M/S Modular Infratech Pvt. Ltd v. M/S Bitureks Fire Solutions and Anr

IN T

1. RSA-2734-20

M/s Modular In M/s Bitureks Fir

2. RSA-2224-20

Capital Vehicles M/s Bitureks Fir

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr

for MANDEEP PA

1.

2024 and RSA

2.

RS Modular Infrate Solutions, a pro THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

Re Da 024 (O&M) fratech Pvt. Ltd.

VERSUS re Solutions and Another 025 (O&M) s Sales Ltd.

VERSUS re Solutions and Another ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate an r. Ishan Aggarwal, Advocate for r. Vipin Pal Yadav, Advocate wit r. J.S.Sohal, Advocate for respon r. Sarthak Gupta and Ms. Sanya S respondent No.2. -.-

ANNU,J. e above-mentioned two Regula A-2224-2025 shall stand dispose o SA-2734-2024 has been filed by ech Pvt. Ltd. against the respo oprietary concern through its sol

JAB AND HARYANA ARH served on:-05.09.2025 ate of Decision : 09.09.2025

....Appellant

....Respondents

....Appellant

....Respondents DEEP PANNU nd the appellant. th ndent No.1. Shangari, Advocates ar Second Appeals i.e. RSA-27 of by this common judgment. y the appellant/defendant No.1-M ondents/plaintiff-M/s Bitureks F le proprietor Jatinder Chauhan, a

- 734-M/s

defendant No.2-the appellant/de mentioned as M Bitureks Fire So Chauhan, and d concurrent find whereby the su injunction was Ltd. was dismis Brief Facts

3.

No.1, after mutu fire suppression defendant No.2 fixed at ₹37,35, and sanitary wor

4.

It w required certain Hindware and p of the original B approved throug

5.

19.03.2013 for system and ₹30 defendants paid -M/s MGF Toyota Pvt. Ltd., and efendant No.2-Capital Vehicles M/s MGF Toyota Showroom) olutions, a proprietary concern defendant No.1-M/s Modular In dings of the learned trial Cour uit of the plaintiff – M/s Bitur decreed and the appeal preferr sed. e case of the plaintiff, as set o ual discussions, allotted job wor n systems and plumbing and s vide work order dated 26.05.2 ,404/- for fire suppression syste rks. was alleged that while the wor n changes, including installation provision of additional flexible s BOQ. After reminders, the revise gh emails dated 10.12.2012 and 1 e plaintiff completed the wor r ₹82,05,964.28, comprising ₹ 0,05,975/- towards plumbing an d a total of ₹58,34,000/-, lea

d RSA-2224-2025 has been filed Sales Ltd. (alleged to be wron ) against respondents/plaintiff-M through its sole proprietor Jatin nfratech Pvt. Ltd., challenging rt and the Lower Appellate Co reks Fire Solutions for mandat red by M/s Modular Infratech P out in the plaint, is that defend rk to the plaintiff for installation sanitary works at the premises 2012. The value of the work w ems and ₹36,88,225/- for plumb rk was in progress, the defenda of Jaguar make fixtures in place sprinkler drops which were not p ed rates for the changed items w

14.12.2012. rk and raised a final bill da ₹51,99,988/- towards fire-fight nd sanitary works. Out of this, aving a balance of ₹27,71,96

-d by ngly M/s nder ourt tory Pvt. dant n of s of bing ants e of part were ated ting 64/-

outstanding. Th financial loss ca

6.

It w dated 19.07.201 baseless penalty of Final Bill unreasonable an plaintiff, was en the premises in new rates. The directing the de interest at 24% realization.

7.

De that the suit was proper remedy w liable to be reje fee.

8.

It w failed to comple about ₹98 lakhs The plaintiff wa supply materials

9.

