Karnataka High Court
P Chinnaraki S/O Late Palaniswamy vs Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited on 3 June, 2011
Bench: Manjula Chellur, S.N.Satyanarayana
IN 'THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 38) DAY OF JUNE, 2011 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJULA CHELLUR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. N.. SATYANAKAYANA © WRIT APPEAL NO.3579 GF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN P. Chinnaraki Aged 67 years S/o Late Palaniswamy Class | Contractor Registration No.Category 1.A.0156/2005-20i6.. Resident of flo.1665 Vivekanandana agar Reddy Colony - T. Narasipur-571 124 Mysore District .. APPELLANT (By Sri. Subramanya Jois, Sr. Counsel for Smt. B.S. Vijayvalaxmi, Advocate) = Ls Cauvery Niraveri Nigam Limited * A Gove ernment of Karnataka Undertaking 'Coffee Board Building, 4% Floor Bangalore-560 001 Represented by its ~. Managing Director MS The Chief Engineer Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited Irrigation South Circle NA os ine) Public Offices Complex Mysore 3. The Superintendent Engineer Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited Kabini and Varna Canal Circle Cauvery Bhavan, Mysore 4. The Executive Engineer Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited . Kabini Canal Distribution Dix vision © T. Narasipur, Mysore District . RESPONDENTS
This Writ Appeal is filed - under Section: 4 of the Karnataka High Court 'Act. praying to' set. aside the order passed in the | W. P. _No. 9754/2010 - -(GM-RES) dated 07.04.2010 : oo 7 This Appeal coming. on for Preliminary Hearing this day, Manjula Chellur ¢ ou, delivered ttie following:
wiper Heard the iearaed C Counsel for the appellant. ; "2, : Perused the orders of the learned Single Judge. i 3. Virtually the claim of the appellant herein is for a direction to pay 'a sum of Rupees One Crore and odd towards ~ the cotitract work entrusted to him i.e., the work of Gravel . Packing, etc. There is no dispute in so far as the entrustment of contract and a portion of the work _ being executed by the appellant.
4. In the earlier round of litigation, this Court directed . = grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law'as' per the =.
terms and conditions in the agreement entered into between the parties. After considering arid inquiring into the details, the respondents have" come / out | with. a figure of Rs.3,05,510/- as the only armourit payabte to the appellant herein in fwti and. finai settlement as against the claim of Rupees One Croré-and odd. "This was the challenge before the learned Single Judge inthe second round of litigation. Having regard to the nature of the claim made by the . appellant. the learned Single Judge opined that the controversy between the parties has to be determined by a 'Civil Couri"and 'not by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by
-- the same: the appellant is before us. ff 3 | i | :
5. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, Annexure-B clearly indicates the quantum of arnount admitted by the respondents. Therefore, in the. light of f the quantification of the amount due to the app' allan. there 4S 10 -
need for the appellant to approach the Civit Court' "aa. thes Court can grant such relief because' there iS no-need for. factual matrix to award the relief sought.
6. On perusal of Annexure-B, no doutt a reference is made to the cumulative progress 'ess. of work: Vv valued at Rs. 46.50 lakhs made by 'the -appellant but "there i :s no determination of amount due" to 'the appellant 'in. this document. Having approached this: Court. cn "ear lier occasion and taking a direction for erie of the amount due, in the light of determination of amount of rupees three lakhs and odd as agen ainst the claim of rupees one crore and odd, the appellant is. before tis Court, which has to be decided upon the _ factual matrix placed before the Court. Definitely this Court
--_ has no jurisdiction to entertain such controversy. We find : no gedd ground to interfere with the order of the learned . a Single Judge.
ae a ~Nsu/-- a mmm cay Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. We also note that the appellant herein is more thar: 70 years old and the Civil Court has to proceed with the matter, | rd to the age of the appellant, Consequently, the delay. application - | Misc. W. 9191/2010 is dismisset, as . it does. hot survive for consideration.