Bangalore District Court
Synergy Computer Education vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahangara on 17 March, 2017
Form No.9
(Civil) Title
Sheet for
Judgment
in Suits
R.P. 91
PRESENT: SRI S.H.HOSAGOUDAR,
B.Sc.,LL.B.,[Spl]
XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
Dated this the 17th day of March 2017
PLAINTIFF: Synergy Computer Education
A proprietary concern,
No.1660, 16th Main, 18th Cross,
Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560 040
Represented by its Proprietrix
Smt. Vasundara A.G.K.
Aged 40 years,
W/o N.H.Amba Prasad,
D/o G.Krishnappa,
R/at No.1660, 16th Main,
18th Cross, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore-560 040.
[By Sri Vivekananda.T.P. Advocate]
/v e r s u s/
DEFENDANT: Bruhat Bangalore Mahangara
Palike, N.R.Square,
Bangalore-560 002.
Represented by its Commissioner.
[By Sri HSS, Advocate]
Date of institution of the : 6/6/2014
suit
2 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
Nature of the suit : For recovery of money
Date of commencement of : 21/11/2015
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 17/3/2017
Judgment was
pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
2 9 11
(S.H. Hosagoudar)
XXVII ACCJ: B'LORE.
Plaintiff filed this suit against defendant
directing the defendant to pay a sum of
Rs.51,39,526/- along with interest pendentelite; and
cost of the suit.
2. In brief, the plaintiff's case is as under:
The plaintiff is a proprietor concern carrying on
the business in imparting computer education. On
coming to know of the fact that education and social
justice Standing Committee of defendant has resolved
to provide computer education to the SC/ST
Backward Classes and Minority unemployed
candidates, the plaintiff has approached the
3 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
defendant with the proposal of setting up computer
training centre at concessional rate. Accordingly,
defendant has entered into separate agreement in
respect of each of wards with the plaintiff for providing
computer training to the scheduled caste / scheduled
tribe, backward class and minority unemployed
candidates identified by the defendant at various
wards in Bangalore for different period.
As per terms of agreement, the plaintiff has
procured necessary computers and other related
accessories infrastructure to set up the computer
training centre and defendant has met only 50% of the
cost of expenses towards setting up of computer
training centres as per terms of contract. The
defendant has agreed to pay Rs.3,500/- in respect of
each training and out of Rs.3,500/- the defendant was
required to pay 50% of the training fees immediately
on commencement of training and remaining 50%
after satisfactory completion of training. As per terms
of contract, after expiry of the contract, the computer
4 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
hardwares licensed software and other infrastructure
and accessories shall be disposed off by public
auction and proceeds of the sale would be shared
equally between the defendant and plaintiff.
It is submitted that plaintiff has trained
candidates identified and disputed by the defendant to
the satisfaction of the candidates, the officials of the
defendant and Corporators of the respective wards.
The plaintiff used to raise the bills for the payment of
training fee after completion of training of each of the
batch approximately once in six months during the
period of training and for the balance payment,
plaintiff used to raise the bill after conclusion of the
training. The defendant also honour the bills as and
when it was submitted until somebody giving false
complaints against the officials of the defendant to the
Lokayukta falsely alleging irregularities in the matter
of setting up of computer training centres, identifying
the trainees, purchase of computers, hardware and
software etc., Pursuant to the false complaints, the
5 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
then Commissioner of the defendant ordered for an
enquiry on 26.11.2008 to be conducted by BMTF into
the allegations. Accordingly, BMTF conducted detailed
enquiry in the matter. In report submitted by BMTF it
has been reported that in so far as Synergy Computer
Education is concerned, Bruhat Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike has provided capital of 59.99
lakhs and has started 14 Training Centres. In respect
of 14 Centres, had received Rs. 5,59,14,250/- as a
tuition fee upto 31.3.2008 and total outstanding dues
payable by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike in
Rs.1,06,87,250/-.
It is also reported that, when surprise inspection
was made to this computer training centre, each
training centre had 10 computers, UPS Server and
Computer Room, Teaching Room, Office Room,
partition and electric connection and other facilities
and training was going on at the time of surprise
check. From the report submitted by BMTF, it is clear
that plaintiff has imparted computer training
6 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
satisfactorily and then the then Commissioner of the
defendant on being satisfied that there is no
irregularity in the matter of entering into agreement
for computer training directed release of the training
fee. However, on the basis of the false complaint, the
payment has been withheld. As on the date of
completion of the training period, the plaintiff was
entitled to the balance of computer training fees and
defendant was required to make payment of the same.
It is submitted that as on the date of completion
of training period as per agreement, defendant was
due in a sum of Rs.1,06,87,250/- in respect of M/s
Synergy Computer Education to the plaintiff. The said
amount has not been paid to plaintiff immediately
after completion of training. Even after order passed
by the then Commissioner for making payment of the
computer training fees, these payments have not been
made.
Thereafter plaintiff had filed W.P.No.9750/2012
before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The Hon'ble
7 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
High Court of Karnataka on the submission made on
behalf of plaintiff and defendant disposed off the Writ
Petition by order dated 17.7.2012 with a direction of
considering the representation of the plaintiff. In
pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka, the then Commissioner of
defendant by order dated 19.2.2013 ordered payment
of computer training fees to the plaintiff. Even after
the said order, payments have not been made.
Thereafter, plaintiff was constrained to file another
Writ Petition No.17572/2013 before Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka. The Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka by order dated 4.6.2013 directed the
defendant to implement the office order dated
19.2.2013 within six weeks. Inspite of the said
direction, payment has not been made and not given
effect to the office order dated 19.2.2013. Then
plaintiff filed contempt proceedings before Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka. At that junction, balance of
computer training fees has been made to the plaintiff.
8 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
It is submitted that at the time of receiving the
payment of amount, the plaintiff has accepted the
payment without prejudice to his right to claim
interest for the belated payment. In view of the fact
that plaintiff was denied of receiving the payment
immediately after completion of training, the plaintiff
is entitled for payment of interest for the belated
period. The plaintiff is entitled to claim interest at the
rate of 9% per annum and plaintiff is entitled for a
sum of Rs.47,44,033 being the interest for the belated
payment as on the date when defendant made
payment of computer training fees.
Inspite of the several requests made and notices
issued, the defendant has not made the payment of
interest for the belated payment of computer training
fees. Thereafter plaintiff got issued statutory notice
under Section 482 of Karnataka Municipal
Corporation Act, 1976 calling upon the defendant to
pay interest in a sum of Rs.47,44,033/- within two
months from the date of receipt of the notice, failing
9 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
which plaintiff would institute a suit for recovery of
the said amount. Inspite of notice defendant has not
paid the interest as claimed by the plaintiff. Hence
this suit.
3. In response to the suit summons issued by
the Court, defendant appeared through his counsel
and filed written statement. In brief the contents of
the written statement filed by the defendant are as
under:
The suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and
same is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is
true that plaintiff was entrusted the job of training in
the computer education to the unemployed candidates
of SC/ST Backward classes, Minority as a pilot
projects. The plaintiff has not sold the materials by
public auction and pays the 50% of the sale
proceedings though imparting the training is over, the
plaintiff has utterly failed to implement the sale of
proceedings after training is over. Hence defendant is
entitled to 50% of the sale proceedings. It is false to
10 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
contend that as on the date of completion of training
of the employees as per agreement, the plaintiff was
entitled to Rs.1,06,87,250/- and out of which sum of
Rs.30,85,200/- is paid to the plaintiff on 31.3.2008 as
representing half of the contract amount at the time of
completion of the contract. Hence amount was
payable was only Rs.30,85,250/- and not
Rs.1,06,87,250/- as contended by the plaintiff. The
plaintiff is not entitled for the interest as claimed.
There was no contract to pay interest and interest
claimed at 9% is excessive in nature and at the most
only claimed at 6% interest. On the other hand
plaintiff is liable to pay 50% of the amount of the
value of the computer and its peripherals along with
interest. There is no cause of action for the suit. The
plaintiff is not entitled for any grounds. On these
grounds, defendant prays for dismissal of the suit.
4 On the basis of the above pleadings of the
parties, my predecessor in office has framed the
following issues:
11 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves
that defendant is liable to pay
Rs.51,39,526/- to the plaintiff?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for the relief sought for in the
suit?
(3) What order or decree?
