Facts
The petitioners, rice-mill owners, had agreements with respondent No. 4 for transportation of paddy and rice.
Source reference: para. 2–3, 10Although transportation charges for 2013–14 and 2014–15 were payable under the agreements, payment was delayed.
Source reference: para. 2–3, 10Respondent No. 1 directed payment of the charges by order dated 30 April 2021 but did not award interest; the charges were paid on 21 November 2022, after a delay of more than seven years.
Source reference: para. 2–3, 10Eight of the 24 mill owners had earlier obtained an order awarding 9% interest in W.P. No. 13133 of 2023.
Source reference: para. 4–5The present petitioners, who had not joined that petition, sought the same relief.
Source reference: para. 4–5Respondent No. 4 opposed extending that relief, relying on the petitioners’ delay and its unsuccessful challenge to the earlier order.
Source reference: para. 6–8Issues
1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to interest on the delayed transportation-charge payments on the same basis as the petitioners in W.P. No. 13133 of 2023.
Source reference: para. 3–5, 132. Whether the petitioners’ later filing of the present petition justified denying them that relief.
Source reference: para. 7, 12–13Law Applied
In W.P. No. 13133 of 2023, the Court had considered Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Interest Act, 1978, and awarded interest at 9% per annum for the period during which the mill owners were deprived of their legitimately due payments.
Source reference: para. 11The Court treated that order, which had become final after respondent No. 4’s challenges were unsuccessful, as governing the materially similar claims before it.
Source reference: para. 12–13Reasoning
The petitioners’ claims arose from the same order, concerned the same delayed transportation charges, and were on par with the claims allowed in W.P. No. 13133 of 2023.
Source reference: para. 10, 13The Court rejected the argument that the earlier order could not benefit the petitioners because respondent No. 4 had not opposed that petition or because the present petition was filed later.
Source reference: para. 12–13The earlier order had become final, and the petitioners’ comparable claims warranted the same relief.
Source reference: para. 12–13Holding
The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 30 April 2021 insofar as it denied interest to the petitioners.
It directed the respondents to pay interest at 9% per annum on the amounts paid on 21 November 2022, calculated from the dates those amounts became due until 21 November 2022, within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
Source reference: para. 14(iii)–(iv)Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Civil Procedure, 19081
Original Court PDF
ESHWAR TRADERS,vsTHE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
