M/S RVR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRE/UNIT

- 1 -
COMAP No. 45 of 2025
C/W COMAP.CR No. 1 of 2026


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND


THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN

COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2025
C/W
COMMERCIAL APPEAL CROSS OBJECTION NO. 1 /2026

IN COMAP No. 45/2025:

BETWEEN:

THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRE/UNIT
ISRO HEAD QUARTERS,
LPSC CAMPUS,
BANGALORE-560 008.








…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A. CHANDRA CHUD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S. RVR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 9-16-29,
CBM COMPOUND,
VISHAKAPATNAM-530 003,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
SRI. RAYALA RAJENDRA KUMAR.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. BAPAT SAMPATH VINAYAKA RAO.,ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. S.V.S. CHOUDHARY, ADVOCATE)

THIS COMAP FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1-A) OF
COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
15.10.2024 PASSED IN COM.OS NO.1322/2023 BY THE LXXXIV
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE(CCH 85).





Digitally signed
by MALA K N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
COMAP No. 45 of 2025
C/W COMAP.CR No. 1 of 2026


IN COMAP.CR NO. 1/2026:

BETWEEN:

M/S RVR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 9-16-29,
CBM COMPOUND, VISHAKAPATNAM-530 003,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
SRI. RAYALA RAJENDRA KUMAR.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. BAPAT SAMPATH VINAYAKA RAO, ADVOCATE
A/W SRI. S.V.S CHOUDHARY, ADVOCATE FOR CROSS
OBJECTOR)

AND:

THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRE/UNIT
ISRO HEAD QUARTERS, LPSC CAMPUS,
BANGALORE-560 008.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.A.CHANDRA CHUD.,ADVOCATE)
THIS COMAP/COMMMERCIAL CROSS OBJECTION
FILED UNDER ORDER.XLI RULE 22 OF THE CPC, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED.15.10.2024 PASSED IN COM.O.S.NO.1322/2023 BY
THE LXXXI/ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-85) AND GRANT 18 PERCENT
P.A. INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.4,66,05,510/-.

THIS COMAP AND COMAP CROSS OBJECTION HAVING
BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 16.09.2026
AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, HON'BLE
MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN

- 3 -
COMAP No. 45 of 2025
C/W COMAP.CR No. 1 of 2026


CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN)

The present appeal arises out of an EPC contract entered
into between the parties for execution of the works in
accordance with the tender documents, drawings,
specifications and designs approved by the Department.
The plaintiff asserts that, in the course of execution of
the contract, certain works were carried out pursuant to
the oral directions of the officials of the Department and
that such works were beyond the scope of the original
contract, entitling the plaintiff to additional payment.
The defendant disputes the said claim and contends that
the works in question formed part of the contractual
scope and were required to be executed in terms of the
approved drawings and designs. The contract further
contains specific stipulations governing deviations and
variations from the contracted work and the
circumstances in which any additional liability could
arise upon the Department. On a consideration of the
contractual terms, the pleadings, the evidence of PW-1
and DW-1 and the findings recorded by the Commercial
Court, we are of the considered view that the findings
under challenge are not sustainable in law and on facts.
The judgment and decree passed by the Commercial
Court, therefore, call for interference and the appeal
deserves to be allowed.

- 4 -
COMAP No. 45 of 2025
C/W COMAP.CR No. 1 of 2026


These appeal and cross-objections are filed impugning
the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2024 passed in
Commercial O.S.No.1322/2023 by the LXXXIV Additional City
Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-85) (Commercial Court),
Bengaluru, (‘ Commercial Court ’ for brevity).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
hereinafter referred to by their ranking before the Commercial
Court.
Plaintiff’s Case:
3. The Plaintiff, M/s RVR Projects Private Limited,
states that it was awarded by the Department of Space,
represented by the Defendant, the Engineering, Procurement
and Construction (EPC) contract for the work of Integrated
Titanium Alloy Tank Production Facility (ITPF) for LPSC (B) at
Tumakuru, Karnataka, comprising planning, design, supply,
fabrication, erection and commissioning of a pre-engineered
steel building, including civil, PH, electrical, AC and allied
works, under Letter of Intent No. CMG/ISRO-
HQ/C/300/ITPF/LPSC(B)/TUMKUR/20/650 dated 10.01.2019.
The Plaintiff contends that the scope of the contract included
the detailed engineering and execution of the entire facility and

