Delhi High Court Upholds ₹9.02 Lakh Renovation Recovery Decree; Rejects ₹4.13 Lakh Defect Set-Off Where Homeowner Never Incurred Repair Expenditure or Proved Loss
Delhi High Court Finds No Basis to Reduce Contractor’s Recovery for Alleged Defects; Says Architect’s Estimate Alone Cannot Establish Compensable Repair Loss
Facts
The appeal arose from interior renovation work carried out by Singhasan Prasad at a flat belonging to Anup Kothiwal at M-67, Third Floor, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi.
The appellant engaged the respondent in June 2017. The scope of work, settled by email dated 3 July 2017, included carpentry, electrical, plumbing, plastering and painting, with payments to be made progressively according to work completed.
The homeowner shifted out to rented premises in July 2017 to enable the work and returned to the flat around November–December 2017.
According to the appellant, the contractor delayed completion and left several aspects of the work incomplete or defective. The contractor, on the other hand, raised claims for outstanding payment through email dated 12 December 2017.
The homeowner later complained about defects by email dated 13 March 2018. In its reply dated 29 October 2018, the contractor acknowledged that certain snags could arise after handover and offered to carry out repairs, while maintaining that those issues did not justify withholding payment.
The contractor eventually instituted a recovery suit claiming ₹9,02,686 as the unpaid balance.
The Commercial Court decreed the suit on 26 October 2024 for:
- ₹9,02,686 as principal;
- interest at 10% per annum from institution of the suit until realisation; and
- ₹20,000 costs.
The homeowner challenged that decree before the Delhi High Court under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Issues
The principal issues before the High Court were:
- Whether the contractor had adequately proved that ₹9,02,686 remained due and payable for the renovation work;
- Whether discrepancies between amounts demanded in different emails undermined the contractor’s final recovery claim;
- Whether the homeowner was entitled to a ₹4,13,000 set-off or deduction for alleged defective and incomplete work;
- Whether an architect’s estimate of future repair costs could justify such a deduction when the homeowner had not actually incurred those expenses;
- Whether any deduction of ₹85,000 proposed by the homeowner’s architect was proved;
- Whether photographs, videos and architect evidence sufficiently established substantial defects in the work;
- Whether the Trial Court correctly refused the homeowner’s defence in the absence of a properly pleaded counterclaim or set-off; and
- Whether the award of 10% pendente lite and future interest was excessive.
Appellant’s Arguments
The homeowner argued that the renovation work was incomplete, defective and unprofessional.
He relied upon emails exchanged in March and October 2018, which according to him demonstrated that the contractor himself had acknowledged the existence of snags.
He further relied upon an architect’s estimate dated 12 February 2020 assessing approximately ₹4,13,000 as the cost of repairing and rectifying the alleged defects.
Accordingly, he argued that the Trial Court should at least have deducted this amount from the contractor’s claim.
The appellant also attacked the consistency of the contractor’s monetary claim.
He pointed out that:
- one email referred to approximately ₹9.8 lakh plus taxes;
- another referred to approximately ₹8 lakh; and
- the suit ultimately claimed ₹9,02,686.
According to him, these variations demonstrated that the contractor’s bills were not based on accurate site measurements.
He also sought waiver of the 10% interest awarded by the Trial Court.
Respondent’s Arguments
The contractor defended the decree by relying upon the measurement sheets and invoices produced at trial.
The measurement sheets had been expressly admitted by the appellant during admission and denial of documents.
The contractor submitted that the total bills amounted to ₹20,72,686, against which the homeowner had already paid ₹11,70,000.
The balance was therefore precisely ₹9,02,686, which became the suit claim.
The contractor argued that the only significant snag was a broken tile and that an offer to replace it had been made.
As regards the wider alleged defects, the contractor disputed that they justified withholding the admitted contractual dues.
Analysis of the Law
1. Invoices and Measurement Sheets Proved the Principal Dues
The High Court found that the contractor had placed on record all invoices aggregating to ₹20,72,686.
After crediting the ₹11,70,000 already paid by the homeowner, the balance exactly matched the suit amount of ₹9,02,686.
More importantly, the invoices were based on the measurement sheets filed in evidence, and those measurement sheets had been admitted by the appellant.
The Court therefore held that the claim had a clear documentary foundation.
2. Different Figures in Earlier Emails Did Not Defeat the Claim
The Court rejected the argument that different amounts referred to in correspondence undermined the suit.
The Trial Court had already noted that the amount claimed in the suit was lower than the amount earlier demanded.
What mattered was whether the amount ultimately claimed was proved through admissible evidence.
