Dismissed¶¶65

The Commissioner v. Dr Madhu

Karnataka HC18 Aug 2025WA/1169/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Bengaluru DB, NC: 2025:KHC:31783-DB, WA No. 1169 of 2023 (BDA), decided 18.08.2025; filed u/s 4 Karnataka High Court Act against Single Judge order dated 02.12.2022 in WP 14685/2022; BDA refund of e-auction site payments (Rs.41,85,000/- and Rs.1,23,87,600/-; total Rs.1,67,40,000/-); challenge confined to interest @10% p.a. held not excessive; amounts held wrongly retained; appeal dismissed, pending I.As. disposed; Bench: Anu Sivaraman, Rajesh Rai K (author); statutes: Rule 11-A BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules 1984; BDA (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules 1984; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant-BDA; the writ appeal was dismissed, leaving the learned Single Judge's directions (refund of Rs.41,85,000/- and Rs.1,23,87,600/- with interest @10% p.a.) intact, and pending I.As. stood disposed of.

The Commissioner Vs Dr Madhu — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶65

Issue for consideration

Whether the interest awarded by the learned Single Judge at 10% p.a. on the refund amounts of Rs.41,85,000/- (from 07.04.2021 to 05.05.2022) and Rs.1,23,87,600/- (from 05.08.2021 to 05.05.2022) was excessive/exorbitant and required modification.

¶¶47

Court's answer

No valid grounds were raised in the appeal apart from the contention that the interest awarded was excessive; it is not in dispute that the amounts in question had been wrongly retained by the appellant and interest is liable to be paid on such amounts.

¶¶54

Ratio / Principle

The learned Single Judge's fixation of interest at 10% suffers from no error, since it rested on the finding that the amounts were wrongly retained by the appellant without justification; the appeal therefore fails and is dismissed.

¶¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal No. 1169 of 2023 (BDA) (NC: 2025:KHC:31783-DB), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided 18.08.2025 by Anu Sivaraman and Rajesh Rai K JJ. (judgment per Rajesh Rai K J). The Bangalore Development Authority appealed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act against the order dated 02.12.2022 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14685/2022, confining its challenge to the award of interest @10% p.a. on refund of Rs.41,85,000/- (07.04.2021 to 05.05.2022) and Rs.1,23,87,600/- (05.08.2021 to 05.05.2022) to the respondent purchasers, and to the liberty reserved to them to seek compensation. The Division Bench held that no valid grounds were raised beyond the claim that the interest was excessive; it was not in dispute that the amounts had been wrongly retained by the BDA and interest was payable; finding no error in the fixation of interest at 10%, the appeal was dismissed and pending interlocutory applications stood disposed of. The Single Judge had declined allotment of an alternative site under Rule 11-A of the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, the sale being under an e-auction under the Bangalore Development Authority (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1984.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:31783-DB WA No. 1169 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶10

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1169 OF 2023 (BDA)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK(WEST), BANGALORE-560 020.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

DR. MADHU S/O DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶18

DR. PARVATHI M W/O DR. MADHU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶19

BOTH RESIDING AT FLAT NO.51044, PRESTIGE FALCON CITY, NEAR KONANKUNTE SIGNAL, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 062.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. NISHANTH A.V, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶22

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:31783-DB WA No. 1169 of 2023

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02/12/2022 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.14685/2022 TO THE EXTENT OF AWARD OF INTEREST AND GRANTING LIBERTY.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶27

and

¶28

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

¶31

This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellant-BDA

¶32

seeking to set aside the order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14685/2022 to the

¶33

extent of award of interest.

¶34

The operative portion of the order of the learned Single Judge reads as under:

¶35

"(i) Petition is hereby partly allowed.

¶36

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:31783-DB WA No. 1169 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

(ii) Respondent is directed to repay a sum of Rs.41,85,000/together with interest @ 10% p.a. from 07.04.2021 to 05.05.2022.