- 5 -
COMAP No. 45 of 2025
C/W COMAP.CR No. 1 of 2026


its internal and external services in accordance with the
approved designs and drawings. The tender documents
specified a footprint of approximately 167 meters in length and
68 mtrs. in width, including the main facility with a carpet area
of 6514 sq.mtrs. and 747 sq.mtrs. of mezzanine floor, besides
a separate utility area of 274 sq.mtrs. According to the Plaintiff,
although design and detailing formed part of its scope, the
same was to be carried out within the parameters and drawings
furnished by the Defendant.
4. The Plaintiff further pleads that, while executing the
awarded work, it was required to carry out certain extra and
additional works which, according to it, were beyond the
quantities and scope contemplated in the tender, but payment
for such works was not made. The Plaintiff accordingly raised
its claims by letter dated 09.01.2021. It was the case of the
Plaintiff that the Defendant accepted some of the extra items
but rejected several other quantities, and that the statement of
accepted and rejected extra items demonstrated that the
rejected quantities had been disallowed without proper basis.
Aggrieved thereby, the Plaintiff invoked Clause 25 of the
Agreement relating to dispute resolution and addressed
representations dated 31.12.2021, 11.04.2022 and 13.05.2022

- 6 -
COMAP No. 45 of 2025
C/W COMAP.CR No. 1 of 2026


to the concerned authorities. The Defendant thereafter, by
communications dated 08.08.2022 and 04.10.2022, rejected
the claims for compensation towards the extra works. The
Plaintiff then issued notice dated 04.10.2022, followed by a
corrigendum dated 06.10.2022, expressing its intention to
approach the Civil Court in respect of its claims.
5. The Plaintiff states that the claims notified to the
Defendant comprised , inter alia , additional excavation, refilling,
removal of excess soil, PCC, centering, M25 concrete, solid
concrete blocks, TMT steel, waterproof plastering, structural
steel work, enamel painting, items covered under E1-25 to E1-
30 of the Bill of Quantities, additional mezzanine floor work,
excess 100 mm puff panels and refund of alleged un-
contractual recoveries. The aggregate of the claims notified was
stated to be Rs.4,36,25,162.93, with the Plaintiff relying upon
the Bill of Quantities and other contractual documents in
support of the individual claims. In particular, the Plaintiff
pleaded that the earth-work items were captured in the Bill of
Quantities under the “E” series, such as E-01, E-02 and E-03,
and that the additional work arose during actual execution of
the project. On the basis of these averments, the Plaintiff
ultimately sought recovery of Rs.6,92,87,649.54, comprising

- 7 -
COMAP No. 45 of 2025
C/W COMAP.CR No. 1 of 2026


compensation for extra works and refund of the
deductions/recoveries which, according to it, were not
authorised under the contract.
Defence of the Defendant:
6. The Defendant, in its written statement, disputes
the maintainability of the suit as framed and contends that the
claim for Rs.6,92,87,649.54 is contrary to the terms of the
contract. It is stated that the Defendant had invited the EPC
tender on 15.10.2018 from pre-qualified contractors for the
Integrated Titanium Alloy Tank Production Facility for LPSC(B)
at Tumakuru, and that the Plaintiff participated in the tender
and quoted for the entire project as a single item. The scope
covered planning, design, supply, fabrication, erection and
commissioning of the pre-engineered steel building, including
civil, PH, electrical, AC, mechanical and allied works, based on
the architectural scheme and specifications finalised by the
Department of Space. The Defendant therefore contends that,
having accepted the tender and quoted a composite price for
the entire work, the Plaintiff cannot subsequently split up the
work into different heads and seek additional amounts contrary
to the contractual terms.

