Bangalore District Court
Soft Pro Technologies 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: Soft Pro Technologies,
A proprietary concern,
No.1660, 16th Main, 18th Cross,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore-560 040
Represented by its Proprietor
Amba Prasad N.H.
Aged 49 years,
S/o N.H.Halappa,
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
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.
2 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_
: 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.20,93,869-00 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
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.
3 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_
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 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
4 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_
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 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 Soft Pro
Technologies is concerned, it has provided training to the
candidates sent by defendant upto the end of contract period
in respect of 5 centres and has received Rs.1,87,84,500/- upto
31.3.2008 and total outstanding dues to be paid by defendant
is Rs.35,45,500/-.
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 satisfactorily and
5 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_
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.35,45,500/- 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.9749/2012 before
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The Hon'ble 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
6 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_
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.17571/2013 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.
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.19,21,761/-
being the interest for the belated payment as on the date when
defendant made payment of computer training fees.
7 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_
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.19,21,761/- within two months
from the date of receipt of the notice, failing 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
8 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_
training is over. Hence defendant is entitled to 50% of the sale
proceedings. It is false to contend that as on the date of
completion of training of the employees as per agreement, the
plaintiff was entitled to recover suit claim amount. 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:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that
defendant is liable to pay
Rs.20,93,869/- 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.P34 documents and closed its side of evidence. On the
9 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_
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:
8. ISSUE NO.1: Plaintiff filed this suit against
defendant for recovery of sum of Rs.20,93,869-00 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 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_
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.
11. In this case proprietrix of plaintiff examined as
PW.1. He filed affidavit evidence in lieu of his examination-in-
chief. In his examination-in-chief, he reiterated the plaint
averments. He produced in all 34 documents which are
marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P34. In the cross-examination, he
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
11 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_
computer training 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 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.
12 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_
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 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
13 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_
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 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
14 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_
payment and further taking note of the direction of Hon'ble
Minister directing the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara 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.35,45,500/- 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 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
15 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_
produced said legal opinion obtained by the Bruhat Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike which is marked as Ex.P22. 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 no.9749/2012
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
16 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_
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.17571/2013 before Hon'ble High Court of
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.1404/13. 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
17 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_
been prevented from utlising the money for which plaintiff is
legally entitled for payment of interest for the belated period.
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 further
Commissioner also 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.
22. Further evidence on record clearly shows that
Commissioner has ordered to sale of computer and other
accessories and furniture in public auction and to share the
18 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_
amount among plaintiff and Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara
Palike.
23. Further evidence on record clearly shows that as per
order passed by the Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike, defendant has not conducted any auction.
In this case plaintiff has produced letter given by Bruhat
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike which is marked as Ex.P34. On
perusal of the same, it clearly shows that plaintiff has donated
computer accessories and furnitures of his share to the
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. Further evidence on
record 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.P34. DW.1 also in his
cross-examination clearly admitted that in his affidavit
evidence, he has stated that there 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
19 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_
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 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.19,21,761/- 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
his cross-examination clearly admitted that there is no
20 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_
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 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.
21 CT0028_O.S._4171_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:
"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 -
22 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_
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 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."
23 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_
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 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 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.
24 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_
32. In this case plaintiff claimed principal amount of
Rs.19,21,761/- and interest at Rs.1,52,108/- 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.20,73,869/- from the defendant.
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 Rs.20,78,869/- 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.20,93,869/- from the
defendant with interest pendentelite. While answering issue
no.1, it is held that plaintiff is entitled to recover sum of
25 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_
Rs.20,78,869/- from the defendant. Therefore, plaintiff is
entitled to recover sum of Rs.20,78,869/- 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.
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.20,78,869/- 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
26 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_
on the decreetal amount from the date of
default till realization.
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 Amba Prasad.N.H.
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 of work order dated 5.1.2006 Ex.P 3 Certified copy of agreement dated 25.1.2006 Ex.P 4 Certified copy of work order dated 5.1.2006 Ex.P 5 Certified copy of the agreement dated 25.1.2006 Ex.P 6 Certified copy of work order dated 5.1.2006 Ex.P 7 Certified copy of agreement dated 25.1.2006 Ex.P 8 Certified copy of work order dated 5.1.2006 Ex.P 9 Certified copy of agreement dated 25.1.2006 Ex.P 10 Certified copy of work order dated 51.2006 27 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_ Ex.P 11 Certified copy of agreement dated 25.1.2006 Ex.P 12 To Certified copies of bills Ex.P 21 Ex.P 22 Certified copy of legal opinion Ex.P 23 Certified copy of order passed in W.P.No.9749/12 Ex.P 24 Certified copy of office order dated 19.2.2013 Ex.P 25 Certified copy of order passed in W.P.No.17571/13 Ex.P 26 Certified copy of order passed in CC No.1404-1405/13 Ex.P 27 Certified copy of letter dated 12.7.2013 Ex.P 28 Office copy of the legal notice Ex.P 29 Statement of calculation of interest Ex.P 30 Entire order sheet Ex.P 31 Certified copy of the report Ex.P 32 Certified copy of the enquiry report Ex.P 33 Report submitted by BBMP Commissioner Ex.P 34 Letter given to BBMP
4. List of the documents marked for the defendants:
Nil.
[S.H. HOSAGOUDAR] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, BANGALORE.
28 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_ 17/03/2017 P-VTP D - HSS For Judgement...
...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.20,78,869/- 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.
29 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_ 30 CT0028_O.S._4171_2014_Judgment_ fdfdf fdfdjfdjfd