Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

Unjust Enrichment Cannot Be the Characteristic of a Government: Kerala High Court Orders 12% Interest on Delayed Payments

07 January 2025 5:53 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


High Court criticizes government delay, mandates fair compensation for contractor after 11 years of withheld payment.
Ernakulam, July 19, 2024 – The Kerala High Court has ruled in favor of L. Satheek, a contractor seeking interest on delayed payments from the National Highway Authorities. Justice T.R. Ravi, presiding over the case, ordered a 12% annual interest on the withheld amount, highlighting the government’s obligation to uphold fair treatment and avoid unjust enrichment.

L. Satheek, aged 65 and the managing partner of K. Lakshmanan and Co., filed a writ petition (WP© No. 17963 of 2022) against several respondents from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and the Public Works Department (PWD). Satheek sought interest on a sum of ₹19,33,205/- that was deducted for allegedly substandard bitumen use and delayed in payment from March 31, 2010, until June 11, 2020, when the amount was finally sanctioned. Subsequent representations for interest on the delayed payment led to a government order (Ext.P10) in 2021, which granted interest at a rate “1% less than the bank rate.”

The court found that the government had unjustly withheld the payment and recognized the contractor’s entitlement to interest. The decision to deduct the payment for bitumen shortfall was deemed “not justifiable” as per the minutes of a meeting chaired by the Chief Engineer (MoRTH).

Justice Ravi criticized the respondents for the 11-year delay in acknowledging the contractor’s right to the withheld amount. He underscored the principle that contractors should not be subjected to financial strains due to delayed government payments. “Having extracted work from the petitioner, it is not open to the Government, which is a welfare State, to mete out such treatment to the contractors,” he stated.

The judgment drew on Supreme Court precedents, including Hansa V. Gandhi vs. Deep Shankar Roy & Ors. [(2013) 12 SCC 776] and State of Tamil Nadu and another vs. Saket India Ltd. [(2011) 15 SCC 485], which set a 12% interest rate for delayed payments as reasonable.

Justice Ravi remarked, “The payment of ₹4,86,488/- as interest, accounting for merely 2.4% of the total delayed amount, is as good as no payment at all.” He further stated, “Unjust enrichment cannot be the characteristic of a Government.”

The Kerala High Court’s decision mandates the respondents to pay the petitioner interest at 12% per annum from March 31, 2010, to the payment date, deducting the previously paid amount. The judgment reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to protecting contractors from financial losses due to administrative delays, setting a significant precedent for future cases involving delayed payments by government bodies.

Date of Decision: July 19, 2024
 

Latest Legal News