RAMESHWAR BANSAL vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — 52/2017
Case under Recovery of Money Section ORDINARY. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 27th March 2026.
CS DJ - CIVIL SUIT FOR DJ ADJ
CNR: DLSE010083392016
Filing Number
30722/2016
Filing Date
24-01-2007
Registration No
52/2017
Registration Date
24-01-2007
Court
District and Sessions Judge, South-East , Saket
Judge
10-District Judge - 02
Decision Date
27th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAMESHWAR BANSAL
Respondent(s)
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Hearing History
Judge: 10-District Judge - 02
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Judgement
Final Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 14-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 28-02-2026 | Judgement |
| 04-02-2026 | Judgement |
| 19-12-2025 | Final Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: Rameshwar Bansal v. Delhi Development Authority (CS 52/2017) The Delhi District Court dismissed the contractor's suit seeking Rs. 31,12,540 for unpaid construction work on a shopping center project. The court found that the plaintiff accepted the final bill of Rs. 1,19,37,743 in December 2006 without protest, thereby becoming estopped from challenging it later. The plaintiff's own admission that only Rs. 4,21,266 remained outstanding (not the claimed Rs. 26,26,185) undermined his case, as did his failure to substantiate claims for watch and ward charges lacking contractual provision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary: Rameshwar Bansal v. Delhi Development Authority (CS 52/2017) The Delhi District Court dismissed the contractor's suit seeking Rs. 31,12,540 for unpaid construction work on a shopping center project. The court found that the plaintiff accepted the final bill of Rs. 1,19,37,743 in December 2006 without protest, thereby becoming estopped from challenging it later. The plaintiff's own admission that only Rs. 4,21,266 remained outstanding (not the claimed Rs. 26,26,185) undermined his case, as did his failure to substantiate claims for watch and ward charges lacking contractual provision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts