Bangalore District Court
Is Carrying The Business Of Granite vs Owed The Plaintiff An Outstanding Debt ... on 15 September, 2020
C.R.P.67] Government of Karnataka
Form No.9(Civil) Title
Sheet for Judgment in
suits
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, (SCCH-09)
AT BANGALORE
PRESENT: Abdul Khadar, B.A., LL.B.,
JUDGE, Court Of Small Causes,
Bengaluru
Dated this the 15th Day of September 2020
SC. No: 1390/2019
Plaintif : M/s. Hilltop Granites Pvt. Ltd.,
Company registered under the
Companites Act 1956, and having its
registered Office at:
No. 14/1,Bannerghatta Road,
Near MICO Back Gate,
Bengaluru-560030.
Represented by its Authorised Person
Mr. Himanshu Mishra, Aged about 54
Years.)
(By Sri. Anant Kulkarni- Advocate)
-Vs-
Defendants : 1. Chief Secretary Government of
Karnataka, Department of Commerce
and Industry (Mines), M.S. Building,
(Vikasa Soudha) Bangalore-560001.
SCCH.9 17 SC.1390/2019
2. The office of the Director,
Department of Mines and Geology,
No.49, 4th Floor, South Block,
Khanija Bhavan, Bangalore-560001.
3. Assistant Director ,
Department of Mines and Geology,
Chamarajanagar District.
(By District Government Pleader)
Date of Institution of suit : 15-10-2019
Nature of the suit : Recovery of money
Date of commencement of : 14-01-2020
recording of the evidence
The date of pronouncement of : 15-09-2020
Judgment
Total Duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
00 11 00
JUDGMENT
The suit is filed by the plaintiff for the relief of recovery of money from the defendants with interest.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Plaintiff is a Private Ltd., Company, Registered under the Companies Act 1956 and having its registered Office. The plaintiff is carrying the business of Granite, leasing of Quarries, Mining business etc., across India and abroad. The Defendants are Government Department, during the SCCH.9 17 SC.1390/2019 course of office hours, called applications for Grant of Quarrying lease for quarrying Granites for period of 10 years, accordingly plaintiff had applied for with a security deposit calculated at Rs.5,000/- per acre and Rs.1,000/- being application fee. Accordingly plaintiff had applied for lease of 01 acres land at Ponnachi Village, Kollegal Taluk, Mysore District on 22.01.1991 with security deposit amount of Rs.6,500/-, subsequently the 2nd defendant had issued acknowledgment letter dated 13.07.1994. The plaintiff further submits that later on plaintiff wrote a letter for refund of security deposit already paid along with application requesting defendants to kindly refund security deposits, which he had paid, but defendants does not respond the same. Later plaintiff had frequently visited defendants office and made request for the same and also submitted letter on 21.07.2009, 29.11.2016 and 09.07.2018. Thereafter the 1 st defendant had informed that said application for grant of quarrying lease for quarrying granites is still pending and they have asked information from other departments and directed Deputy Directory to sent report regarding the same vide letter dated 10.01.2017. Plaintiff Company had issued legal notice to the defendants calling upon them to refund the security deposits along with 24% interest from the date of submitting DD within 60 days as per Sec. 80 SCCH.9 17 SC.1390/2019 of C.P.C. The said notice duly served on defendants. The defendants owed the plaintiff an outstanding debt of Rs.6,500/- refund security deposits obtained from the plaintiff. Inspite of repeated requests and demands the defendants have failed to refund the security deposits obtained from the plaintiff and failed to make the repayment. Having no other option the plaintiff constrained to file this suit against the defendants and prayed for decretal of the suit.