5. Thereafter the plaintiff concern in order to
prove its case examined its proprietrix as PW.1 and
got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P83 documents and closed its
side of evidence. On the other hand, defendant
examined its Assistant Revenue Officer as DW.1 and
not got marked any documents on its behalf.
6. Heard the arguments on both sides and
perused entire records of the case.
7. My findings on the above issues are as
under:
Issue No. 1) ............ Partly in the affirmative;
Issue No. 2) ............ Partly in the affirmative;
Issue No. 3) ............ As per final order for
the following:
12 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
8. ISSUE NO.1: Plaintiff filed this suit against
defendant for recovery of sum of Rs.51,39,526/-
towards interest on the delayed payment.
9. In this case defendant appeared through
his counsel and filed written statement denying the
case of plaintiff. Defendant contended that since
plaintiff had not carried out the project and plaintiff
has not conducted classes in a proper manner and no
coaching was done as per terms of contract and
entrustment of work to the plaintiff is without inviting
tender and hence defendant is not liable to pay any
amount claimed by the plaintiff.
10. Defendant further contended that since
there is no contract between plaintiff and defendant
with regard to the payment of interest for the delayed
payment and hence defendant is not liable to pay any
amount to the plaintiff.
13 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
11. In this case proprietrix of plaintiff examined
as PW.1. She filed affidavit evidence in lieu of her
examination-in-chief. In her examination-in-chief, she
reiterated the plaint averments. She produced in all
83 documents which are marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P83.
In the cross-examination, she denied that plaintiff is
not liable to pay suit claim amount.
12. In this case defendant got examined its
Assistant Revenue Officer as DW.1. He filed affidavit
evidence in lieu of his examination-in-chief. In his
examination-in-chief, he reiterated the contention
taken in the written statement. DW.1 has not
produced any documents. In the cross-examination,
he admitted that plaintiff had done his work as per
project. He further admitted that after enquiry, it was
held by BMTF, Lokayukta and enquiry officer that
there was no fault on the part of the plaintiff and in
the said enquiry reports, it is mentioned that as per
contract plaintiff has imparted the computer training
14 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
to the candidates sent by Bruhat Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike.
13. I have perused entire evidence on record. It
is an admitted fact that plaintiff is a proprietary
concern carrying on the business in imparting
computer education. It is also admitted fact that
defendant has entered into separate agreements in
respect of each of the wards with the plaintiff for
providing computer training to the SC/ST Backward
Class and Minority unemployed candidates identified
by defendant.
14. It is also admitted fact that as per terms of
agreement, plaintiff has procured necessary
computers and other related accessories
infrastructure to set up the computer training centre.
DW.1 in his cross-examination clearly admitted that
work was entrusted to the plaintiff under Pilot Project
scheme and plaintiff had done his work as per
contract. He further admitted that after completion of
15 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
the work entrusted to the plaintiff, defendant has to
finalise the bills submitted by the plaintiff. Hence from
the evidence on record it is much clear that work was
entrusted to the plaintiff by the defendant under pilot
project scheme and as per agreement, plaintiff had
done his work.
15. It is also not in dispute that in the year
2009, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
Commissioner has passed an order to make payments
to the plaintiff if bill submitted by the plaintiff are
genuine. It is also admitted fact that defendant has
not made payment even after order passed by the
Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara
Palike. Defendant contended that since there was a
complaint against plaintiff before BMTF and
Lokayukta and hence they have not made payments
to the plaintiff.
16. It is also admitted fact that after enquiry it
was held by BMTF, Lokayukta and enquiry officer that
16 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
there was no fault on the part of plaintiff. It is also
admitted fact that in the said enquiry reports, it is
mentioned that as per contract, plaintiff has imparted
the computer training to the candidates sent by
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. In the enquiry
report, it is also stated that the students who are
contacted at the address given by them have testified
that they have been given free training and no amount
has been collected from them.
