- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2378-DB WA No. 1075 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1075 OF 2024 (GM-KIADB) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD No.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, R P BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CORRECT ADDRESS No.49, 4TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVANA, EAST WING, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H L PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HASSAN THERMAL POWER PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.1078/2, 2ND FLOOR, 4TH MAIN, M C LAYOUT, VIJAYA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT NALINI VIJAY KUMAR Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2378-DB WA No. 1075 of 2024 2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY MR. R.K.NAROOLA A/W MS.PRATIBHA SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VISHAL D, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 07.06.2024 AND 19.07.2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO.20598 OF 2022 (GM-KIADB) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2378-DB WA No. 1075 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr. H.L. Pradeep Kumar for the appellant-the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) and learned advocate Mr. R.K. Naroola for learned advocate Mr. D. Vishal for respondent No.1. 2. This appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.06.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ petition No.20598 of 2022 read with the order dated 19.07.2024 passed in the same proceedings in I.A.No.1 of 2024. 3. In the original order dated 07.06.2024, learned Single Judge, while allowing the petition in part, held that the petitioner will be entitled to interest at bank rated prevailing in respective years from time to time from the date of initial deposit till the date it was returned to the petitioner. The claim for compound interest was rejected. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2378-DB WA No. 1075 of 2024 3.1. It appears that subsequently, the petitioner filed interim application seeking clarification about the interest stating that the rate of interest was not indicated in the original order. Thereupon, learned Single Judge clarified the position by the order dated 19.07.2024 passed in the said interim application to order that "the petitioner would be entitled for an interest at 6% per annum from the date on which it deposited the amount, till the date of refund to the petitioner, on the strength of the order that is passed on 07.06.2024". The interim application was accordingly disposed of. 4. In course of the hearing of the present appeal, learned advocate for the appellant-the KIADB made a specific statement that the appellant confines the present appeal to the order dated 19.07.2024 which was the clarificatory order in I.A.No.1 of 2024 and that, no other part of the judgment and order is being challenged. 5. It could be seen that in the original order dated 07.06.2024, learned Single Judge had already held that the petitioner would be entitled to interest at the bank rate, however, the rate was not specified. By the aforementioned order dated 19.07.2024, it was contemplated that the petitioner would be entitled to interest at the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2378-DB WA No. 1075 of 2024 rate of 6% per annum as directed. In that view, the order under challenge is only clarificatory, the genesis of which was already found in the original order whereby, the interest was awarded and the petitioner was held entitled to interest. 5.1. It is to be noted and observed that the principal amount is already refunded to the petitioner. 6. Additionally, the aspect of entitlement of interest for the petitioner was highlighted and analysed by learned Single Judge in paragraph 6 of the judgment dated 07.06.2024. It will be relevant to reproduce those observations as under, "The issue now is, whether the petitioner would be entitled to interest at 18% per annum, so demanded, from the hands of the Board and compensation as is sought for. It is not in dispute that a total amount of Rs.6/ crores and 5/- lakhs is deposited with the Board in 2010-2011. They were against certain allotments that were to be made. The project did not take off. The project did not take off not because of the folly on the part of the petitioner but did not take off because of the decision of the State Government. Throughout these 13 years till the principal amount was refunded as noted hereinabove, the amount has been in the coffers of the Board. If it had been in any Banking institution instead of it being in the coffers of the Board, it would have undoubtedly earned interest. Therefore, the petitioner does become entitled to interest at Bank rates prevailing from 2010 till 2024 when the amount was refunded..." - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2378-DB WA No. 1075 of 2024 7. In the aforesaid view, we do not find any reason to entertain the present appeal. The appeal stands meritless. It is accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal, any interlocutory application that may be pending, would not survive and stands accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16