Srinagar: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has dismissed an appeal by the Union Territory administration, upholding a trial court decree of Rs 57.32 lakh in favour of contractors, who carried out electrical works at the MLA Hostel in Srinagar, for the detention of political leaders post Article 370 abrogation in 2019.
Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi pronounced the verdict holding that the government’s appeal against the August 12, 2023 judgment of the Additional District Judge (Bank Cases), Srinagar, was devoid of merit.
The respondents, Shabir Ahmad Dar and others, claimed they executed electrical works at the MLA Hostel worth Rs 37.82 lakh, with funds contributed by the Legislative Assembly Secretariat and released to the Directorate of Estates.
No public tenders were invited. They filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking Rs 57.32 lakh with interest.
In their application seeking leave to defend, the government parties said the works were carried out in 2019-2020 on verbal instructions.
They claimed Rs 18.35 lakh was spent on verbal directions of the District Magistrate to facilitate political leaders confined at the hostel after the abrogation of Article 370.
On December 21, 2022, the trial court granted leave to defend, but on condition that the appellants deposit Rs 37.82 lakh and file a written statement within 30 days.
The High Court dismissed the government’s challenge to that order on May 11, 2023.
Only Rs 19.01 lakh was deposited on March 26, 2023, as that was the amount available in the Sadder Treasury.
The remaining Rs 18.81 lakh was deposited on July 25, 2025, nearly two years after the suit was decreed.
Government counsel Illyas Nazir Laway argued that the entire amount now stands deposited, and that the appellants should have been allowed to file a written statement and prove their defence.
Respondents’ counsel Manzoor Ahmad Dar countered that the appellants had admitted the works to the extent of Rs 37.82 lakh and failed to meet the condition, so the decree was rightly passed.
Justice Kazmi observed that the appellants indisputably failed to comply within the stipulated period. The belated deposit, the court said, cannot be treated as retrospective compliance so as to revive the right to defend. The court also noted that no cogent explanation was offered for the delay.
“This court finds no perversity or illegality in the order impugned which is upheld,” the judgment said, dismissing the appeal.
The judgment was marked as a full judgment. The trial court had also permitted the respondents to withdraw the Rs 19.01 lakh already deposited after the appeal period lapsed.
