M/S Yojaka INDIA Private LTD vs. Government Of Karnataka
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 directions to the Government of Karnataka and its departments (Respondents 1-3) to pay approximately Rs. 17 crores in remuneration for project works, excluding amounts covered by previous court orders. This payment was intended for GST, statutory dues, worker salaries, and sub-contractor payments. They also sought directions to the Bank of Baroda (Respondent 4) to restore the company's property, return title deeds, and discharge guarantees of the individual petitioners. In WP No. 1016/2022, the petitioners sought to defer proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar, Mangaluru Taluk, based on a notice dated 03.01.2022, pending a decision on alleged RBI guideline violations by the Bank of Baroda.
Held
The Court noted that the petitioners had already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) by filing SA No. 216/2022, which was pending consideration. In light of this, the Court held that it would not delve into the merits of the writ petitions. All contentions of the parties were left open to be agitated before the DRT. The Court did not make any specific findings on the issues raised regarding the payment of remuneration, the return of property, or the deferral of Tahsildar's proceedings. The operative direction was to dispose of both writ petitions, leaving the matters to be decided by the DRT.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should direct the Government respondents to pay the outstanding remuneration of approximately Rs. 17 crores to the petitioner company for project works, to cover GST, statutory payments, worker salaries, and sub-contractor payments, while also directing the Bank of Baroda to return property and title deeds and discharge guarantees. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners contended that the remuneration is due for executed project works and is necessary to meet various statutory and operational obligations, including GST. They also sought relief regarding the mortgaged property and guarantees. Revenue/State's Argument: Not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar should be deferred pending a decision on alleged RBI guideline violations by the Bank of Baroda. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued for deferral of the Tahsildar's proceedings until the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) decides on the bank's alleged violation of RBI guidelines. Revenue/State's Argument: Not recorded in the judgment.
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.