Partly allowed

M/S Yojaka (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. the Executive Engineer

Karnataka HC21 Jul 2026WP/32725/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged cancellation and EMD forfeiture of a dredging tender. Respondent cited lack of central funding shelving the project. Court held respondent cannot retain EMD if no work proceeds, set aside forfeiture, ordered refund, but upheld tender cancellation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition partly allowed; cancellation upheld; EMD forfeiture set aside; refund of EMD directed.

M/S Yojaka (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Executive Engineer — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37803 WP No. 32725 of 2024

¶3

CNR: KAHC010654732024

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 32725 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S YOJAKA (INDIA) PVT. LTD., 2^ND FLOOR, ABCO TRADE CENTRE, NH-66, KOTTARA CHOWKI, MANGALORE - 575 006 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR JAGADISH BOLOOR

¶10

(UNDER REGISTRATION COMPANIES ACT, 1956)

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. VENUGOPAL M S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER I.D., INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, PORT AND FISHERIES DIVISION, 2^ND FLOOR, SHAMILI HALL, UDUPI - 576 101.

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ROOM NO.320, 3^RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 01.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI MOHAMMED JAFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R2)

¶19

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:37803 WP No. 32725 of 2024

¶22

CNR: KAHC010654732024

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2024 FOR CANCELLATION AND FORFEITURE OF EMD OF THE TENDER ALLOTTED TO THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-P PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTS; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO CONTINUE AND COMPLETE THE SAID TENDER WORK ALLOTTED TO HIM BY COLLECTING THE SECURITY DEPOSIT AT THE RATE OF 3 PERCENT ON THE TENDER AMOUNT, ETC.,

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶28

following reliefs:

¶29

a) Quash the order dated 30.10.2024 for cancellation and forfeiture of EMD of the tender allotted to the petitioner vide Annexure-P ಸಂ : �ಾ�ಇಂ : ಬಂ�ೕ� : ಉಡು�ಎಇ :Capital Dredging: 2024-25/612 passed by the respondents.

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:37803 WP No. 32725 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CNR: KAHC010654732024

¶33

b) Direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to continues and complete the said tender work allotted to him by collecting the security deposit at the rate of 3% on the tender amount.

¶34

c) And grant such other order or directions has this Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶35

The petitioner is engaged in the execution of the project works relating to Marine, Shipping, Civil Constructions, Dredging, Bridge Construction, Disaster Management works etc.,

¶36

Respondent No.1, having invited tender for "Capital Dredging at Old Port, Mangaluru, the petitioner participated and was successful. The acceptance letter was required to be issued, but was not. Hence, the petitioner followed up for issuance of such acceptance letter, which came to be finally issued on 10.07.2024.

¶37

Insofar as the security deposit was concerned, the petitioner, in terms of the contract was required to make payment of security deposit at 3%. But

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:37803 WP No. 32725 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

CNR: KAHC010654732024

¶41

however, since there is a demand made for 5%, the contract could not be executed and it is in that background, that the petitioner approached this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs, when the EMD submitted by the petitioner was also forfeited by the respondents.

¶42

Notice having been issued, Sri.Bharath Kumar.V., learned counsel has entered appearance for Respondent No.1 has today filed a memo stating that the entire project has now been shelved since the funding to the said project has been withdrawn by the Government of India, Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways on 04.06.2024. In that view of the matter, he submits that the work cannot be carried on since there is no funding for the same.

¶43

If that be so, then the question of either calling upon the petitioner to submit a security deposit of 5% or

¶44

3% would not arise and if the work is not to go on,

¶45

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:37803 WP No. 32725 of 2024

¶48

CNR: KAHC010654732024

¶49

on account of lack of funding on part of the respondent, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same, forfeiting the EMD. There was a dispute as regards the percentage of security and a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 17.02.2026, taking note of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that he is willing to offer 5% security deposit had called upon

¶50

the respondent to obtain instructions and make his submission.

¶51

It is thereafter that today, it is submitted that there is no funding. In that view of the matter, the respondents cannot retain any amounts, which have been deposited by the petitioner with the respondent. As such, this Court pass the following:

¶52

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:37803 WP No. 32725 of 2024

¶55

CNR: KAHC010654732024

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i) Writ petition is partly allowed. ii) The cancellation of the tender is upheld.

¶58

iii) The forfeiture of the EMD made by the respondent is set aside.

¶59

iv) The EMD amounts is directed to be refunded to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶60

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

¶62

M/S Yojaka (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Yojaka (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. the Executive Engineer

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

Doddaballapur Nagarajchar Prahlad Vs National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru

Mr Sethuram R Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Rahul Dravid Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Johar Abbas Vs the State of Karnataka, by

Mr.Mukkaram Jan Vs Union of India

Sri Chinna C N Vs State of Karnataka