Back
2021 Supreme(Kar) 519
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. SUJATHA, P.N. DESAI, JJ.
The Chief Officer Town Municipal Council - Appellant
Versus
M/S. Lakshmi Agencies By Sole Proprietor C.N.Lakshminarasimha Prasad Dasappa – Respondent
R.F.A.No.696/2012
Decided on : 22-03-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI C.M.Jagadeesh, ADV.
For the Respondent: SRI G.Balakrishna Shastry, ADV.
Headnote:
Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 - Section 72[4] and [5] - Karnataka Sales Tax Rules - Rule 23–B[1-A][ii] – Appeal – Decree to recover sum along with interest - Appeal is filed by defendant challenging the judgment and decree - plaintiff instituted O.S. seeking for the decree to recover a sum along with future interest @ 24% per annum from date of suit till date of realization - Trial Court has decreed suit in part with costs holding that plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.10,60,066/-along with interest @ 9% p.a. from date of suit till date of decree and thereafter @ 12% p.a. till the date of realization - Whether plaintiff has proved supply of goods worth Rs.4,99,720/-as per Ex.P1 to P4 to the defendant - Whether Trial Court was justified in decreeing suit for a sum of Rs.10,50,066/-as claimed by the plaintiff along with interest at 9% p.a. from date of suit till date of decree and thereafter at rate of 12% p.a., till realization – Held, In terms of the said Section 72[4] and [5] of Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, the sanction of the municipal council is required in case of City municipal council for purchase of movable property, or for the sale of any movable property belonging to a municipal council, if value of the property to be sold as estimated in the municipal accounts exceeds one thousand rupees in case of a town municipal council and two thousand rupees in case of a city municipal council - Before any contract for supply of materials or goods or for execution of any work which will involve an expenditure exceeding five thousand rupees is entered into, tenders shall be publicly invited from persons willing to enter into such contract and when estimated value exceeds such amount as may be prescribed no such contract shall be entered into without previous approval of the Government or an officer duly authorized by Government in this behalf - As such, supply of goods exceeding Rs.5,000/-said to have been made by plaintiff to the defendant – Municipality, as per Ex.P1 to P4 is not in accordance with law and hit by provisions of Section 72[4] and [5] of Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 - No weightage could be given to said documents - Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.2.2011 passed in O.S.No.22/2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & C.J.M., Chamarajanagar (‘Trial Court’ for short).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff instituted O.S.No.22/2003 seeking for the decree to recover a sum of Rs.10,50,066/-along with future interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization. The Trial Court has decreed the suit in part with costs holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.10,60,066/-along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 12% p.a. till the date of realization.
4. The plaint averments are that the plaintiff is a trader engaged in the trading of water supply equipments and water supply chemicals. The plaintiff has supplied chemicals, spare parts and other consumables worth Rs.7,31,350/-for the water supply work of the defendant – Municipality vide supply indent dated 15.1.2000 as detailed in four delivery notes. The said goods were received by the defendant in good condition and has issued acknowledgements on 17.1.2000. Pre-receipted cash bills dated 17.1.2000 were issued pursuant to which defendant addressed a letter dated 17.3.2000 and 26.5.2000 acknowledging the receipt of the goods and expressed its inability to pay the amount immediately and sought for some time i.e., after receiving the grant. It is the grievance of the plaintiff that despite repeated reminders and notice issued, no payments were made by the defendant for the goods supplied. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for recovery of the amount of Rs.4,99,720/-with interest @ 2% per month amounting to Rs.10,50,066/-.
5. In response to the summons issued, defendant appeared and filed the written statement totally denying the claim of the plaintiff. The primary defence set up was that no goods were supplied to the defendant as contended. The issuance of letters dated 17.3.2000 and 26.5.2000 were totally denied as false and concocted. Suit was decreed on 5.4.2007 which was challenged by the defendant in R.A.No.70/2007. The first Appellate Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Trial Court.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he had supplied the goods worth of Rs.7,31,350/-to the defendant as alleged in the plaint?
2. Whether plaintiff further proves that he is entitled the change of interest @ Rs.2% per month as averred in para 4 of the plaint?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the calculation made by the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.10,50,066/-is true and correct?
4. Whether the defendant proves that this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree for a sum of Rs.10,50,066/-with future interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of suit till the realization?
6. What Order or Decree?
7. Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and one more witness was examined as PW-2. Exs.P1 to P36 were got marked. The official of the defendant Municipality was examined as DW-1 and Exs.D1 to D7 were marked.
8. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, issue Nos.1 and 3 were answered in the affirmative, issue Nos.2 and 5 were answered partly in the affirmative and issue No.4 was answered in the negative.
9. Being aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the present appeal primarily on the ground that the documents viz., duplicate delivery notes Exs.P1 to P4 produced by the plaintiff to prove his claim that the materials against indent were supplied were concocted, denying the supply of the said goods to the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant disputing Exs.P9 and P10 argued that no material was supplied by the plaintiff. The documents were created in collusion with the then Chief Officer of the defendant Municipali
