Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
A Delhi court has issued a warrant to attach movable properties at the Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee (DPCC) office at Rouse Avenue, after the DPCC failed to pay Rs 94,82,805 to the builders who constructed it. However, the builders’ lawyer Vinay Gupta said that when he, along with the court staff and police reached the DPPC office, they found it locked and could not attach the movable properties inside.
Additional District Judge Sunil Beniwal had on February 23 issued a “warrant of attachment of movable property in execution of decree for money”.
The issue dates back to 2005, when construction work at the building was outsourced to two brothers, but only a part of the sum agreed was paid, Gupta said. “There was a contract on agreed rates. The architect had given a satisfactory report. Payments were certified, but after paying an initial sum, the DPCC did not pay rest to the brothers… We filed a civil suit in the High Court in 2006, but later it got transferred to the Tis Hazari court in 2016 due to pecuniary jurisdiction,” the lawyer said.
One of the complainants, builder Vinod Goyal, said that after the construction, he was paid Rs 38 lakh via cheque. “But they did not give me another Rs 57 lakh, which has been pending since 2005.” The builders’ lawyer said that in January last year, a court had ordered the DPCC to pay the principal amount with the interests, but despite filing an execution plea, the order was not heeded.
“After that, the court issued a warrant to attach the movable properties, but the DPCC gave an undertaking that they would pay the amount. However, they did not turn up for the next court hearing… This time again, the court ordered to attach the movable properties, but it could not be done as the doors were locked,” Gupta said.
“On the next date of hearing, March 9, we will seek permission to break the locks and attach the properties,” he added. Delhi Congress vice-president Chattar Singh said, “We will approach the High Court in the matter. This is an old case and there must have been a dispute with the contractor. But we have already paid the sum.”
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram