In the High Court of New Delhi, under case number 2025/HC/0234, a new lawsuit was filed wherein the plaintiff, Mr. Ramesh Kumar, initiated legal proceedings against the defendant, M/s Agarwal Infrastructure Private Limited, to safeguard his contractual rights.The plaint submitted by the plaintiff's counsel asserted that the plaintiff had entered into a construction contract with the defendant company, under which the plaintiff was responsible for supplying raw materials for a commercial complex. The plaintiff duly fulfilled his contractual obligations by delivering the required construction materials as per the agreed terms. However, the defendant allegedly breached fundamental provisions of the contract and failed to make the due payments.The plaintiff further contended that the defendant had violated Clause 7(a) of the contract, which mandated that payments be made to the plaintiff by the end of each month. However, the defendant delayed payments for three consecutive months and subsequently refused to make any further payments altogether.The plaint emphasized that due to the defendant’s breach of contract, the plaintiff suffered severe financial distress and irreparable damage to his business reputation. Consequently, the plaintiff sought a claim of ₹50,00,000 (fifty lakh rupees) as compensation from the defendant.In response, the defendant filed a written statement asserting that the materials supplied by the plaintiff did not meet the quality standards specified in the contract. The defendant's counsel argued that, under Clause 9(b) of the contract, the defendant had the right to withhold payment if the supplied materials were found to be substandard.After hearing the preliminary arguments of both parties, the High Court directed that an independent technical expert committee assess the quality of the materials supplied by the plaintiff. Additionally, the court ordered the defendant to deposit 50% of the total outstanding amount as an interim payment to the plaintiff until the expert report was submitted.The court scheduled the next hearing, allowing both parties to present additional evidence. Based on the findings of the expert report, the court would determine whether the defendant’s decision to withhold payment was contractually justified. If the report confirmed that the materials met the required standards, the defendant would be directed to make full payment.In this case, the court provided clarity on contractual rights and obligations, emphasizing that no party could unilaterally withhold payments without substantial evidence. The court stated that contractual obligations must be honored unless valid legal grounds for non-payment were established.The matter was listed for further proceedings, with the court highlighting that its decision in this case could serve as a significant precedent for resolving contractual disputes in commercial transactions. In the High Court of New Delhi, under case number 2025/HC/0234, a new lawsuit was filed wherein the plaintiff, Mr. Ramesh Kumar, initiated legal proceedings against the defendant, M/s Agarwal Infrastructure Private Limited, to safeguard his contractual rights.The plaint submitted by the plaintiff's counsel asserted that the plaintiff had entered into a construction contract with the defendant company, under which the plaintiff was responsible for supplying raw materials for a commercial complex. The plaintiff duly fulfilled his contractual obligations by delivering the required construction materials as per the agreed terms. However, the defendant allegedly breached fundamental provisions of the contract and failed to make the due payments.The plaintiff further contended that the defendant had violated Clause 7(a) of the contract, which mandated that payments be made to the plaintiff by the end of each month. However, the defendant delayed payments for three consecutive months and subsequently refused to make any further payments altogether.The plaint emphasized that due to the defendant’s breach of contract, the plaintiff suffered severe financial distress and irreparable damage to his business reputation. Consequently, the plaintiff sought a claim of ₹50,00,000 (fifty lakh rupees) as compensation from the defendant.In response, the defendant filed a written statement asserting that the materials supplied by the plaintiff did not meet the quality standards specified in the contract. The defendant's counsel argued that, under Clause 9(b) of the contract, the defendant had the right to withhold payment if the supplied materials were found to be substandard.After hearing the preliminary arguments of both parties, the High Court directed that an independent technical expert committee assess the quality of the materials supplied by the plaintiff. Additionally, the court ordered the defendant to deposit 50% of the total outstanding amount as an interim payment to the plaintiff until the expert report was submitted.The court scheduled the next hearing, allowing both parties to present additional evidence. Based on the findings of the expert report, the court would determine whether the defendant’s decision to withhold payment was contractually justified. If the report confirmed that the materials met the required standards, the defendant would be directed to make full payment.In this case, the court provided clarity on contractual rights and obligations, emphasizing that no party could unilaterally withhold payments without substantial evidence. The court stated that contractual obligations must be honored unless valid legal grounds for non-payment were established.The matter was listed for further proceedings, with the court highlighting that its decision in this case could serve as a significant precedent for resolving contractual disputes in commercial transactions. Submit