3. In pursuance of service of suit summons, the defendants have appeared through District Govt. Pleader and filed written statement and contended that they called application for grant of quarrying lease for quarrying Granites for a period of 10 years, accordingly plaintiff has applied for with a security deposit calculated at Rs.5,000/- per acre and Rs.1,000/- being the application fees. After receival of letter for refund of security deposit from the plaintiff the 1st defendant informed to other department. As per that directed the Deputy Director to send the report regarding the same. After receiving the report the defendants forwarded the refund order to the plaintiff in Form KPC 57/59 in duplicate duly singed and affixing revenue stamp (Rs.100) early for arranging refund of security deposit. It does not include interest. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
SCCH.9 17 SC.1390/20194. To substantiate these points, the authorized person of the plaintiff Company has been examined himself as PW1 and got marked 15 documents as per Ex.P1 to P15 and closed his side. The defendants counsel submits that there is no defendant evidence.
5. Heard arguments. On going through the materials on record, the following points arise for the determination of the court.
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim with interest as prayed for?
2) What order or decree?
6. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Partly Affirmative Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS Point No.1 :
7. To prove the case of the plaintiff company, its authorized person Sri. Himanshu Mishra, examined himself as PW.1 and filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. He reiterated the plaint averments in toto and produced 15 documents at Ex.P1 to P.15. Ex.P1 is the authorization letter issued by the plaintiff company in favour of Himanshu Mishra by authorizing to sign all documents which shall be binding on the company. Ex.P2 is the agreement of receipt of SCCH.9 17 SC.1390/2019 application quarrying lease/quarrying license dated 13.07.1994. Wherein the 2 nd defendant has called application for quarrying as per the rules vide No.DMG/QLA/248/94- 95/2584. The plaintiff filed company had application for quarrying granite in Sy. No.93-B extents 01 acre situated at Ponnachi Village, Kollegal Taluk, Mysore District and enclosed DD No. 010668 dated 21.06.1994 Rs.4,000/- and 010676 dated 21.06.1994 Rs.1,500/- and Rs.5,500/- as security deposit. Ex.P3 is the letter dated 09.07.2018 wherein plaintiff had requested for refund of security deposit from the 2 nd defendant. Ex.P4 is the letter dated 21.07.2018 wherein plaintiff had requested for refund of security deposit from the 2nd defendant. Ex.P5 is the acknowledgment issued by the defendant No.2 stating that he called report from the 3rd defendant whether any quarry is held in Sy. No. 93/B. Ex.P6 is the legal notice issued U/ Sec. 80 of CPC dated 23.04.2019 to defendants No. 1 and 2 calling upon them to refund the security deposit of Rs.6,500/- along with interest 24%p.a. from the date of submitting DD within 60 days. Ex.P7 and 8 are the postal receipts. Ex.P9 & 10 are the Postal acknowledgments , wherein the notice duly served on defendant No. 1and 2. Ex.P11 is the legal notice issued to defendant No. 2 by the plaintiff demanding Rs. 11,35,098/- with including 24% compounding interest for 23years. Ex.P12 is the Statement of account showing security deposit of SCCH.9 17 SC.1390/2019 quarrying lease application. Ex.P13 is the postal receipt. Ex.P14 is the postal acknowledgment. Ex.P15 is the endorsement issued by the 2nd defendant.
8. To disprove the case of the plaintiff, the counsel for the defendant cross-examined PW.1 wherein he admits that, the defendants have issued refund order in the form of revenue stamp by calling declaration from the plaintiff company and there is no rule to pay the interest of security deposit. He denied that the defendants have not liable to repay the interest of security deposit. Further he do not know whether the deposit amount carry interest or not. This evidence of PW.1 itself clear that the security deposit cannot carry interest and it cannot be used for other purposes it remains deposit and the said deposit not accessible either to Government nor any other party to use/earn and no profit is earned out of it. Moreover the plaintiff not proved that there was no rule or promise by the defendants to refund security deposit amount with interest.
9. As per Rule 9 of The Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1994 states about the application for grant or renewal of a quarrying lease. Sub Rule 2 of Rule 9 directs that application shall be accompanied with security deposit and fee. Rule 38 of the said rule speaks about refund of security deposit , if the application is rejected but it does not speaks about payment of interest.