- 8 -
COMAP No. 45 of 2025
C/W COMAP.CR No. 1 of 2026


7. The Defendant further contends that the site was
handed over to the Plaintiff on 21.01.2019, after finalisation of
the tender, with the existing site conditions being within the
Plaintiff’s knowledge. According to the Defendant, the Plaintiff
was thereafter required to execute the work in accordance with
the tender drawings and approved designs and the Defendant
had already settled the bills falling within the scope of the
contract, while amounts claimed for works outside the
contractual scope were also paid wherever found admissible.
The Defendant particularly relies upon Clause 12 of the General
Conditions of Contract, which required the contractor to follow
the drawings and designs approved by the Department and
provided that variations arising from design or site conditions,
except specific additions ordered by the Department, were to
be executed without extra cost where covered by the contract.
It is therefore the specific defence that the alleged additional
mezzanine floor and the consequential claims for excavation,
refilling, PCC, centering and shuttering, reinforcement steel,
concrete and structural steel cannot be treated as extra items,
since the work was executed pursuant to the approved design
and the quoted contract price.

- 9 -
COMAP No. 45 of 2025
C/W COMAP.CR No. 1 of 2026


8. Insofar as the individual claims are concerned, the
Defendant disputes that the Plaintiff executed any work beyond
the approved scope. With regard to the cable trench, it is
contended that the external trench, including the partition
walls, was already contemplated in the tender drawings and
that, although the width of the cable trench was increased from
1.50 metres, the Plaintiff had been suitably compensated for
the additional earthwork, PCC and RCC slab. The claim towards
internal partition walls, solid concrete block masonry and
waterproof plastering is accordingly denied as an extra work.
Likewise, the claims relating to centering/shuttering and M-25
ready-mix concrete are stated to be consequential to the
alleged additional mezzanine floor, which itself is disputed by
the Defendant. The consistent stand of the Defendant is that
the construction was carried out in accordance with the
approved drawings and designs forming part of the EPC tender
and that the Plaintiff, having participated in the tender with full
knowledge of those conditions and having quoted its price
accordingly, cannot subsequently claim additional payment for
works which were already comprehended within the contractual
scope and sought for dismissal of the suit.

- 10 -
COMAP No. 45 of 2025
C/W COMAP.CR No. 1 of 2026


Issues framed by Commercial Court:
9. Upon consideration of the pleadings of the parties
and the rival contentions arising therefrom, the Commercial
Court framed the following issues for its consideration:
“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that execution of extra
work due to the entries in the size of the Cable trench, as
pleaded?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that execution of
additional work due to execution of extra Mezzanine floor
area and above 747 sq.mtrs., as pleaded?

3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that execution of
extra work covered by specification of item of work under
EI-25 to EI-28 and EI-30 of bill of quantities - BOQ, as
pleaded?

4. Whether the defendant proves that it has compensated
for the execution of the work external trench by the
plaintiff?

5. Whether the defendant further proves that the work
executed by the plaintiff is as per the design mentioned in
the tender?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought?

7. What decree or order?

Evidence of the parties to the lis :
10. In order to substantiate its case, the plaintiff
examined its authorised signatory as PW-1. PW-1 deposed in
support of the plaint averments and produced documents which
came to be marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12. 45, The defendant, in

- 11 -
COMAP No. 45 of 2025
C/W COMAP.CR No. 1 of 2026


support of its defence, examined its authorised
person/signatory R. Bharathraj as DW-1. He deposed with
regard to the contract, tender conditions, approved designs and
the defence of the defendant, and the documents relied upon
by the defendant were marked as Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-38.
Discussion, Findings and Conclusion :
11. The controversy in the suit arises out of the EPC
contract awarded to the plaintiff for the Integrated Titanium
Alloy Tank Production Facility at Tumakuru, pursuant to the
tender dated 15.10.2018, Letter of Intent/Agreement dated
10.01.2019 and agreement dated 18.01.2019. The site was
handed over on 21.01.2019. The plaintiff contended that,
during execution, certain additional works were carried out at
the instance of the defendant, for which payment was not
made. The plaintiff relied upon the correspondence dated
31.12.2021, 11.04.2022, 13.05.2022, the defendant's reply
dated 08.08.2022, and the notice dated 04.10.2022 followed by
corrigendum dated 06.10.2022. Though PW-1 admitted that
there was no specific provision for extra work or separate
payment and that some claims had been rejected while some

