The court upheld equitable adjustments in prior contractual dues against sale considerations in light of persistent non-payment.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2026

Soumen Sen, C. J.

Heard Mr. Anil Thomas, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Millu Dandapani, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and Mr. Bijoy Chandran, learned Senior Government Pleader.

2. The appellant/writ petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.08.2025 in W.P. (C) No. 38799 of 2024 filed by him praying inter alia for a direction upon the 2^nd respondent to calculate the amount due to the appellant in terms of the judgment passed in W.P. (C) No. 13125 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 and also for stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Exts. P10 and P11 notices issued by the 2^nd respondent till final modification of the amount as per Ext. P6 calculation made by the appellant which is due to him. Exts. P10 and P11 refers to letters issued to the appellant stating that it is not possible to extent the time limit for completion of the sale and a direction upon the appellant to remit 55 percent of the total sale amount being the 1^st and 2^nd 2026:KER:16228 instalment on or before 25.10.2024.

3. During the pendency of the appeal, more than once, opportunities were given to the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 7.5 crores as the Coordinate Bench was of the view that as on 04.12.2025, the appellant would be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 7,07,76,469/- which was rounded off to 7.5 crores. This order was passed on 01.12.2025 followed by a subsequent order dated 03.02.2026 when this Bench had extended the time to deposit the aforesaid sum within 10 days from the date of the order. Till date, the said amount has not been deposited.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that while disposing of the W. P. (C) No. 38799 of 2024, the learned Single Judge has overlooked the direction passed on 05.08.2022 where the present appellant had prayed for refund of the earnest money deposit of Rs. 3.50 Crores with interest in accordance with directions contained in Ext. P7 which is an order passed by the Government calculating the interest to which the appellant would be entitled. 2026:KER:16228

5. However, we respectfully differ with the said submission having regard to the fact that while deciding the writ petition, in paragraph No. 22, the learned Single Judge has referred to the note submitted by the Senior Government Pleader wherefrom it would appear that on the basis of the report of the CA firm, which was entrusted to calculate the interest payable on the said sum, the amount due to the appellant would be Rs. 5,38,27,404/- which includes both principal and interest and calculated after taking into consideration the rate of interest at the rate fixed by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant however has argued that the said calculation is erroneous and this ought to have been done by the learned Single Judge before disposing of the writ petition.

7. The 2^nd respondent company is on the verge of closure. When it was operational, the appellant entered into an agreement with the 2^nd respondent namely, Travancore Cements Ltd. for desiltation programme of Lower Periyar Reserve. Though the said agreement was executed, the 2026:KER:16228 appellant claimed that he had faced several obstacles and ultimately, the said contract was called off and the Government directed the 2^nd respondent to release the earnest money and security deposit of Rs. 3.57 Crores with interest at the prevailing Bank rate from the date of agreement.

8. In the earlier writ petition, the appellant had claimed the said amount and the