17. DW.1 also in his cross-examination clearly
admitted that after enquiry, it was held by BMTF,
Lokayukta and enquiry officer that there was no fault
on the part of plaintiff and in the said enquiry reports,
it is mentioned that as per contract, plaintiff has
imparted the computer training to the candidates sent
by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. Hence
from the evidence on record it is much clear that as
per enquiry reports, there was no fault on the part of
the plaintiff and as per contract, the plaintiff has
17 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
imparted computer training to the candidates sent by
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. Hence it is the
duty of the defendant to make payment to the plaintiff
as per agreement. But evidence on record clearly
shows that defendant has not made payment to the
plaintiff even though plaintiff submitted the bill. It is
also admitted fact that in the year 2009, the then
Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara
Palike has passed an order to make payment to the
plaintiff, but inspite of the order passed by the then
Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara
Palike, defendant has not made payment.
18. In this case, plaintiff produced enquiry
report given by BMTF. In the said report, it is clearly
mentioned that training has been conducted
satisfactorily and after satisfying that there are no
sufficient valid grounds for withholding the payment
and further taking note of the direction of Hon'ble
Minister directing the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara
18 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
Palike to release payment based on report of the
BMTF, payment may be released. Hence from the
report submitted by BMTF, it is much clear that
plaintiff had done his work as per contract and after
completion of work entrusted to the plaintiff, Bruhat
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike has to finalise bill
submitted by the plaintiff. But even though there was
no fault on the part of the plaintiff and even the then
Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara
Palike has passed order to make payment, but
defendant authority without any valid grounds has
withheld the payments.
19. In this case evidence on record clearly
shows that as on the date of completion of training
period as per agreement, the defendant was due in a
sum of Rs.1,06,87,250/- to the plaintiff. Further
evidence on record clearly shows that above said
amount has not been paid to the plaintiff immediately
after completion of training. Further evidence on
19 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
record clearly shows that plaintiff has given
representation to make payments. Further evidence
on record clearly shows that on the basis of the
representation given by the plaintiff, defendant
obtained legal opinion on 26.6.2010. In this case
plaintiff has produced said legal opinion obtained by
the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike which is
marked as Ex.P63. On perusal of the legal opinion, it
shows that advocate for Bruhat Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike has suggested in his legal opinion
to the defendant for making payment to the plaintiff
for providing computer training. But evidence on
record clearly shows that even after said legal opinion
and even after order passed by the then
Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara
Palike for making payment of computer training fees,
defendants have not made payments.
20. Further in this case evidence on record
clearly shows that plaintiff also filed writ petition
20 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
no.9750/2012 before Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka against defendant directing the defendant
to consider the representation of the plaintiff for
payment of computer training fees. After hearing,
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has directed the
defendant herein to consider the representation of the
plaintiff. Further evidence on record clearly shows
that pursuant to the order dated 17.7.2012 passed by
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the aforesaid Writ
Petition, the then Commissioner of defendant by order
dated 19.2.2013 ordered for payment of computer
training fees to the plaintiff and also directed to take
steps for disposal of the computer, accessories and
furniture through public auction. Further evidence on
record clearly shows that even after the said order, the
payments have not been made by implementing the
office order dated 19.2.2013. Further evidence on
record clearly shows that as defendant has not made
the payments the plaintiff again filed Writ Petition
No.17572/2013 before Hon'ble High Court of
21 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
Karnataka seeking direction to implement the office
order dated 19.2.2013. Further the evidence on record
clearly shows that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by
order dated 4.6.2013 directed the defendant to
implement the office order dated 19.2.2013 within six
weeks. Further evidence on record clearly shows that
inspite of the said direction, the payment of computer
training fee has not been made by giving effect to the
office order dated 19.2.2013. Further evidence on
record clearly shows that thereafter plaintiff was
constrained to file contempt of court proceedings in
CCC No.1405/13. At that time, defendant has paid
balance of computer training fees and plaintiff has
received amount. In view of the above fact, it is much
clear that plaintiff was denied of receiving payment
immediately after completion of the training and
plaintiff has been prevented from utlising the money
for which plaintiff is legally entitled for payment of
interest for the belated period.
22 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
21. DW.1 also in his cross-examination clearly
admitted that in the year 2012 plaintiff has requested
to make payment with interest and they have not
made payment to the plaintiff. It clearly shows that
even though plaintiff has made request even in the
year 2012 itself, but defendant has not made the
payment to the plaintiff. DW.1 also in his cross-
examination admitted that in the year 2013, their
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Commissioner
has passed an order to make payment to the plaintiff
immediately and as per Ex.P65 Commissioner has
ordered to sale of computer and other accessories and
furniture in the public auction and to share the
amount among plaintiff and defendant. From the
evidence of DW.1 it is much clear that even though
Commissioner has passed an order to make payment
to the plaintiff but defendant has not made payment
to the plaintiff.
