SUSHANT RASTOGI Vs. RELIANT INFOSYS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Vaibhav Interiors, a sole proprietorship concern through its Proprietor Mr. Sushant Rastogi filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5 lacs along with interest @ 18% per annum with pendente lite and future interest against the sole defendant M/s. Reliant Infosys Pvt. Ltd. This suit was dismissed by the learned trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 27.11.2003 giving rise to the present Regular First Appeal.

(2.) The appellant averred in the plaint that the respondent (defendant in plaint) had appointed M/s. Sandeep Geeta and Associates Pvt. Ltd., who are architects, Engineers and Interior consultants, for renovating their office in Chandigarh. The said party has its office in Delhi. In March 2000, M/s. Sandeep Geeta and Associates Pvt. Ltd. approached the plaintiff on behalf of the respondent-company to get the work of furnishing done at Chandigarh and after discussion, the estimated cost was stated to be Rs.17,24,000/- for doing the work. It is the case of the appellant that the negotiations took place at Delhi and one Tejender Singh, General Manager and Mr. Shaun Walsh, M.D. of the Defendant-company had participated in the discussions and negotiations of the plaintiff and M/s. Sandeep Geeta and Associates Pvt. Ltd. The work was done by the appellant and some payments were made by the defendant-company to the appellant. However, a sum of Rs.5,44,176.35 remained due and payable by the respondent to the appellant. The appellant served a legal notice dated 31.3.2001 upon the respondent and having failed to recover the payment, he filed a suit.

(3.) The suit was contested by the respondent, who raised various preliminary objections as well as contested the suit on merits. According to the respondent, there was no relationship of principal and agent between the respondent and the said Architect firm and there was no privity of contract between them and as such they could not be held liable for the claimed amount. In the written statement filed, they also took up the plea that no bills were directly raised upon the respondent by the appellant. The arrangement of contracting, execution of the work to the appellant was proposed by the architects and in their sole discretion, they had chosen the plaintiff/appellant as contractors. It is further stated that the defendant/respondent had no role to play in the plaintiff being chosen as the contractors. Reference was also made to certain consented terms between the Architect and the appellant/plaintiff.