Legalcops – Legal Blog – Business Registrations & Tax Compliances

Hi there,

Shish pal Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. 1 of 13 CS No. 6361/18, DLCT01030912018

Brief fact of the case:

The case before the Delhi district court stated by the plaintiff, he filed a case suit for recovery of Rs. 11, 58,298 on the other he is a municipal contractor and to present the work on order no. 236dated 26.12.2014. After that the present of work carried to the satisfaction of the engineer-in-charge. The no.2 respondent to complete his final measurement of work & the first RA bill was passed by defendant no.2 on dated 23.03.2016 for a sum of Rs.7,27,294 the further was recorded and accomplish by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,53,656 therefore respondent no.2 didn’t make any effort to pass the 2nd final bill with amount of Rs.1,53,656 further he had a obligatory conditions of the awarded work order, the sum of Rs.1,17,348 towards security case number 6361/18 shish pal vs. north Delhi municipal corporation & Anr. 2 of the earnest money.

Contentions of the appellant:     

 The appellant stated that respondent has filed the statement in written form which he clearly admitted that the claim of the respondent in respect of the said amount of the bill passed by the respondent as well as amount of the security and only taking the false plea that the bill of payment will depend on availability of the funds in particular heads of account from time to time in MCD. 

Contentions of the respondent:

He stated that the application taken by the preliminary objection that provision order  XII Rule 6 CPC are not attracted as there is  no unequivocal admission  on the part of defendants. Further it is stated that there was a specific condition in the NIT and tender document that the payment for passed the bills will be in order of the demand received at the HQ under particular head of account. Further the appellant  has not even applied for release of security earnest money such as claim of the appellant regarding security money is liable to be dismissed being premature.

Principles laid down: 

A thing admitted in view of section 58 of the evidence act need not to be proved order 8 Rule 5  of the civil code procedure  provides even a vague or evasive denial may be treated to be an admission  in which event the court may pass a decree in favour of the appellant .

The provision of order 12 RULE 6 of the civil code procedure may also be decree on admission 19 attention has been drawn to section 111 of the TPA and the various modes of termination a tenancy. Under section 1111 where the tenancy had expired by efflux of time, a separate notice not required. This has been held in 2008 LE (Del) 56 Shri ram pistons and Rings ltd. Vs. C.B. Aggarwal HUF and ors. Para 72 is relevant.


Thus the hon’ble High court has directed the respondent to make the payment as per schedule 6&9 months therefore, case no. 6361/18 shish pal vs. north Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. 11 of 13has already expire. The judgment was passed in the favour of the plaintiffs and against the respondent on the basis of the admission made by the respondent in the written statement. The application U/o XII rule 6cpc and held that the appellant is entitled to recover the decree of Rs. 8, 54,361. And also the respondent no. 1to refunds the security amount of Rs. 1, 17,348. Vide this judgement , shall be decided an application U/o XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC filled by the appellant seeking judgment on admission.

Court Name: Delhi District court

Judgment Name: Shish pal Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. 1 of 13 CS No. 6361/18, DLCT01030912018

Judgment Date: 3 June, 2019

Bench: Prathiba M. Singh


Judgment- Contracts and Agreements

Shish pal Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.


College Name: Ajeenkya D.Y Patil University

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *