Injured Wife Is Sterling Witness — Her Identification Of Husband As Assailant Needs No Corroboration: Allahabad High Court Four Years in Custody, 359 Witnesses Pending, Trial Could Take Decades: Delhi HC Grants Bail to UAPA Accused Charged as "Hybrid Cadres" Prosecution's Fatal Mistake: Not Examining the Only Child Witness Who Saw the Accused — Madras High Court Acquits Murder Accused Co-sharers Entitled To Same Land Compensation As Other Owners Even If No Reference Filed Under Section 18 Or 28-A: Punjab & Haryana HC PIL Filed To Settle Personal Scores Cannot Hide Behind Public Interest: Rajasthan High Court Bars Petitioner From Filing Any PIL In Future Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Special NIA Court's Refusal To Discharge, Remedy Lies In Statutory Appeal: Allahabad High Court Rs. 57,000 Per Acre Award Inadequate for Fertile Commercial Land: AP High Court Enhances Compensation to Rs. 3.50 Lakh, Raises Tree Values Election Petition Must Plead Material Facts, Not Mere Allegations: Bombay High Court Rejects Challenge To Chandivali MLA’s Election Son Of Deceased Tenant Cannot Claim Statutory Protection Beyond 5 Years Under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act: Calcutta High Court Daughter Cannot Claim Mewar Estate Through Intestacy Petition While Disputing Will: Delhi High Court Dismisses Padmaja Kumari Parmar's Petition in Mewar Royal Family Succession Battle Cabinet Cannot Spend First and Seek Sanction Later: Kerala High Court Halts ₹20 Crore ‘Nava Keralam’ Programme Incorporation Under the Companies Act Does Not Confer Immunity Against an Action in Passing Off: Madras HC POCSO | School Records Prevail Over Ossification Test For Age Determination Of Minor Victim: Madhya Pradesh High Court A Buyer Who Runs Away From the Tehsil Without Paying Cannot Later Sue to Register the Sale Deed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Encroacher Cannot Claim Forest Rights by Calling Himself a Traditional Dweller: Madras High Court LIC Agent Certified Cancer Patient's Health As 'Good' Without Meeting Him: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Termination Property Bought From Crime Proceeds Before PMLA Came Into Force Can Still Be Attached If Possessed After: Delhi High Court Overturns Single Judge Co-Employee Cannot Play Watchdog Over Colleague's Dismissal Order — Allahabad High Court Shuts the Door on Third-Party Service Appeals

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