Karnataka High Court
The Chief Engineer Irrigation Central ... vs Sri. M D Ghouse Khan on 19 February, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3891
RP No. 100049 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
REVIEW PETITION NO. 100049 OF 2022 (-)
BETWEEN:
1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION CENTRAL ZONE
KARNATAKA NIRAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED KNNL,
MUNIRABAD KOPPAL,
TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA NIRAVARI NIGAM LIMITED KNNL,
NO.II, CANAK DIVISION,
ODDARAHATTI,
TQ: GANGAVATHI,
TQ. AND DIST: KOPPAL.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. UMESH C AINAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. M D GHOUSE KHAN
AGE: 76 YEARS,
KM
SOMASHEKAR OCC: CONTRACTOR,
R/O. H.NO. 1 MAZAHAR MANZIL,
Digitally signed by MUNIRABAD 580323,
K M SOMASHEKAR
TQ: GANGAVATHI,
Date: 2024.02.21
05:50:08 +0530 DIST: KOPPAL.
2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF CERTIFIED SUB TREASURER
GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R2)
REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ
WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVIEW
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3891
RP No. 100049 of 2022
PETITION AND BE PLEASED TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED
15.04.2021PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP
NO.14073/2020 AS AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY BE
PLEASED TO ALLOW THE RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS NOT TO
IMPOSE THE INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF COMPLETED
CONTRACT WORK FOR FSD AMOUNT IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The learned High Court Government Pleader accepts
notice for the respondent No.2.
2. This petition is filed to review the order dated
15.4.2021 passed this Court in WP No.147073/2020 insofar as
it relates to directing the petitioners/respondents No.1 and 2 to
pay the interest at 8% p.a. from the date of completed contract
work till the date of actual payment.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended
that, in the agreement between the petitioners and the
respondent No.1 herein, there is no clause providing for
interest on the belated payment of final security deposit.
Therefore, the order insofar as it relates to granting interest at
the rate of 8% p.a. on the final security deposit is not
sustainable.
4. The respondent No.1 herein was the successful
bidder in pursuance of tender notification invited by the
petitioners, and the work order was issued to complete the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3891
project, and thereafter, the respondent No.1 completed the
project, and the completion certificate was issued, and final bill
was submitted with the petitioners. However, the petitioners
paid the amount under the contract, but however, did not
refund the final security deposit.
5. The petitioners were under an obligation to release
the final security deposit after the certificate of completion of
the work was issued in favour of the petitioners. The
petitioners having not released the same, are liable to pay the
interest on the belated payment on the final security deposit.
Therefore, I do not find any illegality or error apparent on the
face of the record to review the order. Accordingly, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BKM
CT:ANB
