Dismissed

Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited v. M/S Zam Zam Enterprises

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2022RSA/1364/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the second appeal filed by Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited against the lower court's decree in its favour. The Court found no substantial question of law on questions of fact regarding completion of work and irrelevancies.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed and decree confirming lower court judgment dismissed.

Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited Vs M/S… — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1364 OF 2015 (MON)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR/ GENERAL MANAGER (ADMIN & HRD).

¶9

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE), BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, O & M DIVISION, KOLAR-563 101,

¶10

THE GENERAL MANAGER (ELECTRICAL), C.O. & M. DIVISION, BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED KOLAR-563 101. ... APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

M/S ZAM ZAM ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROP. SRI.S.P.NISAR AHMED,

¶14

¶15

S/O PYAROO SAB, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR CLOCK TOWER, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563 101. ...RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI T.R.JAYARAMA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.02.2015 PASSED IN R.A NO.105/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR, C/C. I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.04.2013 PASSED IN O.S NO.121/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., KOLAR.

¶18

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The captioned Second Appeal is filed by unsuccessful defendants who are questioning the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below wherein the recovery suit filed by the plaintiff contractor seeking recovery of Rs. 5,35,203/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is allowed.

¶21

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

¶22

to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

¶23

¶24

Plaintiff has instituted a suit against the defendant Nos.1 to 3, seeking direction against the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.5,35,203/-. Plaintiff claims that he is a registered electrical proprietary concern. Plaintiff further claimed that defendants entrusted work regarding providing spiral earth electrodes for various high-tension lines and the estimated project amount was fixed at Rs.5,35,203/-. Plaintiff contended that he has completed the work and a report was submitted. Plaintiff's grievance is that though he has completed the work and concerned officials have approved his bills after visiting the spot, however, for the reasons best known, the defendants have not cleared the plaintiff's bill which are legally due to him and hence the present suit.

¶25

Defendants on receipt of summons tendered appearance and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendants claimed that the technical committee on inspection found that department has incurred financial loss of Rs.1,00,16,875/-. The technical

¶26

¶27

audit and quality control has also found that plaintiff is guilty of several irregularities while executing the work. Therefore, defendants contended that they are justified in keeping the bills pending. The defendants also claimed that the present suit is barred by limitation.

¶28

The Trial Court having examined oral and documentary evidence held that plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim. While examining the evidence on record, the Trial Court found that defendants though are alleging that there are some irregularities, no action is initiated against the contractor. The Trial Court was also of the view that report though indicate that there are some irregularities, the official of defendants who was examined as D.W.1, was not sure as to whether any action is initiated against the official or contractor.

¶29

It is in this background, the Trial Court found that defendants action of withholding the bills which are legally due to the plaintiff was unfair and unjustified. While

¶30

¶31

considering issue Nos.1 to 4, the Trial Court answered the issues in the affirmative. Based on legal evidence let in by the plaintiff, suit was decreed directing the defendants by holding that defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,35,203/- with 10% interest.

¶32

The said judgment is confirmed by the Appellate Court in R.A.No.105/2013. The Appellate Court having independently assessed oral and documentary evidence has also concurred with the findings of the Trial Court. The Appellate Court was also of the view that having alleged that department has incurred financial loss of Rs.1,00,16,875/- have not let in any evidence to substantiate their claim. The Appellate Court has also concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial Court on limitation.

¶33

8. Hence the present appeal.

¶34

9. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Perused the findings recorded by the Courts below.

¶35

¶36

Both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff has completed the work entrusted to him and in absence of rebuttal evidence indicating that plaintiff has committed irregularities, have rightly proceeded to decree the suit. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below is based on legal evidence let in by the plaintiff and in absence of rebuttal evidence let in by the defendants.

¶37

Therefore, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Accordingly, the regular second appeal is dismissed .

¶38

The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stands disposed of.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

HDK

Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited v. M/S Zam Zam Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited v. M/S Zam Zam Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Partharajeurs Vs Savithrammanni

Govindaraje Urs Vs Jayammanni Dead by Lrs Parvathammanni

Sri. Shiva Reddyyappa Vs S.R Bogesh

Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited Vs M/S Surya Electricals

Sri. Gangarevanna Vs Sri. Revanasiddappa

Sri Husane Sab Vs Smt Hasmat Bee