IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 4"? day of October. 2010
BEFORE
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE s. N. _
Writ Petition N0. 9698 of 2009 (G1»i+--:2é:é'c:)'~~::: "
BETWEEN: « ' 4
Sri K N Shivaswamy
Aged about 68 years *~
Son of late K N aganna L' ' _
M / s. South India Match Indus,tries "-- VV
No.19-3/5, Hunsur Road ' V
Mysore -- 570 017 ' 'A " {:..Petiti0ner
{By Sri N. 'M-a_1f1ohar aha-;s;~1 Balar-subramanyarrl.
' Advocates)' 'V
1 Karnataka State Financial
. -C0rP0rat_ioI1..
Branch Office No,2716, L--4
"First Floor, Sdwrabha Chambers
V. 3 Srirlfiarsha Road. Lashkar Mohaiia
T aM'j,r_s0re' «.7 570 001
,Rep"r~esen1-ed by its
V As_siSta_ni General Manager
W»
fx.
2 Karnataka State Financial
Corporation
Head Office
No. 1/ I, Thimmaiaha Road
Bangaiore -- 560 052
Rep. by its Managing Director
3 Kamataka State Financial
Corporation
Head Office
No. 1/ 1, Thimmaiah Road
Bangalore -- 560 051 V b -- ' * , V
Rep. by its Chairman ._..l.~Re-sp.o_nd_ents'
[By Sri Hernanth Chandan Goudar4,'.A<livocate.i'orlR1'~andlR2i'--.i
Sri Gururaj Joshi,i'Adv_Vocate-for R1 to
This Writ Petition is filed Li'1fi._ClC!'x Articles 226 and 22'? of
the Constitution of India, prayirigft "quash ti'1e*'letter dated
15-1-2009 vide Annexu.re}M ;rejecting'a.the_ request/ appeal for
refund of the EMD amount ;_of R-s..iE5iiaigh-s';»..as~nu11 and void.
'I'his_W'r.it"Pe:§itionl"c.onii1ig:VVon}for preliminary hearing in
'B' thisday."the _Coi1'§;Vrt rnlade thefollowing:
1'. _s, n§RDER
The lp'cv{t.itionle-if is before this Court seeking a writ
of fiertiorari fo'rh"qua.s.hing the communication Vide letter No.
'o,M;s--2v1_62r,{oé:vo9 o 2373 dated 15.1.2009 vide Annexure--lVi,
rejecting' l~hislA'ii=Vlrequest for refund of EMD amount of
'V -- and also for a direction to the "respondents for
“‘*'”\
refund of EMD amount of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at
18% 13.31 from the date of deposit till the date of payrnent:
2. The brief facts leading to this petition
Respondents 1 and 2 issued a notification.und_ernSeetionl’
29 of the SF C Act in the Economiecnffirries ‘off€:1ingl<.tQ_tse1l the» 7. if
properties belonging to NUS Mysorefariels and_'v_l3oards*:.l5rnrate
Limited situated at Tandavapurg:"i.1ndustrial'ihreafaltlanjlangudi
Mysore District on 'as' is where: 'eondition';'~ ~'"i'§o the said
notification an offer herein by
its letter dated i ,20§§'éV'§iA:;t§u;§g~.':g;;1_ offer Rs. 1. 16.50.00{)/»
to the land; » to the plant and
machinery. * 1 subject to certain conditions
inentioned.g:t1ierein.: that subsequent to the offer
made' "by the' petitioner herein, a meeting took: place on
flbetween the officers of the petitioner and the
reslpopnd:§fit.;_ the said meeting the offer made by the
petitioner' was increased by one more lakh and the bid was
if'4"..V:'"acceptedthat Rs.1,38,75,000/– as against the offer which was
if earlier made at Rs.1,3'?',75,000/~. However, the bid
"'"'\
sheet which was accepted by the parties does not say anything
about the terms and conditions on which the offer waspxnade.
3. It is the case of the petitioner subsequently’*wi’1e’i’2uhe
was about to pay the amount in terms of the the, p
bid. the respondents herein indicated that islVac_cep’t’ed ‘ .
subject to payment of statutory due’spto;’_’i§i7*;i’ClL,.
Sales Tax, Provident Fund other pDepar.trn:e11ts.. the
aforesaid company whose prop_e_rty,_w’as put “up for: sale. The
said demand of the resfallondentbsip _:lno_t accepted by the
petitioner on thee.ground”that by him was a
conditional one the respondenitsllialvirllg accepted the same,
they _o11.,l:’theiruuterms on the bid that was
finalized -and demand;_ilth.ell”‘a.io~resaid amount. After prolonged
correspondence’ betwe-en”~”the parties, the petitioner herein
..r_accept”v~–the bid along with the statutory dues
V’ at*,:achAe’d.
l ‘j_1n’the result petitioner herein requested for refund
‘,.of the. amount which was {orieited by he respondents.
it “forfeiture of the EMD amount was also communicated to
“”1
him Vide Annexure~M. The petitioner is before this Court
challenging the correctness of Annexure–M and seeking to
quash the same on the ground that the offer made -hinfpfwas
subject to the conditions mentioned therein and
respondents’ officers accepted the s_a»rhe_tn “rn.eetii1g_*dat.edV’t.
14.2.2008 it is not open to therlhp
statutory dues in addition to “hid aniour1t._ A A A
5. On going through the docuinentsavlailableg on record,
it is clearly seen that ‘tAhoi1gh.’VAbthe:Vliiotiiication dated 7.1.2008
stated that the properties of thelaforesaicifionipany are put up
for sale on as is ‘where is-., cor1ditionA.an’d..o£fers were called on as
is where is –basli7s,*’v.tVhe pppet:it,ioI1er has clearly mentioned in his
letter of oifer that”–hé”i;viIl’: be willing to accept the statutory
liability’ of the “saidV’cornpany to KPTCL, Central Excise, Sales
Fund, etc., When that being the case the
‘resp_ondent.s ouglrit to have discussed the same before accepting
the communicated the same to the petitioner.
K'””–._VV”Therefor*e,t’ there is a mistake on the part. of the respondents in
r1ot..c_o’I1sidering the offer in its entirety and accepting the same
_pwr’.e%thout having any discussion in this behalf.
“~””\
(3
6. Therefore, the respondents are not justified in
forfeiting the amount of EMD which was deposited by the
petitioner at the time of tendering his offer. the
communication dated 15.1.2009 vide Annexure–I\?imr’ej»eeting-Vthe
request of the petitioner for refund of EMD E’1.1’1″3t{.’iiIi.1LV1;”‘.3::I”11.tli ;¢in’d ‘
Void and the same is hereby qu:.3ishede.«A ] the
respondents are directed toiepay i.Vhe”;<:-aid oi";
Rs.5,00,000/– within two Wee1rst'..i%roxn the*deitieV':of.'reCeipt of a
copy of this order. Petition is allowed,