Administrative Priority Queues and Fund Scams Cannot Serve as Open-Ended Shields to Escape Vested Contractual Debts

The Respondent, a registered contractor with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), executed civil works for the improvement and development of lanes under four work orders issued between 2019 and 2020

Although the works were completed, the MCD withheld payments regarding running account bills, final bills, security deposits, and earnest money

The Respondent filed a commercial suit for recovery of ₹9,33,105/-, which the Commercial Court partly decreed in his favor, awarding principal amounts plus 9% interest

The MCD appealed, contending that the contractor failed to submit final bills in the prescribed format, that payments were subject to a "queue system" based on fund availability, and that interest was contractually barred

The Court applied Clauses 7, 9, 17, and 45 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), noting that Clause 45 contains a "deeming provision" for labor clearances if no complaints are received within six months

It relied on the precedent Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s Ram Niwas Goel [2026:DHC:177-DB], which established that a public body cannot escape debt once engineering divisions certify work execution

Regarding interest, the Court applied Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the principle from North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Sanjeev Oberoi, holding that statutory power to award interest overrides generic contractual bars when payments are unconscionably delayed

The Court also applied the Supreme Court's In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation regarding pandemic-era timelines

The Court rejected the MCD’s reliance on the "Queue System," ruling that an administrative priority list cannot be used as an open-ended license to block a contractor’s working capital for over five years

It found that the MCD’s own internal records (Ex.-DW1/13) verified and passed the amounts due; thus, the objection regarding the "format" of the final bills was a "hyper-technicality"

On security deposits, the Court noted that since the MCD admitted there were no labor disputes or defects, Clause 45 mandated the "deemed" release of funds

Regarding the "Accord and Satisfaction" defense, the Court held that accepting partial payments without a formal "No Dues Certificate" does not constitute a waiver, especially when the contractor is under economic duress

The Court affirmed the 9% interest rate as a proper exercise of judicial discretion to compensate for the loss of liquidity caused by the MCD

The Court held that the Respondent was entitled to the recovery of ₹4,95,618/- for withheld bills and ₹1,88,711/- for security deposits, along with 9% per annum interest

The Appellant (MCD) was directed to clear all outstanding decretal amounts within eight weeks