SCCH.9 17 SC.1390/2019The KMMCR 1994 read thus:
"On an application made by an applicant whose application in Form-AQL or Form-R has been rejected, the security deposit may be refunded to such applicant within 60 days from the date of receipt of the application for refund, If dead rent or royalty or penalty is not due from him."
10. On perusal of the above said rule it reveals that, if the application is rejected by the Government, the plaintiff is entitled for refund of security deposit, but the said security deposit does not carry any interest. Moreover the defendants in their written statements admits that, plaintiff paid required security deposit. The said application for grant of lease was rejected on different grounds and the plaintiff demanded for refund of security deposits long back, it was not paid it amounted to refusal and the plaintiff is entitled for refund of security deposit. Further the defendants are ready to refund, as they passed refund order on 21.11.2019 in No.DMG/QLA- 419/1994-95/2019-20/5045-49 and issued refund order in Form KPC-57/59 in duplicate duly signed and affixing revenue stamp in Rs. 100/- stamp paper early for arranging refund of security deposit.
SCCH.9 17 SC.1390/201911. On perusal of Ex.P3 and 4 the plaintiff calling upon the defendants by demanding to pay only refund of security deposit of Rs.6,500/- and not demanded for interest as claimed in the suit. The 2nd defendant also called report from the defendant No.3 whether any quarrying lease for quarrying grant is still pending and what action has to be taken, with in one week other wise you alone will be made responsible for the same. But plaintiff has not turned up to receive the security deposit in pursuance of refund order. It shows that plaintiff has not complied the procedure as contemplated by the Government. As per Annexure-R1 i.e., list of head of accounts produced by the defendants, the security deposit is a deposit which cannot be used for other purpose and no profit is earned out of it. Further as per the Annexure-R2 letter dated 21.07.2009 the application filed by the plaintiff was rejected and security deposit was not refunded. As per Annexure-R3 the defendants have ordered refund order dated 21.11.2019 and sanction is accorded for refund of security deposit and directed the plaintiff to produce Form KPC-57/59 in duplicate duly signed affixing revenue stamp (Rs.100) early for arranging refund of security deposit and plaintiff has acknowledged the remit of refund order, but the plaintiff company has not complied the same. As per Annexure-R4 the plaintiff replied the notice dated 05.12.2019 by acknowledging the remit of refund order by contending that the amount SCCH.9 17 SC.1390/2019 mentioned in the order was small not included interest and thus the plaintiff company declined to accept the refund order.
12. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled interest as sought in the plaint and he is only entitled refund of security deposit amount from the defendants. Hence the plaintiff is proved that he deposited Rs.6,500/- along with application for quarrying granites in Sy. No. 93/B extent 1acre of Ponnachi Village, Kollegal Taluk, Mysore District and same was rejected by the Government and hence he is entitled for the refund of security deposit from the defendants. But he failed to prove that the said security deposit amount is carrying interest. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Partly Affirmative.
Point No.2:
13. For the forgoing discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the Plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with costs.
The plaintiff is entitled security deposit from the defendants. The defendants are directed to pay a security deposit deposited by the plaintiff within 1 month from the date of decree. Failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed with due process of law.SCCH.9 17 SC.1390/2019
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer on computer directly, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 15th day of September 2020) (Abdul khadar.), Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
PW1 - Himanshu Mistra List of documents exhibited on behalf of petitioner:
Ex.P1 - Authorization letter
Ex.P.2 - Form No. A
Ex.P.3 - Letter dated 09-01-2018,
Ex.P.4 - Letter dated 01-07-2009,
Ex.P.5 - Memorandum letter ,
Ex.P.6 - Notice,
Ex.P.7-8 - 2 Postal receipts
Ex.P.9-10 - 2Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.11 - Notice dated 21-05-2019,
Ex.P.12- Statement of account
Ex.P.13- Postal receipts
Ex.P14 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P15 Deputy Director issued letter dated 03.06.2019
SCCH.9 17 SC.1390/2019
List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendant:
Nil List of documents exhibited on behalf of defendant:
Nil (Abdul khadar.), Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.