Disposed

The Executive Engineer (Ele) v. Nexgen Concrete Solutions

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2024WA/1196/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged an order quashing two contentious orders by BESCOM. The court accepted the appellants' offer to accept only the tariff difference. It directed the appellants to furnish a breakup of the claimed amount within two weeks so that the respondent could pay it, disposing of the appeal accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Appellants directed to submit breakup of the tariff difference amount within two weeks for payment by respondent No.1; appeal disposed.

The Executive Engineer (Ele) Vs Nexgen… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:25267-DB WA No. 1196 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 1196 OF 2022 (GM-KEB)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE), BANGALORE ELECTRICITY, SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM), HOSKOTE DIVISION, HOSAKOTE CIRCLE,

¶11

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114.

¶12

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE), BESCOM, AVALALLI SUB-DIVISION, HOSAKOTE DIVISION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114.

¶13

Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE), BESCOM VIGILANCE, HOSKOTE POLICE STATION, NO.250, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, HIG 'A' SECTOR, YALAHANKA TOWN, BENGALURU-560 064.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI H V DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

NEXGEN CONCRETE SOLUTIONS, READY MIX CONCRETE,

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:25267-DB WA No. 1196 of 2022

¶20

SY.NO. 28, BEHIND VIBGYOR SCHOOL, KATMATMNALLUR GATE, VIGRO NAGAR POST, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560 049.

¶21

AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, MR. Y ANSARBASHA, S/O. MR. Y ABDUL JAMEL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NEAR GANGANGAMMA GUDI, HOSAKOTE TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI MANJESH H M, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI BHOJEGOWDA.T KOLLER, AGA FOR R2)

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.09.2022, MADE IN WP No-8593/2020 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WP.

¶26

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, V KAMESWAR RAO J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25267-DB WA No. 1196 of 2022

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 29.09.2022 in WP.No.8593/2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 by holding as under:

¶30

"Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated:23.03.2020 in No. ¨ÉeÁzÀ/ºÉÆ/£ÉÆÃn¸ï passed by the Assistant Executive Engineer (V), BESCOM, Hosakote vide Annexure-J and the order dated:17.04.2020 in No . ¨ÉeÁzÀ/ºÉÆ/C-DzÉÃ±À /02/2020 passed by the Assistant Executive Engineer (V), BESCOM, Hosakote vide Annexure-K are quashed.

¶31

The BESCOM Authorities are hereby directed to file the compliance report for the action taken in this regard on or before 15.11.2022."

¶32

On the last date of hearing i.e. 02.07.2024, we

¶33

had heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellants sought time to take instructions.

¶34

In terms of the impugned orders dated 23.03.2020 and 17.04.2020, which were challenged before

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:25267-DB WA No. 1196 of 2022

¶36

the learned Single Judge by respondent No.1, the appellants made a claim for an amount of Rs.4,73,109/against the respondent No.1.

¶37

Today, learned counsel for the appellants

¶38

submits that as per his instructions, the appellants are ready and willing to accept the difference of Tariff between 11.04.2017 till February-2022 as per LT-3 Tariff and nothing more.

¶39

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that

¶40

to the extent that the orders dated 23.03.2020 and 17.04.2020 have been quashed by the learned Single Judge, the same be confirmed but granting liberty to the appellants to claim the difference of LT-3 Tariff between the period 11.04.2017 to February-2022 to be paid by respondent No.1. In other words, he clarifies that no other charges except the difference of Tariff shall be claimed by the appellants to be paid by respondent No.1.

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:25267-DB WA No. 1196 of 2022

¶42

This submission of the learned counsel for the

¶43

appellants is acceptable to the counsel for the respondent No.1 provided the appellants give the calculation of the

¶44

amount to be paid by respondent No.1.

¶45

If that be so, we direct the appellants to give

¶46

the breakup of the amount to be paid by the respondent No.1 within two weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the respondent No.1 shall

¶47

pay the amount within two weeks thereafter. The appeal is

¶48

disposed off in terms of the above.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

NR/-

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

The Executive Engineer (Ele) v. Nexgen Concrete Solutions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer (Ele) v. Nexgen Concrete Solutions

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

Smt Prathibha Athrey Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation

The General Manager Vs Smt Nalini Devi

Smt. Kempamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Hassan Institute of Medical Sciences Vs Dr K v Omprakash

Sri H B Siddagangaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Pavan Kirthe v Vs Shri Pandian Muthu