23 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
22. Further Ex.P65 also clearly shows that
Commissioner has ordered to sale of computer and
other accessories and furniture in public auction and
to share the amount among plaintiff and Bruhat
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike.
23. Further evidence on record clearly shows
that as per Ex.P65 defendant has not conducted any
auction. In this case plaintiff has produced letter given
by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike which is
marked as Ex.P82. On perusal of the same, it clearly
shows that plaintiff has donated computer accessories
and furnitures of her share to the Bruhat Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike. Further Ex.P83 also clearly shows
that after making donation by the plaintiff, Bruhat
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike given appreciation
letter to the plaintiff. DW.1 also in his cross-
examination admitted contents of Ex.P82 and Ex.P83.
DW.1 also in his cross-examination clearly admitted
that in his affidavit evidence, he has stated that there
24 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
was some delay in making payment. Hence from the
evidence on record it is much clear that even though
defendant is liable to pay the amount to the plaintiff
for providing training to the students but defendant
without any reasons has withheld the payment of
amount to the plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled
for payment of interest for the belated period. In this
case plaintiff examined as PW.1. Advocate for
defendant has cross-examined PW.1 at length. But
nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW.1 to
disbelieve her evidence. Hence I do not find any
reasons to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1. Further I
do not find any reasons to doubt the genuineness of
documents produced by the plaintiff. On perusal of
the entire evidence on record it is much clear that as
per agreement, even though plaintiff has given
training to the students but defendant has not made
payments to the plaintiff immediately but defendant
has made payments at belated stage. Further evidence
on record clearly shows that without any reasons
25 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
plaintiff was denied of receiving the payment
immediately after completion of training and plaintiff
has been prevented for utilizing the money for which
defendant is liable to pay interest for belated payment.
24. In this case plaintiff claimed interest at the
rate of 9% payable from the date of completion of
training period. According to plaintiff, she is entitled
for a sum of Rs.47,44,033/- being the interest for the
belated payment as on the date when defendant made
payment of computer training fees. Admittedly, there
is no contract between the parties to pay interest on
the delayed payment. PW.1 also in her cross-
examination clearly admitted that there is no
contractual obligation on the part of Bruhat
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to pay interest on the
delayed payments.
25. Hence from the evidence on record it is
much clear that there was no agreement between the
plaintiff and defendant to pay interest on delayed
26 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
payments. It is pertinent to note that even though
there was no agreement between the parties with
regard to interest on the delayed payments but as per
Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978, the plaintiff is
entitled to interest on the delayed payments. As per
Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978, in any proceedings
for recovery of any debt or damages or in any
proceedings in which claim for interest in respect of
any debt or damages already paid is made, the Court
may if it thinks fit allow the interest to the person
entitled to the death or damages or to the person
making such claim as the case may be, at the rate not
exceeding current rate of interest for the whole or part
of the period. Hence even though there is no contract
between the parties with regard to payment of interest
on the delayed payments, but as per Section 3 of the
Interest Act, the court may if it fit to think can allow
the interest to the person entitled at a rate not
exceeding current rate of interest.
27 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
26. From the evidence on record it is much
clear that even though plaintiff has completed her
work as per agreement, defendant has not made
payments within stipulated period. Further evidence
on record clearly shows that even though Bruhat
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Commissioner has
passed order to make payment, but defendant has not
made payment to the plaintiff after completion of
training and plaintiff has been prevented from utlising
the money and defendant without any reasons has
withheld the legitimate amount of the plaintiff and
hence plaintiff is entitled for interest on the delayed
payments even though in the absence of agreement
regarding payment of interest as per Section 3 of The
Interest Act, 1978.
27. It is held in a decision reported in (2009) 7
SCC 372 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
held as under:
28 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
"Interest - Equitable interest -
Principles restated - Interest Act,
1978 - S.3 - Civil Procedure Code,
1908, S.34 (Paras 23 to 25).
