Court awards plaintiff Rs. 2,18,58,875 in breach of contract case. Summary judgment favors plaintiff.

The court granted the plaintiff's claim for the recovery of Rs. 2,18,58,875/- along with interest, based on breach of contract and performance obligations by the defendants. The court issued a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, awarding Rs. 1,68,93,875/- after deductions, with interest and costs. The defendants' arguments regarding liquidated damages and proof of loss were dismissed, and the court allowed the plaintiff to auction the goods. The court found no triable issues and deemed the defendants' defenses as unsubstantiated, leading to the judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Recovery of Rs. 2,18,58,875/- along with interest.
2. Judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
3. Summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
4. Breach of contract and performance obligations.
5. Liquidated damages and proof of loss under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
6. Mitigation of loss and auction of goods.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Recovery of Rs. 2,18,58,875/- along with interest:
The plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2,18,58,875/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from 15th February 2015 till realization. The claim was based on the Second Agreement where the defendants had agreed to pay Rs. 2,47,65,000/- if they failed to make the apartments ready for installation of Modular Kitchens by the stipulated deadline.

2. Judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC:
The plaintiff filed I.A. No. 14036/2017 under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for judgment on admission. The court noted that Order XII Rule 6 CPC allows for speedy judgment based on admissions made in the pleadings or otherwise. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. vs. United Bank of India & Ors., which emphasized the rule's objective to enable a party to obtain a speedy judgment when there is a clear admission of facts.

3. Summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015:
The plaintiff also filed I.A. No. 14064/2017 under Order XIII-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 for a summary judgment. The court explained that Order XIII-A empowers the court to give a summary judgment if the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and there is no other compelling reason for a trial. This provision aims to improve efficiency and reduce delays in commercial cases.

4. Breach of contract and performance obligations:
The court found that the defendants breached the Second Agreement by failing to make the apartments ready by 15th February 2015. The plaintiff had imported the Modular Kitchens exclusively for the defendants, and the defendants admitted to this in the agreements. The court noted that the defendants did not provide any valid defense or documents to deny the plaintiff's claim.

5. Liquidated damages and proof of loss under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872:
The defendants argued that the plaintiff needed to prove actual loss or damages to claim liquidated damages under Section 74. They cited Kailash Nath Associates vs. Delhi Development Authority, which held that proof of actual damage is required if it is possible to prove. However, the court held that in this case, the determination of precise quantum of loss was difficult, and the Second Agreement provided for a reasonable pre-estimate of costs, which was admitted by the defendants.

6. Mitigation of loss and auction of goods:
The plaintiff was permitted to auction the Modular Kitchens after the defendants failed to respond to the application for disposal of goods. The court noted that the defendants did not offer to purchase or take delivery of the kitchens when the auction was ordered. The defendants' appeal against the auction was disposed of with their consent for the sale. The court held that the sale in a public auction did not render the performance of Clause 5 of the Second Agreement impossible.

Court's Reasoning and Relief:
The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to a summary judgment as there was no triable issue, and the defenses raised by the defendants were considered moonshine and sham. The court decreed that the plaintiff was entitled to Rs. 1,68,93,875/- after deducting amounts already received, along with interest @ 7% per annum from 15th February 2015 till realization, and actual costs. The court directed the registry to prepare a decree sheet accordingly.

---