiff for defendant no.1, as per bills submitted by the plaintiffs to defendant no.1.

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed two suits in 1993 for recovery of money. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 14/2/2005.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Recovery Suit for Unpaid Work in Machinery Tools Contract — Plaintiff Entitled to Principal Sum with 6% Interest from Filing Date. Court held that plaintiff proved work done and bills submitted, and defendant failed to prod...
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Allows Habeas Corpus Petition Challenging Preventive Detention Under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 Due to Unexplained Delay and Lack of Proximity Between Adverse Cases and Ground Case. The court held that the detention order was vitiate...