Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner vs M/S. Kmv Projects Limited on 7 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45261-DB
RP No. 167 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REVIEW PETITION NO. 167 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER,
RAMANAGARA URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
REP. BY SRI. SHIVANANKARI GOWDA,
S/O LATE SHIVANE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
NO.39, B.M.ROAD,
RAMANAGARA -562 159.
...PETITIONER
Digitally (BY SRI.M.R.RAJAGOPAL SENIOR COUNSEL
signed by K G FOR SRI.KIRAN KUMAR T. L, ADVOCATE)
RENUKAMBA
Location: AND:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA 1. M/S. KMV PROJECTS LIMITED,
NO.302, 3RD FLOOR, 7TH EAST PARK ROAD,
KUMARA PARK EAST, BENGALURU-560 020.
REP. BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
SRI.D.TARANATH.
2. THE COMMISSIONER/MEMBER SECRETARY,
CHANNAPATNA PLANNING AUTHORITY,
NO.2850, FIRST FLOOR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45261-DB
RP No. 167 of 2025
HC-KAR
CHURCH STREET, RAJA KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT,
APPAGERE ROAD, CHANNAPATNA-562 160,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114
R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW
THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN W.A.NO.1313/2022 (LB-RES).
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner.
2. This review petition has been filed seeking to assail the order dated 01.03.2023 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1313 of 2022.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:45261-DB RP No. 167 of 2025 HC-KAR
3. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly, is that, neither in the writ proceedings nor in the writ appeal, the Development Authority was properly represented. It is stated that for want of effective representation, the case could not be properly argued. It is further submitted that the arbitration proceedings have been concluded and an award dated 03.09.2025 has been passed by the sole arbitrator, wherein a detailed discussion has been undertaken by the arbitrator on the aspect of limitation. Therefore, the Writ Petition ought to have been dismissed as being beyond limitation.
4. Secondly it is stated that the learned Arbitrator, after referring to various provisions of the Limitation Act and the judgment of the Supreme Court in BSNL and another Vs. Nortel Network India P. Ltd.1; N. Balakrishna Vs. 2 M. Krishnamurthy ; B and TAG Vs. Ministry of Defense;3 Major (Retd.) Inder Singh Rekhi Vs. Delhi Development Authority4, considered the question of 1 (2021) 5 SCC 738 2 (1998) 7 SCC 123, 3 (2024) 5 SCC 358;
4(1988) 2 SCC 338 -4- NC: 2025:KHC:45261-DB RP No. 167 of 2025 HC-KAR limitation and it was held that the claim Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5, are barred by statute as they are stale claims. It has further been held by the Arbitrator that, the fact that the claimant was in correspondence with the respondent does not save the limitation.
5. The third limb of argument of the learned counsel is that, the writ Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere in contractual matters and has referred to paragraph No.17 of the judgment in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bhailal Bhai5 which reads as under:-
"17. At the same time we cannot lose sight of the fact that the special remedy provided in Article 226 is not intended to supersede completely the modes of obtaining relief by an action in a Civil Court or to deny defences legitimately open in such actions. It has been made clear more than once that the power to give relief under Article 226 is a discretionary power. This is specially true in the case of power to issue writs in the nature of mandamus. Among the 5 1964 SCC Online SC 10, -5- NC: 2025:KHC:45261-DB RP No. 167 of 2025 HC-KAR several matters which the High Courts rightly take into consideration in the exercise of that discretion is the delay made by the aggrieved party in seeking this special remedy and what excuse there is for it. Another is the nature of controversy of facts and law that may have to be decided as regards the availability of consequential relief. Thus, where, as in these cases, a person comes to the court for relief under Article 226 on the allegation that he has been assessed to tax under a void legislation and having paid it under a mistake is entitled to get it back, the court, if it finds that the assessment was void, being made under a void provision of law, and the payment was made by mistake, is still not bound to exercise its discretion directing repayment. Whether repayment should be ordered in the exercise of this discretion will depend in each case on its own facts and circumstances. It is not easy nor is it desirable to lay down any Rule for universal application. It may however be stated as a general Rule that if there has been unreasonable delay the court ought not ordinarily to lend its aid to a party by this extraordinary remedy of mandamus. Again, where even if there is no such delay the Government or the statutory authority against -6- NC: 2025:KHC:45261-DB RP No. 167 of 2025 HC-KAR whom the consequential relief is prayed for raises a prima facie triable issue as regards the availability of such relief on the merits on the grounds like limitation the court should ordinarily refuse to issue the writ of mandamus for such payment. In both these kinds of cases it will be sound use of discretion to leave the party to seek his remedy by the ordinary mode of action in a Civil Court and to refuse to exercise in his favour the extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution."
6. The learned counsel has further referred to the paragraph no.29 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Tirumalai Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India6
7. We have perused the aforesaid two judgments cited by learned counsel for the review petitioner. It needs to be noted that, in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.18044/20217, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2- The Commissioner, Ramanagara Urban Development Authority, stated that the respondent does not dispute that the petitioner is entitled for 6 (2011) 6 SCC 739.
7M/s.KMV Projects Ltd. Vs. The State of Karnataka and others -7- NC: 2025:KHC:45261-DB RP No. 167 of 2025 HC-KAR release of the amount. However it was contented that, in view of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement, the writ petition is not maintainable. The admission made on behalf of the concerned respondent was noted by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition, with a direction to the Respondent No. 2 to release the sum outstanding against the petitioner.
8. We notice from the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the writ appeal dated 01.03.2023 that the Division Bench was conscious of the fact that the appellant therein, that is the Respondent No. 2 in the writ petition, did not dispute the claim made by the petitioner in the writ petition. It was therefore held that, admittedly, from perusal of the records and submissions of learned counsel for the appellant before the learned Single Judge, there was no dispute in regard to the claim of the Respondent No.1. It was therefore declared that, now the appellant, that is the review petitioner, is estopped from contending that the Respondent No.1 is not entitled for the sum as claimed in the RA Bill. It was further observed that the appellant cannot -8- NC: 2025:KHC:45261-DB RP No. 167 of 2025 HC-KAR raise a new ground, which was not raised in the statement of objections and also before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, no error was found in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and this Court declined to interfere with the impugned order.
9. Having perused the aforesaid two judgments cited by learned counsel for the review petitioner, we are certainly conscious of the fact as to the limitations of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while considering contractual matters. However, the fact remains that, once there was an admission made on behalf of the review petitioner before the learned Single Judge, this Court could well direct the concerned authority to make the payment.
10. The fact that an award of the arbitrator has been made, that too 2 years after the disposal of the writ appeal, would not render the judgment of this Court in the writ appeal subject to review inasmuch as there is no error apparent on the face of the record.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:45261-DB RP No. 167 of 2025 HC-KAR
10. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in this review petition and it is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE KGR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1