Court tells sitar maestro to pay dues to builder

NEW DELHI: Seven years after Ravi Shankar Institute for Music and Performing Arts was established in the capital, its founder, sitar maestro Pandit Ravi Shankar has landed in trouble with a trial court directing him to clear the pending dues of the construction company which executed the project. The money comes to Rs 15 lakh.
Holding Pandit Shankar and his wife Sukanya Shankar trustees of the institute "jointly and severely liable for clearing the dues'', Additional District Judge Dinesh Bhatt directed them to pay Rs 15,08,432 to the contractor, who carried out the civil work, along with an interest of 6% per annum for the duration of the time between the filing of the case and the realisation of the money.
The court's order came after a petition was filed by contractor V K Constructions alleging that despite sending repeated reminders to the institute to clear the outstanding bill of civil work carried out by them, the defendants never paid up and kept "making false promises on one pretext or the other''. The firm, which moved the court in 2005 through its counsel Richa Kapoor, said that it was selected by Shankar in 1998 for construction of the building in Chanakyapuri. The price of the work was negotiated at over Rs 2.5 crore. While the work got over in 2003, counsel Kapoor alleged that the contractor never got his outstanding amount. The firm also sent a legal notice to the institute and its trustees in 2005. They never got a reply.
The defendants (Shankar and the institute) alleged that the contractor failed to remove the defects in the building even after reasonable time was given to them. They claimed that later they had to hire two other contractors to remove the defects therefore "there was no question of releasing the retention amount''. ADJ Bhatt rejected their contention stating that the defendants failed to produce any evidence or witness in their favour.
"Defendants have taken a stand that defects were not rectified or were rectified by other contractors...there is no document on record to show as to what amount was spent for rectification of defects left by the plaintiff or what defects were removed by other contractors. Defendants have not examined any of the witnesses to this effect,'' ADJ Bhatt said.
Slamming the institute for non-payment, the court held that there was no evidence on record to show that the defects were vital or of such nature "so as to dis-entitle plaintiff for payment''.
smriti.singh@timesgroup.com