SAI ENGINEERS Vs. IMCC AD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern the disposal of IA No. 4759/2004 filed by defendant No.1 seeking leave to defend the suit filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 20,90,527 against M/ s. International Metro Civil Contractors (IMCC), who are contractors under the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC). Plaintitf themselves are sub-contractor under IMCC vide work order dated 15.12.2001. The aforesaid work order dated 15.12.2001 was amended w.e.f. 1.2.2002 by the IMCC vide their letter dated 5.2.2002. Plaintiff were to provide qualified skilled manpower to the IMCC on various terms and conditions contained in the said work order. According to the plaintiff they have been providing various qualified skilled manpower to the IMCC as per requirement and have been doing their work to the entire sati. faction of the defendant. Yet defendant No.1 withheld payment in respect of three bills whose particulars are given in para 21 of the plaint which reads as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_609_DLT124_2005Html1.htm</FRM> Since, the claims have arisen out of the written contract, the suit has been filed under Order 37, CPC. Defendant No.1 has filed this application in the form of affidavit seeking leave to defend in the suit filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) The main defence set up by the defendant No.1 in the affidavit is that the Contract was awarded to the plaintiff which was a proprietorship concern of Mr. Jaideep Thorat. But later on defendant No.1 received a Memorandum of Understanding from the plaintiff which disclosed that there was some sort of arrangement between Mr. Jaideep Thorat and Mrs. Anjana Dhawa in which Mrs. Dhawa was required to pay Mr. Thorat Rs.40,000 per month only to Mr. Thorat and the entire work of the plaintiff was to be conducted and controlled by Mrs. Dhawa who is the wife of Mr. P.K. Dhawa, area Survey Manager of defendant No.1. It is alleged that the plaintiff's company, which was under the control of Mrs. Anjana Dhawa had submitted inflated bills in respect of over time. These bills were got cleared in connivance with her husband Mr. P.K. Dhawa who was working as Survey Manager of defendant No. 1. It is the case of the defendant that in October 2002 Mr. P.K. Dhawa along with two other surveyors were asked to leave the defendant concern. Earlier the defendant had cancelled/withdrawn one survey team provided by the plaintiff and in retaliation the plaintiff cancelled the agreement and withdrew all his survey teams abruptly vide letter dated 7.10.2002 which amounts to breach of contract. According to the defendant huge payments have been made to the plaintiff in excess of their legal dues through the connivance of Mr. P.K. Dhava, Survey Manager of defendant No.1 who is husband of Mrs. Anjana Dhawa, Manager and Controller of the plaintiff concern. Thus, according to the defendant nothing remains payable to the plaintiff. In reply, the plaintiff have not disputed the existence of relationship of husband and wife between P.K. Dhawa, Survey Manager of defendant No.1 and the controller of plaintiff Mrs. Anjana Dhawa, but it is denied that inflated bills in respect of 'over time' were got cleared in connivance with Mr. P.K. Dhawa.