9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Whether High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for breach of contract relief.
Summary: The Supreme Court addressed the limited question of whether the High Court should have used its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant relief for an alleged breach of contract. The Court emphasized that a writ is not the appropriate remedy for enforcing contractual obligations and that litigants should pursue alternative remedies available to them. Despite this settled law, the respondent filed a writ petition challenging the deduction of a sum for losses suffered due to breach of contract. The Court found that the High Court's decision to grant relief in the writ petition was illegal and erroneous, as such disputes should be resolved through evidence in a properly instituted civil suit rather than in a writ petition. The case involved a contract for the supply of PVC pipes and fittings, where the respondent company delayed supplies due to alleged wrongful refusal to return necessary permits. The appellants terminated the contract and deducted the additional costs incurred from the final payment to the respondent. The High Court, in its judgment, directed the appellants to pay the due amount to the respondent with interest. However, the Supreme Court held that such disputed questions of breach of contract should be resolved through evidence in a civil suit, not in a writ petition. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and stated that the respondent could seek other appropriate remedies.
|
