The Commissioner vs M/S. Kmv Projects Limited
2025 Latest Caselaw 9960 Kant

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.

NC: 2025:KHC:45261-DB

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.

M. Krishnamurthy ; B and TAG Vs. Ministry of

Defense;3 Major (Retd.) Inder Singh Rekhi Vs. Delhi

Development Authority4, considered the question of

(2021) 5 SCC 738

(1998) 7 SCC 123,

(2024) 5 SCC 358;

(1988) 2 SCC 338

NC: 2025:KHC:45261-DB

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

1964 SCC Online SC 10,

NC: 2025:KHC:45261-DB

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

NC: 2025:KHC:45261-DB

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

(2011) 6 SCC 739.

M/s.KMV Projects Ltd. Vs. The State of Karnataka and others

NC: 2025:KHC:45261-DB

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

NC: 2025:KHC:45261-DB

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.