2009 (10) TMI 536 - SC - Companies Law

Whether there exist proper pleadings in the present case? Held that - Appeal allowed. In the present case the facts indicate that, by this writ petition, the original petitioner (Borrower) has sought damages and enforcement of contractual commitments which, in our view, were beyond the scope of a writ petition. Adjustment of accounts and enforcement of back-to-back transactions with a party with whom there was no privity of contract coupled with the claim for damages are all contractual matters un-enforceable by way of writ petitions. Thus the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition, particularly when contractual disputes requiring evidence existed between the borrower and lender. As in the present case, it was agreed by and between PFC and the borrower that soft loan would be disbursed by PFC only if SIDB1 releases the amount under the re-finance arrangement between PFC and SIDBI. In the original writ petition, there is no prayer for specific performance of the re-finance agreement, assuming for the sake of argument that such a plea is tenable. Thus set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court on the ground that the writ petition instituted by the borrower was misconceived.

Issues:
1. Whether the High Court correctly entertained the writ petition seeking mandamus for the release of a loan amount and damages for breach of contract.
2. Whether the High Court erred in considering contractual disputes and enforcement of back-to-back transactions in a writ petition.
3. Whether the judgment of the High Court was misconceived and should be set aside.

Analysis:

*Issue 1:*
The appeal was filed by Punjab Financial Corporation against the judgment of the High Court in response to a writ petition by the borrower seeking a mandamus to release the balance loan amount and damages for breach of contract. The borrower claimed that the Corporation failed to disburse the loan as per the agreement, causing significant losses. The Supreme Court found that the writ petition was misconceived as it lacked proper pleadings and sought enforcement of contractual commitments beyond the scope of a writ petition. The Court emphasized the need for High Courts to scrutinize the pleadings in such cases. The judgment was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

*Issue 2:*
The Supreme Court highlighted that the writ petition involved contractual disputes, including enforcement of back-to-back transactions with a party with whom there was no privity of contract. The borrower sought damages and enforcement of contractual commitments, which the Court deemed as matters unenforceable through a writ petition. The Court clarified that adjustment of accounts and contractual disputes require evidence and should not be entertained through writ petitions. The judgment of the High Court was set aside on the grounds that the writ petition was misconceived.

*Issue 3:*
The Supreme Court found that the judgment of the High Court was misconceived as the writ petition sought relief beyond the scope of a writ petition. The borrower's plea for specific performance of the re-finance agreement was not included in the petition. The Court noted that the judgment cited by the respondent had no relevance to the case at hand. Consequently, the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the civil appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment by the Supreme Court addresses the issues involved in the appeal, highlighting the misconceptions in the writ petition and the improper consideration of contractual disputes in a writ petition setting.

← Previous Next →