Dismissed

Smt B v. Lakshmi v Bangalore Metropolitan

Karnataka HC26 Aug 2021WP/12948/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition seeking refund of earnest money deposit. The Court held that the dispute arose under the Contract Act and that writ jurisdiction was not maintainable for contractual matters, regardless of the respondent's failure to provide a hearing as per previous orders.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition to quash the order and claim refund of earnest money deposit was dismissed.

Smt B v Lakshmi Vs Bangalore Metropolitan — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.12948/2021 (GM-Res)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. B.V. LAKSHMI W/O. L. NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/O. NO.193 27^TH CROSS 2^ND MAIN ROAD JAYANAGAR 6^TH BLOCK BENGALURU – 560 082

¶8

.. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA KURANDWAD, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 85 K.H.ROAD NGO COLONY SUDHAMA NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027

¶12

¶13

CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE, AT NO. 85 K.H.ROAD, NGO COLONY SUDHAMA NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 … RESPONDENTS

¶14

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH ORDER DATED 13.09.2019 BEARING NO.BMTC.CO:PVT:2517:2019-20 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-M; ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REFUND THE EMD AMOUNT OF RS.1,00,000/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% COMPOUNDABLE ANNUALLY FROM 26.09.2006 TILL THE DATE OF REALISATION OF THE SAME; GRANT ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION OR RELIEF AS IT DEEMS FIR UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

O R D E R

Heard.

Petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure-‘M’) passed by the Chief Traffic Manager (Commercial), BMTC¹ , holding that forfeiture of earnest money deposit is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the letter of intent.

¶21

Petitioner claims to have offered to supply 10 buses on hire to the BMTC, but she was unable to do so. She sought for refund of earnest money deposit. Same was not considered. Hence, she approached this Court in W.P.No.42920/2018. This Court vide order dated 30.07.2019 has directed the Chief Traffic Manager / respondent No.2 to afford an opportunity of hearing and thereafter, to decide the issue of refund of earnest money deposit. Pursuant thereto, second respondent has passed the impugned order.

¶22

1 Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation

¶23

¶24

3. Learned advocate for petitioner submitted that

¶25

the facts and reasons recorded in the impugned order are factually incorrect.

¶26

The second respondent has recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner had offered 10 buses. She had deposited earnest money deposit of Rs.1,00,000/-. Letter of intent was issued on 27.01.2006. Petitioner failed to provide any bus. With these facts, he has recorded reasons justifying forfeiture. The payment of earnest money was in the year 2006. Petitioner is seeking to refund of the same, which is based on agreement of parties governed by the Contract Act. In contractual matters, writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the

¶27

writ petition is dismissed .

¶28

No costs.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

Bss

Smt B v. Lakshmi v Bangalore Metropolitan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt B v. Lakshmi v Bangalore Metropolitan

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

A Lakshmamma Vs N Shivanna

Lokesh Vs Smt. G.S. Sudha

M/S Woodwell International Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K P Harish Vs Smt T Vinutha

M/S Jeevan Diesel & Electricals Ltd., Vs M/S Lotus Powergear Pvt. Ltd.

Devas Multimedia Private Limited Vs the Special Director