De including minut he plaintiff further claimed ₹ aused due to non-release of paym was pleaded that despite repeate 13, the defendants failed to pay y notice dated 28.03.2013 and th Settlement" dated 16.04.2013 nd was rejected. The delay in ex ntirely attributable to the defend n time, altered specifications mi plaintiff, therefore, prayed for efendants to pay ₹28,71,964/- % per annum from the date of fendant no.1 filed written statem s not maintainable in the form o was a suit for recovery. It was ected under Order 7 Rule 11 CP was further pleaded that the pla ete the job within the stipulated 9 s to defendant no.1, including pe as alleged to have inadequate r s in time, and repeatedly defaulte fendant no.1 relied upon corr tes of meeting dated 28.12.2012

₹5,00,000/- as compensation ment. ed demands, including legal not y. Instead, defendant No.1 issue hereafter proposed a "Memorand , which was wholly unfair a xecution of the job, according to dants, who had failed to hand o idway, and took time in finalis a decree of mandatory injunct (balance plus compensation) w f submission of the final bill ment raising preliminary objecti f mandatory injunction and that also contended that the plaint w C for non-payment of proper co aintiff was negligent in executi 90 days, and caused heavy losses enalties imposed by defendant no resources and manpower, failed ed despite meetings and reminde respondence between the part , wherein the plaintiff undertook

- for tice ed a dum over sing tion with till ons ourt ion, s of o.2. d to ers. ties,

complete jobs b defendant No.2 than 60 unfinish defendant No.2 bills, while rest No.1 also plead lakhs on accou caused solely b accordingly pray

10.

De the proceedings

11.

Rep plaint and denyi

12.

Fro following issues

¶1inju

2.

3.

13.

Bot Findings of the

14.

oral as well as d had duly carried sanitary works i by 10.01.2013, but failed to d also addressed communication d hed jobs. It was further pleaded procured certain items directly tricting the plaintiff at places o ded that it had to pay a penalty o unt of incomplete job and ₹47 by the plaintiff's defaults. Dism yed for. fendant No.2, namely M/s MGF despite service of notice and wa plication was filed by the plaint ing the allegations made in the w om the pleadings of the parties, s: Whether the plaintiff is en unction as prayed for? OPP Whether the suit is not maint Relief. th the parties led the evidence in e Trial Court: e learned trial Court, after hear documentary evidence, came to t d out the installation of the fire-in the premises of defendant no

do so. It is further submitted t dated 18.01.2013 pointing out m d that due to lapses of the plaint y and deducted amounts from only to labour charges. Defend of ₹77 lakhs to defendant no.2 (₹ lakhs for delay), which loss w missal of the suit with costs w F Toyota Pvt. Ltd., did not con as proceeded against ex parte. tiff reiterating the averments of written statement of defendant No , the learned trial court framed ntitled to a decree for mandat tainable in the present form? OP n support of their case. ring the parties and examining the conclusion that the plaintiff f -fighting system and plumbing a o.2 on the instructions of defend

- that more tiff, dant ₹30 test o.1. tory D firm

no.1. It was obs final bill dated 1 that the plaintiff on account of th

15.

It w stood admitted, Therefore, the c extent of the am suit against defe Findings of the

16.

preferred by app principal conten mandatory injun for recovery. Th nomenclature of of pleadings and have filed a sui held that althoug fees, in the pre defendants had clarified that th based on facts p

17.

On allotted the wor served that after completion of t

19.03.2013 (Ex. P14). On apprec f was entitled to recover a sum o he said final bill. was further noticed that the exec , and the defendants had in court held that the plaintiff had s mount claimed towards the fina endants. e Lower Appellate Court: e learned Additional District J pellant/defendant no.1, examine ntion of the appellant was that nction was not maintainable and he appellate court, however, held f the relief claimed and is requir d evidence. With regard to the o it for recovery and paid ad valo gh in practice suits for injunctio sent case the plaintiff had paid not raised any such plea of n e court is not bound by mere n proved. n appraisal of the record, it was rk vide job order dated 26.05.20

the work, the plaintiff submitted ciation of the record, the court h of ₹23,71,864/- from the defenda cution of the works by the plain fact benefited from such wor successfully proved its claim to al bill, and accordingly decreed Judge, while deciding the app ed in detail the grounds raised. T t the suit filed by the plaintiff d that the proper remedy was a s d that the court is not bound by red to decide the matter on the ba objection that the plaintiff ough orem court fee, the appellate co on are sometimes filed to save co d court fees, and in any event, non-payment of court fees. It w nomenclature and may mould re s found that the plaintiff had b 012 (Ex. P1) valuing ₹37.35 la

- d its held ants ntiff rks. peal for suit asis ht to ourt ourt elief een

for fire suppre defendants had and thereafter in with Jaguar fixt P5, P9, P10, P1 the defendants completed the in for ₹82,05,964. unpaid.

