Allowed

K Madhusudan Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Nov 2023WP/28725/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the respondents to release Rs.6,76,000/- comprising earnest money deposit and withheld amount to the petitioner within four weeks, as there was no justification for retention after completion of the work and defect liability period.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to release Earnest Money Deposit and withheld amount of Rs.6,76,000/- to petitioner within four weeks.

K Madhusudan Reddy Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.28725 of 2023

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The present petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondent in not releasing the refund of 2.5% of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and 7.5% of withheld amount totaling to Rs.6,76,000/-.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has entered into various agreements with the respondents for the works in Kurnool District and he completed the work as per the agreements. Execution of work was entered into measurement book prepared by the respondent authorities without noticing any defects. The amount for execution of work was paid to the petitioner, but the earnest money deposit and withheld amount was not released even after completion of defect liability period. The petitioner has approached the respondents several times for reimbursement of the earnest money deposit and withheld amount. As the respondents have failed to release the earnest money deposit and withheld amount, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent authorities for release of earnest money deposit and withheld amount.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶7

¶8

Learned Government Pleader submitted that the respondents are ready to pay the amounts due to the petitioner.

¶9

Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by both learned counsel and on perusing the material placed on record, as there is no justification in withholding the earnest money deposit and withheld amount, even after completion of defect liability period and completion of the work allotted by the respondents, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to release the earnest money deposit and withheld amount due to the petitioner for the last several months.

¶10

In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release the earnest money deposit and withheld amount of Rs.6,76,000/- to the petitioner within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶12

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

¶13

21.11.2023 LSP

¶14

¶15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.28725 of 2023

¶17

21.11.2023

¶18

LSP

K Madhusudan Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Madhusudan Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

kacham vinoda Vs State of Ap,Prl.Scy,C.S.,Hyd,and 3

Majji Krishnaveni Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal

A. Prakasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mrs.Ch Sarojamma Vs State of Ap,Prl.Scy,P.Raj,Amaravathi,and 2

B.Venkata Padma Rao W.G.Dist Vs Prl Secy Pr Dept Hyd and 4 Others

Kilarapu Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh