2014 (5) TMI 1164 - HC - Indian Laws

Non-payment of dues under a contract for supply of goods - Article 226 of the Constitution - Held that - in cases like the one in hand, instead of taking recourse to the jurisdiction of the ordinary Civil Court under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, recourse is taken to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226. That is not permissible. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is intended to provide the ordinary civil remedy for the adjudication of such claims - we see no reason or justification to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. A second writ petition would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court since it had already been expressed by the Division Bench in the earlier proceedings that disputed questions of facts which were raised before the Court, could not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution. It would be inappropriate for the Court to determine the wholly disputed questions of fact which arise in the present proceedings - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for payment of outstanding dues for spare parts supplied to Lucknow Nagar Nigam, Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 for non-payment of dues under a contract, Prudence in granting relief for a money decree, Recourse to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 instead of Civil Court, Disputed questions of fact and statutory duty for issuance of mandamus, Abuse of process of the Court with multiple writ petitions, Order of Division Bench and Supreme Court regarding release of admitted amount, Correction by Supreme Court on entertaining petition for adjudication of issues.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought payment of outstanding dues for spare parts supplied to Lucknow Nagar Nigam, claiming non-payment for the years 2009-2013, with a deduction of 22% without justification. The High Court deliberated on the jurisdiction under Article 226 for such contractual matters, emphasizing the prudence in not granting relief akin to a money decree. It highlighted that matters of non-statutory contracts for supply of goods should be adjudicated through the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, rather than writ jurisdiction. The Court noted that disputed questions of fact and statutory duties are essential for the issuance of a mandamus, which was not applicable in this case.

The Court referred to a previous writ petition dismissed by the Division Bench, emphasizing that disputed facts should be resolved through a competent Court or statutory forum, not under Article 226. The petitioners' attempt to file a second writ petition was deemed an abuse of the Court's process, as the Division Bench had already ruled against entertaining disputed factual issues. The Court agreed with the earlier Division Bench's decision and highlighted that the petitioners should not re-litigate the same issues through multiple writ petitions.

Additionally, the Court mentioned a related order by another Division Bench and its subsequent remand by the Supreme Court for adjudication of issues. The Supreme Court corrected the High Court's handling of the case, emphasizing the need to address the real issues involved and calling for an inquiry report. The High Court acknowledged the need to avoid determining wholly disputed questions of fact and declined to entertain the second writ petition seeking the same relief.

Ultimately, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, clarifying that the petitioners could seek remedies before the ordinary Civil Court. The judgment highlighted the importance of following due process and appropriate forums for resolving contractual disputes, avoiding the abuse of the writ jurisdiction for matters better suited for civil adjudication.