18.

or that the CV regarding CVSL defendants them condition of the brand from Hin emails, and dela

19.

Final Bill Settle the same was ne total claim. It w admitted having how this amoun

20.

Con the findings of ssion and ₹36.88 lakhs for pl delayed handing over the premi ntroduced changes in specificati tures. Emails and communicatio 11, etc.) showed that such chang and not the plaintiff. It was a nstallation work and raised the fi 28, supported by legal notice e Appellate Court rejected the p VSL company was responsible, L had ever been initiated by eithe mselves had acknowledged im e premises and had even tendered ndware to Jaguar, and the subs ay caused thereby could not be at e Court also disbelieved relianc ement" dated 16.04.2013 (Ex. P ever accepted by the plaintiff and was further observed that defe g made payments of only about nt was adjusted against the total c nsequently, the appellate court f the trial court. The appeal wa

lumbing and sanitary works. T ises in a fit condition for executi ions, including replacing Hindw ons placed on record (Exs. P2, ges and delays were attributable also noticed that the plaintiff h inal bill dated 19.03.2013 (Ex. P Ex. P17, but the same remain plea that the plaintiff was neglig , holding that no such agreem er party. It was also noticed that mpediments caused due to u d apology (Ex. P9). The change equent approvals, were proved ttributed to the plaintiff. ce placed on the "Memorandum P16) by the defendants, noting t d did not explain the breakup of endant no.1, in cross-examinati t ₹60 lakhs, but could not expl claim. found no irregularity or illegality as held to be devoid of merit a

- ion, ware P3, e to had P14) ned gent ment nfit s in by m of that f the ion, lain

dismissed. The affirmed.

21.

Fee been preferred.

22.

Up Submissions on

23.

Lea plaintiff for man that the plaintiff 41(h) of the Spe when an equally on the judgmen Tara Singh Jais the claim is for was argued that incompetent and

24.

It necessary partie contractor and t impleaded M/s entity. It was ur without whom n laid down in Ka reiterated by the judgment and decree of the t eling aggrieved, the above-numb on notice, respondents have cont n behalf of the Appellant: arned counsel for the appellant h ndatory injunction was not mai f's claim was essentially for reco ecific Relief Act, 1963, a suit fo y efficacious remedy of recovery nt of the Hon'ble Supreme Cou iswal, 2012 SCC OnLine All 18 recovery of contractual dues, th t therefore, irrespective of cour d the learned courts below erred was next contended that the es. The plaintiff failed to imple the principal party to the transac MGF Toyota Showroom, whi rged that CVSL being the main no effective decree could be pass asturi v. Iyyamperumal and oth e Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mo

trial court dated 22.03.2018 w bered Regular Second Appeals h tested the appeals. has argued that the suit filed by ntainable in law. It was contend overy of money, and under Sect for injunction cannot be maintain y is available. Reliance was pla urt in State of U.P. and another 876, wherein it was held that wh he remedy of injunction is barred rt fee paid, the suit as framed w in decreeing the same. suit was bad for non-joinder ead CVSL, which was the mas ction. Instead, the plaintiff wron ich was neither a real nor juri n contractor was a necessary pa sed. Reliance was placed on the l ers, (2005) 6 SCC 733, and furt Moreshar S/o Yadaorao Mahajan

- were ave ded tion ned aced r v. here d. It of ster ngly stic arty, law ther

Vyankatesh Si

27.09.2011. Submissions on

25.

Lea objection of m contended that amount claime injunction" inste law is well settle but by the subst

26.

Rel Haryana High C another, RSA N although technic plaintiff has affi for injunction d fee has been pai

27.