- 12 -
COMAP No. 45 of 2025
C/W COMAP.CR No. 1 of 2026


were accepted and paid, the Court found that the evidence as a
whole established execution of the additional works.
12. In respect of the cable trench, the defendant relied
upon the tender drawings and contended that the plaintiff had
already been compensated for the increased width and that the
remaining works formed part of the original scope. The Court,
however, found no sufficient material to establish payment of
the amounts claimed for the additional work. The same
approach was adopted in respect of the mezzanine floor, where
the defendant relied upon Clause 12 of the GCC and contended
that the work was covered by the tender design. On
appreciation of the evidence, the Court accepted that additional
mezzanine work beyond 747 sq. metres had been executed.
The Court also found that the plaintiff had established the
works covered under E1-25 to E1-28 and E1-30 of the BOQ.
Accordingly, Issue Nos.1 to 3 were answered in the affirmative.
13. As regards Issue Nos.4 and 5, though the
defendant relied upon Ex.D1 to Ex.D38, including the tender
drawings, cable trench and mezzanine details, and contended
that the plaintiff had already been compensated and that the
work was within the original design, the defendant failed to

- 13 -
COMAP No. 45 of 2025
C/W COMAP.CR No. 1 of 2026


produce sufficient material to establish the same. The oral
evidence of DW-1, without supporting records, was not found
sufficient. Accordingly, Issue Nos.4 and 5 were answered in the
negative. On Issue No.6, the Court held the plaintiff entitled to
Rs.6,92,87,650/-, though the interest claimed was not granted
as sought.
14. Thus, the Commercial Court held that the plaintiff
had established execution of the additional works relating to
the cable trench, mezzanine floor beyond 747 sq. metres and
E1-25 to E1-28 and E1-30, while the defendant failed to
establish either payment for such work or that the entire work
was covered by the original tender design without additional
liability. Accordingly, by judgment dated 15.10.2024, the suit
was decreed with costs, directing the defendant to pay
Rs.6,92,87,650/- within three months from the date of
judgment.
Grounds in appeal:
15. The appellant/defendant contends that the
Commercial Court failed to appreciate Clause 12 of the General
Conditions of Contract and the specific defence that the works
claimed by the plaintiff were incidental to the EPC contract and

- 14 -
COMAP No. 45 of 2025
C/W COMAP.CR No. 1 of 2026


were required to be executed in accordance with the tender
drawings and approved designs. It is specifically urged that the
plaintiff had not obtained any prior written permission for the
alleged extra works and that the tender itself contemplated the
mezzanine floor and cable-trench works. The appellant further
contends that the Court failed to properly consider the defence
that the increase in the cable-trench width had already been
compensated under the relevant items, whereas the alleged
additional masonry, plastering, structural steel and painting
works were not extra works.
16. The defendant further assails the finding that the
plaintiff had proved the extra mezzanine work and the
consequential items. According to the appellant, PW-1 admitted
in cross-examination that there was no specific document
evidencing the alleged extra work, and nevertheless the
Commercial Court accepted the claims without insisting upon
proof of the execution and measurement of each additional
item. It is also contended that the Court erred in drawing an
adverse inference against the defendant without specifically
putting the defendant to notice regarding production of such
documents. On these grounds, the appellant contends that the
findings on the cable trench, mezzanine floor and the

- 15 -
COMAP No. 45 of 2025
C/W COMAP.CR No. 1 of 2026


consequential BOQ items, and consequently the decree for
Rs.6,92,87,650/-, are unsustainable.
17. We have heard Sri.A.Chandrachud, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/defendant and Sri.Bapat Sampath
Vinayaka Rao, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/plaintiff and perused the pleadings, the entire
material placed on record and the order passed by the
Commercial Court.
18. The question that arises for consideration in this
appeal is,
Whether the order passed by the Commercial Court
calls for interference by this Court?
Reasons for interference & Conclusion:
19. The principal question which, in my view, has not
been properly appreciated by the Commercial Court is the
effect of Clause 12 of the General Conditions of Contract. The
clause required the contractor to follow the drawings and
designs approved by the Department and contemplated that
any variation in the drawings on account of design, site
condition or other reasons, except specific additions ordered by

