Disposed

Sri K S Arun Kumar v. the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC25 Jul 2024WA/1314/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal against a Single Judge order directing BBMP to refund EMD of Rs.1,87,500/- without interest. Holding forfeiture unsustainable and noting the amount was paid only after about seven years from the demand for refund with interest, the Division Bench granted 6% per annum interest from 09.10.2015 till payment.

What did the court decide?

Interest at 6% p.a. on Rs.1,87,500/- from 09.10.2015 to 09.11.2022, payable within 8 weeks.

Sri K S Arun Kumar Vs the Bruhath… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:29308-DB WA No. 1314 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^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. 1314 OF 2022 (LB-BMP)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. K.S. ARUN KUMAR, S/O SRI.K.T. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC - BUSINESS, RESIDING AT NO. 921, 38^TH CROSS, 22^ND MAIN, 4^TH ‘T’ BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 041.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. K.K. VASANTH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION CIRCLE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THE BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, JAYANAGAR DIVISION, BBMP BUILDING, 18^TH MAIN, 39^TH CROSS, 4^TH ‘T’ BLOCK,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:29308-DB WA No. 1314 of 2022

¶18

JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 041.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. SINCHANA M R, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 - SERVED)

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN W.P. NO., 61791/2016 (LB-BMP) ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT, HEAR THE PARTIES, AND PASS A JUDGMENT TO MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 13.09.2021 IN W.P. NO. 61791/2016 (LB-BMP), PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT AND ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AWARDING INTEREST AT 18 PERCENT PER ANNUM FROM JULY 2015, TILL 09.11.2022, ON EMD AMOUNT OF RS. 1,87,500/- AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO PASS.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND

¶24

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

¶27

The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 13.09.2021 passed in W.P.No.61791/2016(LB-BMP) whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition by issuing mandamus to the respondents to consider the representations and refund the Earnest Money Deposit (for short ‘EMD’) as claimed by the petitioner, within 12 weeks

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:29308-DB WA No. 1314 of 2022

¶29

from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. But no interest was granted. It may be stated here that, the said order was challenged by way of a review petition by the appellant herein before the learned Single Judge.

¶30

Suffice to state, the review petition was dismissed on 15.11.2022. Though the said review order has not been challenged in the petition but the fact is the Writ order having been challenged, we proceed to decide the present appeal.

¶31

It is informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that, pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.09.2021, the respondents have paid an amount of Rs.1,87,500/- to the appellant on 09.11.2022. In other words, the respondents have accepted the order of the learned Single Judge.

¶32

In view of the aforesaid position, the only issue need to be decided as urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is, whether the learned Single Judge has erred in not granting interest on the payment which the respondents

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:29308-DB WA No. 1314 of 2022

¶34

have made pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge.

¶35

We may state here that, there is a finding of the

¶36

fact by the learned Single Judge that, the forfeiture of the EMD is unsustainable. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in view of the order in writ petition, there is no reason for the learned Single Judge not to award interest on refund of amount deposited by the appellant as earnest money against the tender issued by the respondents for which, he was the bidder. The respondents having accepted the tender of the appellant in respect of two works for which the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.87,500/- respectively, as per the terms of the notice inviting tender (for short ‘NIT’), the respondents were to convey the approval to the appellant being a successful bidder within a period of 90 days from the opening of the tender. The appellant, having not heard from the respondents, the appellant had vide letter dated 27.11.2014 expressed himself for the refund of the EMD be made to him. It appears that, the respondents pursuant

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:29308-DB WA No. 1314 of 2022

¶38

thereto had conveyed decision to the appellant that, he is successful in respect of two works.

¶39

It is also noted that, on 23.12.2014 and 09.01.2015, the respondents had informed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.93,641/- as the difference of amount within 7 days from the date of the receipt of the said letter dated 23.12.2014 along with Rs.200/- agreement stamp paper in respect of item No.1 and to also pay difference of amount of Rs.66,269/- along with stamp paper for Rs.200/- in respect of item No.4. It appears that, the appellant had not deposited the above amounts. The same has resulted in the forfeiture of the EMD deposited by the appellant.

¶40

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit, even before the forfeiture of the EMD, the appellant had expressed himself for the refund of the EMD amount submitted by him while submitting his bid against the NIT. It is the submission that, despite the communication from the appellant on 27.11.2014 and even thereafter, in the month of August, 2015 the respondents have not refunded

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:29308-DB WA No. 1314 of 2022

¶43

the amount, rather taken a stand that the EMD has been forfeited.

¶44

Suffice to state, the forfeiture of EMD has been

¶45

set aside by the learned Single Judge as unsustainable.

¶46

We agree with these submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, because on a specific prayer of interest made by the learned counsel for the appellant in the writ petition upon refund of the amount of Rs.1,87,500/-, the said aspect has not been referred to by the learned Single Judge in as much as while granting the prayer of refund in favor of the appellant in the writ petition, no interest has been granted.

¶47

It is also conceded position that, the respondents have not challenged the order of the learned Single Judge, rather they without passing an order on the representations has refunded the amount of Rs.1,87,500/- and the said amount having been paid to the appellant only on 09.11.2022 there has been a delay of almost 7 years from (09.10.2015) the date when the appellant had made a demand for a refund of the said amount with interest. As we

¶48

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:29308-DB WA No. 1314 of 2022

¶49

find that, in the letter dated 27.11.2014, the appellant had only made a demand for a refund and it is only for the first time in the letter dated 09.10.2015 the appellant had also sought interest, we accordingly grant interest on the amount of Rs.1,87,500/- at the rate of 6% p.a. with effect from 09.10.2015 till the date of payment i.e., 09.11.2022 which shall be paid to the appellant within a period of 8 weeks from

¶50

today. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶51

Sd/(V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE

¶52

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶53

SMC

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Sri K S Arun Kumar v. the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K S Arun Kumar v. the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

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

N.Shekar Vs Smt.Tejasvini@Tejavathi

Management of Nttf Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. Aswathama

Therakanambi Gram Panchayath Vs Sri Mallesh

Chandra Bai Vs Smt Rekha R

Kanthamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Srinivas Vs Sri M C Narayanaswamy