G. Interest - Award of interest -
Rights of claimant - Due
entitlement period - Basic
principles, equitable considerations
and permissible deviations -
discussed - Civil Procedure Code,
1908 - S.34 - Debt, Financial and
Monetary Laws - Interest Act, 1978
- S.3 - Tort Law - Compensation/
Damages - Interest."
28. Further, our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
reported in ILR 1992 KAR 1103 held as under:
"INTEREST ACT, 1978 (Central
Act No.14 of 1978) - Section 3 - Suit
for value of goods supplied: Interest
29 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
thereon - No stipulation, agreement,
plea or proof of trade usage or
custom - Interest at current rate of
interest from date of demand - Non
-mention of rate of interest while
making demand, of no material
consequence, Act defining current
rate of interest."
29. Further, our Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka also in a decision reported in ILR 1992
KAR 1678 held as under:
"INTEREST ACT, 1978 (Central Act
No.14 of 1978) - Section 3(1) -
Attracted if either clause (a) or (b)
satisfied not both - Current rate of
Interest - Bank rate."
30. From the above said rulings, it is much
clear that even though there was no agreement
between the parties Court has got power to award
30 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
suitable interest as per Section 3 of the Interest Act.
Admittedly in this case there was no agreement
between the parties to pay interest on delayed
payments. But in this case, defendant has withheld
the amount of the plaintiff without any valid reasons
and made delayed payments. Therefore, plaintiff is
entitled for interest on the delayed payment.
31. In this case plaintiff claimed interest at the
rate of 9% per annum on the delayed payments.
Plaintiff filed this suit in the year 2014. Plaintiff has
requested the defendant to make payment in the year
2012 itself after completion of imparting training to
the students. During the year 2012 to 2014, bank rate
of interest on the FD was more than 9% per annum.
As per Section 3 of the Interest Act, the Court has got
power to award interest even in the absence of
agreement between the parties at the rate not
exceeding current rate of interest. As already stated
during the year 2012 to 2014, current rate of interest
31 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
was more than 9% per annum. Therefore, plaintiff is
entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum on
the delayed payments made by the defendant.
32. In this case plaintiff claimed principal
amount of Rs.47,44,033/- and interest at
Rs.3,75,493/- at the rate of 9% per annum from
12.7.2013 to 13.5.2014. The interest claimed by the
plaintiff at the rate of 9% per annum is just and
proper. Hence plaintiff is entitled to claim interest at
the rate of 9% per annum on the delayed payments.
Therefore, plaintiff is entitled for sum of
Rs.51,19,526/-.
33. In this case plaintiff has claimed
Rs.20,000/- towards legal notice charges. The amount
claimed by the plaintiff towards legal notice charges is
appears to be exorbitant and plaintiff is not entitled
for Rs.20,000/- towards legal notice charges. However
it is just and proper to award Rs.5,000/- towards legal
notice charges. Therefore, plaintiff in all is entitled for
32 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
Rs.51,24,526/- from the defendant and defendant is
liable to pay said amount to the plaintiff. Plaintiff
partly proved Issue No.1. Accordingly, I answer issue
no.1 partly in the affirmative.
34. ISSUE NO.2: Plaintiff filed this suit
against defendant for recovery of sum of
Rs.51,39,526/- from the defendant with interest
pendentelite. While answering issue no.1, it is held
that plaintiff is entitled to recover sum of
Rs.51,24,526/- from the defendant. Therefore,
plaintiff is entitled to recover sum of Rs.51,24,526/-
from the defendant towards delayed payments.
35. Looking to the facts and circumstances of
the case, it is just and proper to direct the defendant
to pay the above said amount within three months
from the date of this Judgment. Failing which
defendant is liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per
annum on the decreetal amount from the date of
default till realization of the entire amount.
33 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
Accordingly, I answer issue no.2 partly in the
affirmative.
36. ISSUE NO.3: From my above discussions
and reasoning, the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be
decreed in part with costs. In the result, I pass the
following:
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby
decreed in part with costs.
Plaintiff is entitled to recover sum of
Rs.51,24,526/- from the defendant.