- 16 -
COMAP No. 45 of 2025
C/W COMAP.CR No. 1 of 2026


the Department, had to be specifically approved by the
Department before execution. It further provided that such
variations, unless specifically ordered, were to be executed at
no extra cost and that the cost would be deemed to have been
included in the contract price. This was not a mere procedural
clause. It governed the manner in which the contractor was
required to proceed when the work claimed subsequently as
“extra” was outside the tender drawings or specifications. The
plaintiff had admittedly entered into the EPC contract after
being furnished with the tender drawings and other technical
documents and after having an opportunity to examine the
same. Therefore, having quoted its price on that basis, the
plaintiff could not, after completion of the work, convert an
item forming part of the contract or a variation not preceded by
the stipulated approval into an independent claim for payment.
The evidence on record does not disclose any written
instruction of the Engineer obtained by the plaintiff before
execution of the particular works now claimed as additional.
20. The finding of the Commercial Court regarding the
mezzanine floor also requires interference. The tender
document admittedly provided for a mezzanine floor of 747
sq.mtrs. DW-1 admitted that the plaintiff had executed

- 17 -
COMAP No. 45 of 2025
C/W COMAP.CR No. 1 of 2026


1202.73 sq.mtrs., but the mere difference between the tender
quantity and the quantity ultimately executed cannot, by itself,
establish a legally payable extra item. The plaintiff was required
to establish when the alleged variation was ordered, by whom
it was ordered, the terms on which it was ordered and, more
importantly, that it was approved in the manner contemplated
by Clause 12. The plaintiff's own case was that the increase
was pursuant to oral directions of the Department officials for
accommodating AHU units. The Commercial Court noticed that
the extra-item statements were issued only on 2nd, 3rd, 4th
and 5th August 2021, whereas the plaintiff's own material
placed completion of the work much earlier. Thus, the
subsequent preparation or approval of extra-item statements
could not substitute the contractual requirement of obtaining
approval before execution of the alleged variation. The fact that
DW-1 stated that works beyond the contractual parameters
could constitute extra work has to be read along with the other
part of his evidence that the work was to be executed within
the approved drawings and parameters. An admission in cross-
examination cannot be isolated from the contract and the
surrounding evidence and treated as an admission of the
plaintiff's entitlement to the amount claimed.

- 18 -
COMAP No. 45 of 2025
C/W COMAP.CR No. 1 of 2026


21. The same principle applies to the cable trench
claims. Execution of the cable trench itself was part of the
contracted work. The defence was specific that the tender
drawings contemplated partition walls in the external trench
and that the increase in width had already been taken into
account and compensated in respect of earthwork, PCC and
RCC slab. The further claims towards solid concrete block
masonry, waterproof plastering, structural steel, chequered
plate and painting were disputed as additional items. The
plaintiff was therefore required to demonstrate, item by item,
that these works were outside the tender scope and that they
were executed pursuant to a departmental direction
constituting a variation under the contract. The written
statement specifically stated that the external trench and
partition walls were shown in the tender drawings and that the
quantities arising from the increased width had already been
suitably compensated. In respect of E1-25 to E1-28 and E1-30
also, the Department's specific case was that the items had
subsequently been redesigned as extra items and that the
corresponding quantities and rate analysis had already been
dealt with. The Commercial Court, however, proceeded
substantially on the footing that because some extra works had

- 19 -
COMAP No. 45 of 2025
C/W COMAP.CR No. 1 of 2026


admittedly been carried out under the contract, the disputed
works also stood established as extra works. That approach
overlooks the distinction between extra work actually ordered
and accepted by the Department and work which was already
within the scope of the EPC contract.
22. There is another important aspect. The plaintiff's
entitlement could not have been established merely by showing
that a larger quantity of work was physically executed. Its
burden was to establish the additional liability of the employer.
In the cross-examination of PW-1, the question as to whether
written instructions had been obtained from the Engineer
before execution of the alleged additional works was specifically
put. The plaintiff did not place before the Court a
contemporaneous written instruction corresponding to the
major disputed claims. The Commercial Court itself noticed this
aspect, but proceeded to accept the explanation of oral
instructions. In a commercial contract of this nature, involving
an EPC project, technical drawings, measurements and
substantial monetary claims, the absence of the very document
which, under Clause 12, was required to authorise a variation
assumes significance. The Department's subsequent extra-item
statements cannot automatically establish that every quantity

