M/S Yojaka INDIA Private Limited vs. The Assistant General Manager
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, M/s. Yojaka India Private Ltd. and two individuals, filed two writ petitions. In WP No. 7515/2022, they sought a direction to respondents 1-3 (Government of Karnataka and its officials) to pay remuneration of approximately Rs. 17 crores for project works, excluding amounts covered by previous court orders. This payment was intended for GST, statutory dues, salaries, and sub-contractor payments. They also sought directions to respondent 4, Bank of Baroda, to restore the company's property, hand over title deeds, and discharge guarantees for the individual petitioners. In WP No. 1016/2022, the petitioners sought to defer proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar, Mangaluru Taluk, pursuant to a notice dated 03.01.2022, until a matter concerning alleged RBI guideline violations by the Bank of Baroda was decided by the Deputy Governor, RBI.
Held
The Court noted that the petitioners had already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) by filing SA No. 216/2022, and this matter was pending consideration before the DRT. In light of this development, the Court decided to leave all contentions of the parties open to be agitated in the pending SA before the DRT. Consequently, both writ petitions were disposed of without delving into the merits of the claims or the specific legal arguments that might have been presented. The Court's decision was based on the pendency of a more appropriate forum for adjudication of the disputes. No specific findings were made on the issues raised, and no operative directions were issued by the High Court, other than disposing of the petitions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should direct the Government respondents to pay the outstanding remuneration to the petitioner company, considering the amounts are earmarked for GST, statutory payments, salaries, and sub-contractor payments, and whether the Bank of Baroda should be directed to release property and title deeds, and discharge guarantees, as prayed in WP No. 7515/2022. 2. Whether proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar should be deferred pending a decision on alleged RBI guideline violations by the Bank of Baroda, as prayed in WP No. 1016/2022. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners sought directions for payment of dues and release of property, and deferment of recovery proceedings. The specific arguments for each issue are not detailed in the judgment. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents submitted that the petitioners had already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) by filing SA No. 216/2022, which was pending consideration.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (5 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT
W.P.No.7515/2022 is filed seeking the following reliefs; "(a) Direct the respondents 1 to 3 to pay whatever the remuneration payable to the petitioner company for having executed the project works excluding the amount covered by the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 17-11- 2021 in W.P.No. (1) 104362/2021 (GM-RES) (2) W.P. No. 104363/2021 (GM-RES) (3) W.P.No.104365/2021 (GM- RES) vide Annexure-L, M and N respectively as the same is applicable to be paid to GST, statutory payments, workers salary, sub contractor's payment etc. which amounts to Rs.17 crores and the 4th respondent bank may be directed to restore the property of the petitioner company and hand over all the title deeds (property documents) to the petitioner company along with discharging the guaranteeships of 2nd and 3rd petitioners."
W.P.No.1016/2022 is filed seeking the following reliefs;
"(a) Direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to defer all further proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 03.01.2022 Ref No. TAX/CR 114/2021-22 issued by the Tahsildar, Mangaluru Taluk, D.K. District vide Annexure-H till the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31713 WP No. 7515 of 2022 C/W WP No. 1016 of 2022
matter of violation of RBI guidelines by the first respondent bank is decided by the third respondent Deputy Governor, RBI, Mumbai.
It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioners have already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) by filing SA No.216/2022 and that the said SA is pending consideration before the DRT.
In the above view of the matter, leaving open all the contentions of the parties to be agitated in the pending SA, both writ petitions are disposed of. (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE
PN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.