Procedural Lapses and Prolonged Incarceration Justify Bail Under NDPS Act: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Deposit of Sale Balance Is Not Fatal to Specific Performance Claims: Andhra High Court Justice Requires Insurance Company to Pay and Recover: Calcutta High Court on Fatal Accident Case IBC Moratorium Nullifies Vicarious Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act: Delhi High Court Fraud Unravels All: Partition Decree Set Aside for Suppressing Rights of Co-Owners: Madras High Court Matters of Evidence Must Be Examined at Trial, Not Preemptively Quashed: Kerala High Court Declines Quashment Leave Encashment Is a Property Right and Cannot Be Denied Without Statutory Authority: Gujarat High Court Widow's Right to Deceased Husband’s Property Ceases Upon Remarriage Before 1956: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Reassessment of Departmental Inquiries by Courts, Orders Interest on Delayed GPF Payments: P&H High Court Investigations Initiated Before BNSS, 2023, Must Proceed Under Cr.P.C., 1973: Rajasthan High Court Third-Party Objector’s Locus Standi in Criminal Cases Must Have a Bona Fide Connection: Madhya Pradesh High Court Amendments After Trial Commences Barred Without Demonstration of Due Diligence - Contradictory Claims Cannot Be Permitted: Punjab & Haryana High Court Double Presumption of Innocence in Appeals Against Acquittals Must Be Respected: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal in Rape and Carnal Intercourse Case Provisional Release Not Prejudice Revenue Interests: Kerala High Court Permits Provisional Release of Seized Goods Under GST Act GST Registration Cannot Be Cancelled Retrospectively Without Objective Criteria:  Delhi High Court Neither the Statutory Framework nor Lease Terms Compel Conveyance of Property: Supreme Court Owner Can Avoid Confiscation Under NDPS by Proving Lack of Knowledge or Connivance in Illicit Use of Vehicle: Supreme Court Court is Expert of Experts: High Court Upholds Right to Rebuttal Evidence in Will Dispute Exceptional Circumstances Warrant Use of Inherent Powers to Reduce Sentences in Non-Compoundable Offenses: Supreme 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
 

Similar News