- 20 -
COMAP No. 45 of 2025
C/W COMAP.CR No. 1 of 2026


mentioned therein was an additional liability. The Court was
required to first identify the contractual scope, then the
particular deviation, then the departmental order or approval
and thereafter the measurement and value of the work. That
exercise has not been satisfactorily undertaken in respect of
the disputed claims.
23. The evidence of DW-1 regarding extra work has
also to be understood in its proper context. DW-1 admitted that
certain extra works had been carried out and that the
Department had paid for certain such works; he also stated
that supplementary work orders had been issued in respect of
some of them and that joint measurements were taken. This
evidence does not amount to an admission that all the works
forming the subject matter of the suit were extra works or that
the plaintiff was entitled to the amounts claimed. On the
contrary, the very distinction made by DW-1 between works
beyond the scope of the tender and works covered by the
tender supports the defence. The plaintiff had been paid for
extra items which the Department accepted. The disputed
claims, therefore, had to be separately proved. The Commercial
Court, while relying upon the admissions of DW-1 that the
plaintiff had executed some extra work, did not sufficiently

- 21 -
COMAP No. 45 of 2025
C/W COMAP.CR No. 1 of 2026


examine whether the particular items for which the decree was
ultimately granted were outside the agreed scope and had the
requisite departmental sanction. The plaintiff's claim for the
consequential items relating to excavation, refilling, PCC,
centering, reinforcement, concrete and structural steel
depended substantially upon its primary case of an additional
mezzanine floor and enlarged cable trench. When the
contractual basis for treating those principal works as additional
is not established, the consequential claims also cannot
independently survive.
24. For these reasons, the findings recorded by the
Commercial Court on Issues Nos.1 to 3 and the consequential
finding on entitlement cannot be sustained. The plaintiff was
required to establish not merely execution of work but
execution of work which was outside the contractual scope and
undertaken pursuant to a departmental variation duly
authorised in terms of Clause 12. The material on record does
not establish such prior written approval in respect of the
disputed mezzanine and cable-trench works. The fact that the
Department subsequently issued certain extra-item statements,
or that DW-1 admitted execution of some extra work, cannot

- 22 -
COMAP No. 45 of 2025
C/W COMAP.CR No. 1 of 2026


dispense with the contractual requirement or establish the
entire claim made in the suit.
25. The judgment and decree passed by the
Commercial Court, insofar as it decrees the suit in favour of the
plaintiff and fastens liability upon the defendant to pay a sum
of Rs.6,92,87,650/-, cannot be sustained and calls for
interference.
26. The judgment and decree dated 15.10.2024 in
Com.O.S. No.1322/2023, therefore, cannot be sustained.
Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the suit filed by
the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.6,92,87,650/- deserves to be
dismissed.
Commercial Appeal Cross Objection No.1/2026:
27. The plaintiff has preferred this Commercial Appeal
Cross Objection seeking to interfere with the judgment and
decree passed by the Commercial Court insofar as the claim
relating to interest is concerned and has sought interest at the
rate of 18% per annum.
28. In view of the appeal preferred by the defendant
being allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the

- 23 -
COMAP No. 45 of 2025
C/W COMAP.CR No. 1 of 2026


Commercial Court being set aside, resulting in dismissal of the
suit, the cross-appeal preferred by the plaintiff does not survive
for consideration. Consequently, the question of awarding
interest at the rate of 18% per annum also does not arise.
29. There is also another reason for not entertaining
the cross-appeal, as the same has been presented with a delay
of 316 days. The explanation offered by the plaintiff for the
delay is not convincing and does not constitute sufficient cause
for condoning such an inordinate delay. The delay, therefore,
cannot be condoned. Consequently, on this ground also, the
cross-appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we pass the
following;
ORDER

(i) Commercial Appeal No.45/2025 is allowed with
cost;

(ii) The judgment and decree dated 15.10.2024
passed in Commercial O.S.No.1322/2023 by the
LXXXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge
(CCH-85) is hereby set aside; consequently, the
said suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed;

- 24 -
COMAP No. 45 of 2025
C/W COMAP.CR No. 1 of 2026



(iii) Commercial Appeal Cross Objection No.1 of 2026
is dismissed both on the ground of merits and
delay, as the plaintiff's claim for interest does
not survive for consideration in view of the
dismissal of the suit;

(iv) Parties shall bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
JUDGE






KNM