Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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