Cou 332 and Rame contend that the and misdescripti

28.

It through evidenc decree granted b on the hyper-tec itaram Bhedi (D) C.A No.5 n behalf of the Respondents: arned counsel for the respon maintainability raised by the ap once the plaintiff had duly aff d, the mere description of t ead of "recovery" could not de ed that the court is not to be guid ance of the pleadings and cause liance was placed on the judg Court in Food Corporation of In No. 3297 of 2017, decided on 31 cally a suit for recovery would b ixed ad valorem court fee, the m does not render it incompetent. I id, a technical misdescription can unsel further relied on Sant Lal esh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram e court has wide discretion to m ion of the relief cannot nullify an was further submitted that si ce that work was executed and by the courts below was just and chnical ground of maintainability

5755/5756 of 2011, decided ndents/plaintiffs argued that ppellant is without merit. It w fixed ad valorem court fee on the relief as one of "mandat feat the rights of the plaintiff. T ded merely by the form of the re of action. gment of the Hon'ble Punjab a India and others v. Kaka Ram a

1.08.2018, wherein it was held t be the proper remedy, yet where mere nomenclature of the suit as o It was observed that once the co nnot defeat substantive rights. Jain v. Avtar Singh, (1985) 2 S m Cement, (2008) 14 SCC 58, mould relief to do complete just n otherwise valid claim. ince the plaintiff had establish the final bill remained unpaid, d proper, and could not be set as y.

- on tory elief that one ourt SCC , to ice, hed

Findings of this

29.

Aft arise for determ

Ma

30.

suit was not ma an equally effic Specific Relief 2012 SCC OnL seeking recover injunction. That money under a Relief Act, as th

31.

Ho case. The plaint disguise the cla amount of ₹23,7 Punjab & Harya 3297 of 2017), h fee is paid, a me render the suit n is not shackled pleadings and ev

32.

governs cases w s Court ter hearing learned counsel for ination in this RSA: aintainability of the Suit (Injun e appellant's strongest objection aintainable as framed, since an i cacious remedy of recovery exis Act. Reliance was placed on Sta ine All 1876, where the Allahab ry of contractual dues cannot t judgment indeed laid down that contract, injunction is barred u he plaintiff has an equally efficac wever, the reliance on this jud tiff herein did not attempt to ev aim. Rather, he affixed full ad 71,964/-, which is precisely the f ana High Court, in Food Corpor has dealt with an identical object ere misdescription of the relief a non-maintainable. The coordinat by nomenclature, but must mo vidence. erefore, while the principle in T where injunction is invoked to b

r the parties, the following poi nction v. Recovery): n rests upon the contention that injunction cannot be granted wh sts, in view of Section 41(h) of ate of U.P. v. Tara Singh Jaisw bad High Court held that a plain t disguise such relief as one t where the real relief is recovery under Section 41(h) of the Spec cious remedy of a recovery suit. dgment is misplaced in the pres vade his obligation of court fee d valorem court fee on the cla fee payable for a recovery suit. T ration of India v. Kaka Ram (R tion and held that once proper co as "mandatory injunction" does te bench emphasized that the Co ould relief in accordance with Tara Singh Jaiswal's case (sup bypass recovery proceedings, in

- ints here wal, ntiff for y of cific sent e or aim RSA ourt not ourt pra)

facts at hand the payment of the direct decision o

33.

In t produced all cle and remained u styled different justice. The obje

¶2Exhibit P-1

34.

Reg counsel for the value as follows

• Fir

• Plu

• Tot

• Les

• Bal

35.