Defendant is hereby directed to pay
the above said amount to the plaintiff
within three months from the date of
this Judgment. Failing which
defendant is liable to pay interest at
the rate of 6% per annum on the
decreetal amount from the date of
default till realization.
34 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_
Draw decree accordingly.
***
[Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, Script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 17th day of March 2017.] [S.H. HOSAGOUDAR] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
PW.1 Smt.Vasundara A.G.K.
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
DW.1 V.Tharanath
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P 1 Endorsement issued by defendant Ex.P 2 Certified copy Work order dated 19.10.2006 Ex.P 3 Certified copy of agreement dated 26.10.2006 Ex.P 4 Certified copy of work dated 5.5.2006 Ex.P 5 Certified copy of agreement dated 5.6.2006 35 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_ Ex.P 6 Certified copy of work order dated 5.1.2006 Ex.P 7 Certified copy if agreement dated 16.1.2006 Ex.P 8 Work order dated 5.1.2006 Ex.P 9 Certified copy of agreement dated 16.1.2006 Ex.P 10 Certified copy of work order dated 5.1.2006 Ex.P 11 Certified copy of agreement Ex.P 12 Certified copy of work order 2.8.2005 Ex.P 13 Certified copy of agreement dated 23.8.2005 Ex.P 14 Certified copy of work order dated 5.1.2006 Ex.P 15 Certified copy of agreement dated 16.1.2006 Ex.P 16 Certified copy of work order dated 19.10.2006 Ex.P 17 Certified copy of agreement dated 26.10.2006 Ex.P 18 Certified copy of work order dated 5.1.2006 Ex.P 19 Certified copy of agreement dated 16.1.2006 Ex.P 20 Certified copy of work order dated 19.10.2006 Ex.P 21 Certified copy of agreement dated 26.10.2006 Ex.P 22 Certified copy of work order dated 26.3.2005 Ex.P 23 Certified copy of agreement dated 23.8.2005 Ex.P 24 Certified copy of work order dated 18.2.2006 Ex.P 25 Certified copy of agreement dated 8.3.2006 36 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_ Ex.P 26 Certified copy of work order dated 26.3.2006 Ex.P 27 Certified copy of agreement dated 28.3.2005 Ex.P 28 Certified copy of agreement dated 23.8.2005 Ex.P 29 Certified copy of work order dated 5.5.2006 Ex.P 30 Certified copy of agreement dated 5.6.2006 Ex.P 31 To Office copies of the bills Ex.P 62 Ex.P 63 Certified copy of the legal opinion dated 26.6.2010 Ex.P 64 Certified copy of the order passed in W.P.Nos. 9749 and 9750/12 Ex.P 65 Certified copy of the office order dated 19.2.2013 Ex.P 66 Certified copy of the order dated
4.6.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.17571 and 17572/13 Ex.P 67 Certified copy of the order dated 26.9.2013 in CCC Nos.1404 and 1405/13 Ex.P 68 Letter dated 12.7.2013 Ex.P 69 Letter dated 20.8.2013 Ex.P 70 Letter dated 20.9.2013 Ex.P 71 Office copy of the legal notice Ex.P 72 Acknowledgement Ex.P 73 3 Statements of calculation of To interest amount.
Ex.P 75 Ex.P 76 Entire order sheet Ex.P 77 Certified copy of the report Ex.P 78 And Certified copies of 2 enquiry Ex.P 79 reports 37 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_ Ex.P 80 Report submitted by BBMP Commissioner Ex.P 81 Certified copy of the inter office note Ex.P 82 Letter given to Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Ex.P 83 Appreciation letter given by the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike to the plaintiff.
4. List of the documents marked for the defendants:
Nil.
[S.H. HOSAGOUDAR] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, BANGALORE.
17/03/2017 P-VTP D-HSS For Judgment....
...Judgment pronounced in the Open Court....
(Vide separate detailed judgment) The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in part with costs.
Plaintiff is entitled to recover sum of Rs.51,24,526/- from the defendant. Defendant is hereby directed to pay the above said amount to the plaintiff within three months from the date of this Judgment. Failing which defendant is liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the decreetal amount from the date of default till realization. Draw decree accordingly.
[S.H.HOSAGOUDAR] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
40 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_ 41 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_ 42 CT0028_O.S._4167_2014_Judgment_