The State of Karnataka Rep. by the Secretary to Government of Karnataka Dept. of Collegiate Education and the Commissioner of Collegiate Education Vs. Sri G. Subba Rao Since Deceased by Lr Smt. G.S. Lakshmi W/O Late Sri G. Subba Rao and the Principal K.G.F. First Grade College - Court Judgment |
| Service |
| Karnataka High Court |
| Aug-27-2008 |
| Writ Appeal No. 669 of 2007 |
| P.D. Dinakaran, C.J. and ;V. Gopala Gowda, JJ. |
| The State of Karnataka Rep. by the Secretary to Government of Karnataka Dept. of Collegiate Educatio |
| Sri G. Subba Rao Since Deceased by Lr Smt. G.S. Lakshmi W/O Late Sri G. Subba Rao and the Principal |
| Basavaraj Kareddy, Govt. Adv. |
| Appeal fails |
| Union of India v. M.S. Abdulla
|
-
section 125: [n.k.patil,j] suit for declaration that sale deed is void -relief sought against society relates to constitution, management and business of society held, irrespective of the fact that the plaintiffs are members or non-members, issuance of notice under section 125 is mandatory before instituting suit......learned single judge has rightly granted the relief as prayed for by awarding interest at 12 per cent per annum for the delayed period as there is no dispute that there was a delay in settling the pensionary benefits and the above view is also supported by the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in union of india v. m.s. abdulla reported in (2006)6 scc 455. if there is any delay on the part of the management in furnishing the details to the accountant general's office which has resulted in the impugned delay, except to permit the government to take appropriate action against the management if it is so required in law, we do not see any other reason to interfere with the order of the learned single judge.4. the writ appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.
P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.
1. The appellants aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.06.2006 awarding 12 per cent interest per annum for the belated settlement of the pensionary benefits to the 1st respondent-writ petitioner who is now represented by his legal heir have tiled this appeal through the Government Advocate.
2. The main contention of the learned Government Advocate is that the management was responsible for the alleged delay as the management tailed to furnish the necessary details to the office of the Accountant General for settlement of the pensionary benefits of the deceased 1st respondent at the earliest.
3. We are satisfied that the learned Single Judge has rightly granted the relief as prayed for by awarding interest at 12 per cent per annum for the delayed period as there is no dispute that there was a delay in settling the pensionary benefits and the above view is also supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. M.S. Abdulla reported in (2006)6 SCC 455. If there is any delay on the part of the management in furnishing the details to the Accountant General's office which has resulted in the impugned delay, except to permit the Government to take appropriate action against the management if it is so required in law, we do not see any other reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
4. The writ appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.