IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN R.F.A. No.160/2019 (MON) BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE – 01.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, MINI V.V. TOWER, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 01. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI VASANTH V. FERNANDES, HCGP) AND:
1. MR. N. RAMESH S/O. SRI NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S. PRAJWAL ASSOCIATES, NO.E1/143, 2ND CROSS, SYNDICATE BANK COLONY, AREKERE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 076.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. MARKETING CONSULTANT AND AGENCY LTD., A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING M.C. AND A HOUSE, NO.42, MILLERS ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI B.N. MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.01.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4946/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 29TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the State, represented by its Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Bengaluru, and by the Commissioner, Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Bengaluru, assailing the judgment and decree passed by the XXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, in O.S.No.4946/2015, dated 16/01/2017. There is a delay of 635 days in filing this appeal. In the circumstances, we have heard learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the merits of the matter.
2. During the course of submission, learned counsel for the respective parties submitted that they would explore the possibility of settlement in the matter and today (24/07/2019) they submit that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and they are filing a joint memo containing certain terms and conditions. They also submit that this appeal may be disposed of in terms of the joint memo.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that since the appeal is being disposed of in terms of the joint memo, they have no objection for condoning the delay of 635 days in filing the appeal.
4. In the circumstances, by consent of both parties, delay of 635 days in filing the appeal is condoned and I.A.No.1/19 is disposed.
5. The joint memo filed by both the parties reporting settlement is taken on record and the same is signed by both parties and their respective counsel, which reads as under:
“JOINT MEMO FILED BY THE APPELLANTS AND THE RESPONDENTS REPORTING SETTLEMENT The Appellants and Respondents herein, pursuant to the order of this Honourable Court dated 15.07.2019, have arrived at a settlement in the above matter in the terms set out hereunder:
1. The Respondents have no objection to the delay of 635 days in filing the above Appeal from being condoned.
2. The Appellants have substantially complied with the Decree of the Court below in O.S.No.4946/2015 and have paid various sums of money to the Respondent No.1 either directly or through the Respondent No.2 amounting to Rs.3,74,75,000/- (Rupees three crores seventy four lakhs seventy five thousand only). It is found that the amount so paid is in excess of the decretal amount in a sum of Rs.56,387/- (Rupees Fifty Six thousand three hundred and eighty seven only).
3. It is further found that a sum of Rs.29,58,003/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand and Three only) has also been decreed which is the interest amount said to have been paid by the first Respondent to his Bankers. The Decree of the Court below has already awarded interest to the first Respondent on his principal. Therefore, this amount is also claimed to be an excess payment made by the Appellants to the first Respondent.
4. The Decree of the Court below also directed that a further sum of Rs.72,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Two Lakhs only) is to be paid to the Respondent No.1 without any interest on his completing the remaining work as set out in the Decree.
5. The parties, therefore, agree that out of this sum of Rs.72,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Two Lakhs only), the Appellants shall deduct the above mentioned amount of Rs.56,387/- and Rs.29,58,003/- and pay the balance amount to the Respondent No.2 as per the contract and it shall be the responsibility of the Respondent No.2 to make necessary payment to the Respondent No.1.
6. The amount thus payable by the Appellants works out to Rs.41,85,610/- (Rupees forty one lakhs eighty five thousand six hundred and ten only) and it is agreed that the Appellants shall issue a Demand Draft for Rs.41,85,000/- (Rupees forty one lakhs eighty five thousand only) to the second Respondent as set out herein above in full and final settlement of the claims of the Respondents against the Appellants.
7. The Respondent No.1 has paid G.S.T on the sum of Rs.72,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Two Lakhs only) in a sum of Rs.10,46,004/- (Rupees ten lakhs forty six thousand and four only) and the amount claimed by him. It is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to pass an order directing the Authorities to consider his representation and to refund any excess tax that may have been paid by him to the Authorities concerned.
WHEREFORE, the Appellants and the Respondents pray that the Honourable Court may be pleased to dispose of the above Appeal in the terms set out in this Joint Memo.
Sd/- APPELLANT NO.1 Sd/-
HIGH COURT GOVT. PLEADER & Sd/- ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS APPELLANT NO.2 Sd/-
ADVOCATE FOR Sd/-
RESPONDENT NO.1 RESPONDENT NO.1 Sd/-
ADVOCATE FOR Sd/-
RESPONDENT NO.2 RESPONDENT NO.2 BENGALURU DATED:24.07.2019”
6. On behalf of the appellants, Dr. Manjunath S.Palegar, Joint Director (Dev.), Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Bengaluru, is present before this Court. Respondent No.1/Sri N.Ramesh and the Managing Director of respondent No.2/Sri B.T.Venkatesh are also present before this Court. They have been identified by their respective counsel. They submit that they have agreed to settle the dispute in terms of what has been stated in the joint memo and that there is no coercion or undue influence from any side in arriving at a settlement. They further submit that they would abide by the terms and conditions of the settlement.
7. Pursuant to the joint memo, another joint memo is filed stating that the appellants are handing over bankers cheque bearing No.810382, dated 24/07/2019 for a sum of Rs.41,85,000/- (Rupees forty one lakh, eighty five thousand only), in favour of M/s.Marketing Communication & Advertising Limited, Bengaluru, drawn on State Bank of India, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi Branch, Bengaluru. Respondent No.2 acknowledges receipt of the said cheque. Respondent No.2 in turn shall pay the requisite amount to respondent No.1 within a period of ten days from today on encashing the said bankers cheque after making the requisite deduction towards its commission in terms of the contract.
8. On perusal of the Joint Memos, we find that the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties is lawful and that there is no impediment for accepting the same.
9. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, liberty is reserved to respondent No.1 to seek refund of any excess tax that may have been paid by him to the authorities concerned with regard to the contract in question and bearing in mind the terms of settlement.
10. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the settlement by modifying the impugned judgment and decree.
11. Office to draw up a decree.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE S*