¶39

(iii) Respondent is also directed to pay balance sum of Rs.1,23,87,600/- together with interest @ 10% p.a. from 05.08.2021 to 05.05.2022.

¶40

(iv) The aforesaid entire sums of money together with interest as stated supra shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioners on or before 15.01.2023.

¶41

(v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to also to take recourse to such remedies as available in law, including filing of a suit, consumer complaint, etc., against the respondents for the purpose of claiming compensation towards loss, damages, etc., caused to the petitioners in accordance with law."

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:31783-DB WA No. 1169 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

We have heard the learned counsel

¶45

Sri.Sachin B.S. for the appellant and the learned counsel Sri.Nishanth A.V. for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶46

The primary contention of the learned counsel

¶47

for the appellant-BDA is that the learned Single Judge has erred while awarding interest at the rate of 10% p.a. for the amount of Rs.41,85,000/- from 07.04.2021 to 05.05.2022, so also for the amount of Rs.1,23,87,600/from 05.08.2021 to 05.05.2022. He submits that the interest awarded by the learned Single Judge on the aforesaid amounts is exorbitant. Accordingly, he prays to modify the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent of award of interest.

¶48

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents

¶49

supported the impugned order and prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:31783-DB WA No. 1169 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

We have carefully perused the order passed by

¶53

the learned Single Judge, so also the materials available on record.

¶54

Having considered the contentions raised in the appeal, we notice that no valid grounds have been raised in the appeal apart from stating that the interest awarded is excessive. It is not in dispute that the amounts in question had been wrongly retained by the appellant and the interest is liable to be paid on such amounts.

¶55

Since on 27.03.2025 the learned counsel for the

¶56

appellant had suggested that interest at the rate of 9% would be reasonable, an opportunity had been provided to the appellant to make the payment of the entire amount calculating interest at that rate. However, that was not availed by the appellant.

¶57

While allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge in paragraph 5 of the impugned order has observed as under:

¶58

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:31783-DB WA No. 1169 of 2023

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

5. The material on record discloses that though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, the undisputed fact that the petitioners paid a sum of Rs.41,85,000/- by 05.04.2021 and a sum of Rs.1,23,87,600/- on 31.07.2021 itself, i.e., in all a total sum of Rs.1,67,40,000/-, the respondent, in addition to refunding the said amounts back to the petitioners would also be liable to pay interest at a reasonable rate of 10% p.a. from the aforesaid dates of payment till 05.05.2022 when the respondent issued the impugned Endorsement to the effect that the petitioners would be entitled to refund of the aforesaid amounts from the respondent. However, the relief of allotment of an alternative site in terms of Rule 11-A of the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, cannot be granted in favour of the petitioners, since the sale of the aforesaid site in their favour was under an e-auction in terms of the Bangalore Development Authority (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1984 and not under the Allotment Rules, 1984 referred to supra. Under these circumstances, the question of issuing any directions to the BDA to allot an alternative site, much less, site No.2695, I Block, SMV layout, Bangalore, as sought for by the petitioners does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

¶61

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:31783-DB WA No. 1169 of 2023

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

We find that the learned Single Judge had

¶64

awarded interest at 10% on finding that the amounts in question had been wrongly retained by the appellant without any justification whatsoever. We therefore find no error in the fixation of interest at 10%. The appeal fails

¶65

and is accordingly dismissed .

¶66

Consequently, pending I.As., if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶67

SD/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶68

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶69

PKS/K List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

The Commissioner v. Dr Madhu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner v. Dr Madhu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandhya Vs Puneeth S

Sri Thimmegowda Vs Pawan Kumar.S. K.A.S

Sri Thimma Shetty Vs C Sathyabhama

Sri.K.C. Narayan Gowda Vs Smt. Channa Krishnamma

A B Devaraju Vs Smt Aswathi S

Punith B N Vs State of Karnataka