amount" and thu Court finds no f bears acknowle admittedly mad examination, D defendants hav estopped from d e plaintiff has complied with all requisite court fee. The ratio of of this Court, is fully applicable. the present case, the pleadings, th early establish that the plaintiff unpaid for the balance. Thus, e ly, the courts below rightly m ection of maintainability therefor 14 (Final Bill or Summary): garding Bill Ex.P-14 not to be re e appellant, Ex.P-14, dated 19.0 s:- e-fighting system: ₹51,99,988.78 umbing & sanitary works: ₹30,05 tal: ₹82,05,964.28 ss paid: ₹58,34,000.00 lance due: ₹23,71,964.28 e appellant contends that Ex.P us cannot be relied upon to direc force in that plea. Ex. P14 was edgment of receipt. Substantia de by the defendants with direc DW-1 conceded that these amou e acted upon Ex. P14 by rel disputing its character as the fina

substantive requirements, includ f Kaka Ram's case (supra), bein Hence, the suit is maintainable. he evidence led, and the docume executed the works, raised its b even if the relief could have b moulded the relief to do compl re fails. elied upon as contended by learn

03.2013 records the total contr 5,975.50 P14 was only a "summary of ct appellant to make payment. T duly served on the defendants a al payments (₹58–60 lakhs) w ct reference to Ex. P14. In cro unts had been released. Once leasing major payments, they al operative bill.

-ding ng a ents bill, een lete ned ract bill This were oss-

36.

Als Settlement") is carries no legal part payments remained due. T by the learned L

¶3Liability

37.

and defendant n that the liability was admittedly correspondence, privity of contr works were ex defendant no.2 contractual unde liability rests s defendant No.1. its name as Cap impugned judgm pay the decreta behalf of the ap mentioned as M

38.

Wi No.2, this Cour so an attempt to rely on Ex. P futile, as it was never signed or force. On the contrary, the cul demonstrates beyond doubt th There is no illegality in the impug Lower Courts on the admissibility of Defendant No.2: e learned trial Court decreed th no.2. However, on a careful peru y cannot be extended to defend y issued by defendant no.1 t , and payments were made by act between the plaintiff and d xecuted at the premises of de cannot be saddled with direc ertaking. The principle of contra olely on the party with whom . It is relevant to mention here t pital Vehicles Sales Ltd. filed R ments and decrees of both the C al amount along with defendant ppellant-Capital Vehicles Sales L M/s MGF Toyota Showroom inste thout commenting upon the cor rt concludes that defendant No.2

P16 ("Memorandum of Final B r accepted by the plaintiff, and t lmination of Ex. P14 coupled w hat the balance of ₹23,71,964 gned judgments and decrees pas y of Ex.P/14. he suit against both defendant n rusal of the record, this Court fi ant no.2. The work order (Ex. to the plaintiff. All negotiatio defendant no.1 alone. There is efendant no.2. Merely because efendant no.2 and for its bene ct liability in the absence of a actual privity requires that paym m the plaintiff contracted, nam that defendant No.2 by mention RSA No.2224-2025 challenging Courts below making him liable t No.1. It is further submitted Ltd. that its name has been wron ead of Capital Vehicles Sales Ltd rrectness of the name of defend 2 cannot be made liable to pay

- Bill hus with

4.28 ssed no.1 nds P1) ons, efit, any ment mely ning e to on ngly d.

decretal amount defendant no.1 f it fastens liabilit Conclusion:

39.

maintainable in affixed.

40.

Ex. defendants and is due.

41.

De against defendan

42.

Wi Appeals are par dated 22.03.201 the same agains the sum of ₹23,7

43.

Pen

September 09, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh t along with defendant No.1. Ac for the balance sum of ₹23,71,96 ty upon defendant no.2 cannot be e suit, though styled as one n substance as a recovery suit .P14 constituted the operativ acted upon by releasing part pay fendant no.1 alone is liable for nt no.2 is unsustainable and is se th these observations both the rtly allowed to the extent that the 18 and 24.04.2024 against defen st defendant no.1-M/s Bitureks 71,964/- with interest as awarded nding application(s), if any, also 2025

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

ccordingly, while the decree agai 64/- is upheld, the decree insofar e sustained and is set aside. e for mandatory injunction, w t since ad valorem court fee w ve final bill, acknowledged yments, the balance of ₹23,71,96 r the decretal amount. The dec et aside. above-numbered Regular Seco e impugned judgments and decr ndant No.2 are set aside. Howev Fire Solutions, are maintained d by the courts below. stands disposed off. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing o.

- inst r as by 64/- cree ond rees ver,