Partly allowed

Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited v. Charan Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd.

Rajasthan HC3 Dec 2019SAW/774/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal against an order refunding security deposits. It set aside a 9% interest rate and ordered refund with simple interest at 3% per annum due to inaction in land allotment.

What did the court decide?

Ordered refund of security deposits and Rs. 40 Lakhs along with simple interest at 3% per annum instead of 9%.

Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 774/2019

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7506/2016

¶5

Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited, Through Managing Director, Having Registered Office At E-166, Yudhishtir Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Charan Renewable Energy Pvt Ltd, Having Registered Office At A-24, New Krishna Park, Near Vikaspuri, New Delhi - 110018 Through Power Of Attorney Holder Darshan Singh S/o Shri Lachhman Dass, Aged About 61 Years, Officers Colony, Opposite Pseb Grid, Samana District Patiala, Punjab.

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary To The Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶10

Principal Secretary To The Government, Energy Department , Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.L. Goyal on behalf of Ms. Susan Mathew For Respondent(s) : Mr. Alok Chaturvedi for respondent no.1 Mr. Pushp Raj Solanki on behalf of Mr. Ganesh Meena Additional Advocate General

¶13

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment

03/12/2019

(2 of 3)

[SAW-774/2019]

Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 29.3.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1 was allowed.

¶19

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on file carefully.

¶20

Respondent no.1 had moved an application on 25.3.2013 for setting up a Solar Power Plant. Respondent no.1 was informed by the appellant that its application had been found suitable and would be placed before State Level Screening Committee for according “In Principle Clearance” of the project. Respondent no.1 submitted its consent and deposited the necessary security. Appellant made recommendation to the District Collector for allotment of land to respondent no.1. However, the land was not allotted to the respondent no.1, inspite of the fact that recommendation had been made by the appellant on 22.10.2013. In view of the new policy introduced in the year 2014, the earlier recommendations for allotment of land for Solar Power Plant for the year 2011 stood withdrawn. Thus, the respondent no.1 could not start the Solar Power Plant, as the land was not allotted by the Collector.

¶21

It has been noticed by the learned Single Judge that the security deposits could be forfeited in case the allotment of land was cancelled at a subsequent date or where the needful was not done in terms of the time schedule. The security deposits were also not liable to be refunded, where the project had already been commissioned. The present case did not fall within any of the above eventuality. Hence, the learned Single Judge rightly held that the respondent no.1 was liable to be refunded the security deposits made by him because the project could not be started as

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[SAW-774/2019]

¶24

the land had not been allotted to the respondent no.1. Thus, there was inaction on the part of the Collector by not allotting land to the respondent no.1 in terms of the policy for the year 2011.

¶25

However, the learned Single Judge has erred in awarding simple interest @ 9%. The rate of interest awarded by the learned Single Judge is on a higher side. It is ordered that the appellant shall release the security deposits and the amount of Rupees Forty Lakhs to the respondent no.1 alongwith simple interest @ 3% per annum.

¶26

Appeal stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶27

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶28

(SABINA),J

¶29

Anil Makwana /36

Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited v. Charan Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited v. Charan Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd.

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

Dr. Ujala Nyola D/O Shri Ram Swaroop Nyola Vs University of Rajasthan

Jagdish Narayan S/O Shri Narayan Vs Union of India

Badri Lal Jat S/O Mulya Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahipal Singh S/O Ani Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jayanti Cold Storage Paras Sales Corporation Vs the Union of India through the Secretary

Badri Lal Rathore Son of Shri Gopilal Vs State of Rajasthan