Delhi High Court · 2025-05-26
DARRAMEKS HOTELS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs BRILLTECH ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED
- Citation / case number
- CM(M)-2333/2024 2025:DHC:4404
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- DARRAMEKS HOTELS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
- Respondent
- BRILLTECH ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED
Judgment text excerpt
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 16.05.2025 Judgment delivered on: 26.05.2025 + CM(M) 2333/2024 & CM APPL. 21568/2024 DARRAMEKS HOTELS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner VERSUS BRILLTECH ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED ....Respondent Memo of Appearance For the Petitioner: Mr. Amandeep Singh and Mr. Pradeep Desodya, Advocates For the Respondents: Mr. Ankur Singhal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN JUDGMENT MANOJ JAIN, J 1. Petitioner herein is defending a suit which is commercial in nature. 2. Pursuant to a tender issued by defendant, the plaintiff participated in tender process and was, eventually, awarded contract. The suit in question seeks recovery of Rs. 65,24,759/- which, according to plaintiff, is towards outstanding payment with respect to the abovesaid contract. The plaintiff also contends that the defendant was responsible as it failed to complete various civil works related to road, approach road, building etc. 3. As per defendant, whereas, the plaintiff has failed to perform its contractual obligations. Page 1 of 11 CM(M) 2333/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:26.05.2025 18:24:28 4. There were, admittedly, exchange of various e-mails between the plaintiff and the defendant and many of these are already referred in pleadings. 5. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff moved an application under Order XI Rule 1(4) of CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to rely upon some more e-mails which had been exchanged between them. 6. According to the plaintiff, though there were voluminous exchange of e-mails but it wanted to rely and refer to 75 such e-mails which would go on to show that the stand taken by the defendant is a false one. 7. While moving the