Dismissed

Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited v. M/S Surya Electricals

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2022RSA/1419/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This regular second appeal was filed by the defendants to challenge judgments in their favor regarding a plaintiff's claim for Rs.3.5 lakhs. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding no substantial question of law arose as the lower courts rightly decreed the suit due to lack of rebuttal evidence.

What did the court decide?

The regular second appeal was dismissed with no costs.

Bangalore Electricity Supply Company… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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.1419 OF 2017 (MON)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE)/ THE GENERAL MANAGER (ELECTRICAL), C.O. & M.DIVISION, BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,

¶12

KOLAR - 563 101. ... APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

M/S SURYA ELECTRICALS REPERESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. A N VEERABHADRAREDDY, S/O. NAREPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶16

¶17

R/AT URATI AGRAHARA VILLAGE, THOTLI POST, SUGUTUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK 563101 ...RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI.T.R.JAYARAMA, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.3.2017 PASSED IN RA NO.137/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.3.2016 PASSED IN OS NO.66/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLAR.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

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

¶23

filed by the plaintiff contractor seeking recovery of Rs.3,50,415/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. is allowed.

¶24

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

¶25

to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

¶26

¶27

Plaintiff has instituted a suit against the defendant Nos.1 to 3, seeking direction against the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,415/-. Plaintiff claims that he is a registered electrical proprietary concern. Plaintiff further claimed that defendants entrusted work regarding providing spiral earth electrode for various high-tension lines and the estimated project amount was fixed at Rs.3,50,415/-. 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.

¶28

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.802.69/- lakhs. The technical

¶29

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

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. The Trial

¶33

¶34

Court has answered the issue Nos. 1 ,2 and 4 in the affirmative. While considering issue No.3, the Trial Court answered the issue against the defendants and also held that the suit is not barred by limitation. 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.3,50,415/- with 12% interest.

¶35

The said judgment is confirmed by the Appellate Court in R.A.No.137/2016. 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.802.69/lakhs 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.

¶36

Hence, the present appeal.

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

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.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

HDK

Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited v. M/S Surya Electricals

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited v. M/S Surya Electricals

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

Sri. Gangarevanna Vs Sri. Revanasiddappa

Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited Vs M/S Zam Zam Enterprises

Sri Husane Sab Vs Smt Hasmat Bee