Since the final figure was supported by invoices and measurement sheets, the email discrepancies did not justify interference.
3. ₹4.13 Lakh Repair Estimate Could Not Operate as Set-Off
The homeowner relied heavily upon the architect’s estimated rectification cost of ₹4,13,000.
The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s rejection of that defence.
First, the appellant had not pleaded a counterclaim or a formal set-off for that amount in his written statement.
Second, the estimate remained merely prospective: the homeowner admitted that no repair or rectification work had actually been carried out.
The High Court expressly held that even if a set-off had been pleaded, it could not have been granted because the expenditure had never been incurred.
4. Eight-Year Failure to Repair Undermined the Defect Claim
The renovation was completed in 2017.
By the time the appeal was decided in 2026, almost eight years had passed, yet the homeowner had still not spent the estimated ₹4,13,000 on rectification.
The Court therefore found no basis to permit deduction of that amount from the contractor’s legally established dues.
5. No Evidence to Quantify Alleged Defective Work
The Trial Court had considered photographs, videos and the architect’s testimony.
It found no substantial defect or damage sufficient to defeat the contractor’s claim.
The High Court noted that the homeowner had still not undertaken any rectification work, making it impossible to objectively quantify the financial effect of the alleged defects.
Accordingly, the Court held that no ad hoc deduction could be made from the contractor’s ₹9,02,686 claim.
6. Architect’s Evidence Was Not Sufficiently Reliable
The appellant’s architect, Arjun Sara, had inspected the premises only in February 2020.
The Trial Court noted that he was the husband of the appellant’s niece, and therefore potentially an interested witness.
It also found that the estimate prepared by him did not justify reducing the contractor’s recovery claim.
The High Court found no reason to interfere with that evidentiary assessment.
7. ₹85,000 Deduction Was Also Unproved
The appellant additionally relied upon an email from another architect, Karan Kapoor, objecting to an amount of ₹85,000.
The High Court held that the appellant had not led evidence at trial substantiating that deduction.
Accordingly, ₹85,000 could not be reduced from the decretal amount either.
8. 10% Interest Was Reasonable in a Commercial Transaction
The Trial Court had awarded interest at 10% per annum only from the date of filing of the suit until realisation.
No pre-suit interest had been awarded.
The High Court considered this significant.
Since the underlying transaction was commercial, it held that 10% pendente lite and future interest was reasonable and just.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment does not substantially rely upon or analyse external judicial precedents.
The appeal was decided primarily on:
- invoices;
- admitted measurement sheets;
- correspondence between the parties;
- photographs and videos;
- architect evidence;
- the absence of any pleaded set-off or counterclaim;
- the fact that no alleged repair expenditure was actually incurred; and
- the Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence.
Accordingly, the judgment is primarily evidentiary and fact-specific rather than precedent-driven.
Its principal commercial-law significance lies in the distinction between:
- an actual, proved loss or pleaded set-off, and
- a mere estimate of prospective repair expenditure that has never been incurred.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court found no reason to disturb the Trial Court’s factual findings.
The contractor had proved his claim through invoices based on measurement sheets which the homeowner had admitted.
The homeowner’s principal challenge rested upon alleged defects, but those defects had not translated into any proved financial loss.
The ₹4.13 lakh figure was only an estimate prepared years after the renovation. No rectification work had actually taken place, no expenditure had been incurred, and no proper set-off or counterclaim had been pleaded.
Likewise, the proposed ₹85,000 deduction was never substantiated through evidence.
The Court therefore concluded that allowing deductions on such material would amount to granting unquantified and unproved compensation against an otherwise established contractual debt.
The Trial Court’s decree for ₹9,02,686 was consequently affirmed.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed Anup Kothiwal’s appeal and upheld the Commercial Court’s decree in favour of Singhasan Prasad.
The Court affirmed:
- principal recovery of ₹9,02,686;
- interest at 10% per annum from the date of filing of the suit until realisation; and
- the Trial Court’s refusal to allow deductions based upon alleged repair and rectification costs.
The Court further directed the Registry to release the decretal amount already deposited before the High Court, together with accrued interest, to the respondent within two weeks.
Case Details
Case: Anup Kothiwal v. Singhasan Prasad
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: RFA(COMM) 39/2025 & CM APPL. 46529/2025; CNR No. DLHC011015202024
Judges: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Reserved On: 30 July 2026
Date: 12 August 2026
Result: Appeal dismissed; Commercial Court decree of ₹9,02,686 with 10% pendente lite and future interest upheld; deposited decretal amount directed to be released to the contractor within two weeks.
