2015 (11) TMI 1730 - HC - Indian Laws

Payment of outstandings in respect of unpaid bills - the claim of the petitioner is that the payment in respect of the work done pursuant to the award of a contract for carrying out certain construction work has not been made - Held that - This Court in a judgment dated 07.03.2014 in Writ Petition No. 1942 (MB) of 2014 has declined to entertain such a writ petition raising an issue similar to the issue raised in this writ petition - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Entitlement to payment of outstanding bills under a contract.
- Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 for mandamus in a contractual matter.

Analysis:
The judgment of the Allahabad High Court dealt with a petition seeking direction for payment of outstanding bills arising from a contractual obligation. The petitioner argued that their claim should be treated as admitted, justifying the issuance of a mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The primary issue before the Court was whether it was appropriate to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 for mandamus to compel payment of the claimed amount, considering alternative remedies available under civil law. The Court noted that previous judgments had declined similar petitions, emphasizing that granting such relief would essentially amount to a money decree. The Division Bench's observations highlighted the importance of utilizing arbitration clauses or civil court remedies for money claims, rather than seeking relief through a writ petition.

The Court reiterated the settled legal position that in cases involving payment disputes under contracts, especially where a money decree is sought, it is not within the purview of Article 226 to grant such relief. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies available under the law for addressing their grievances. Despite the dismissal, the Court emphasized that the petitioner retained the right to explore other legal avenues for seeking redressal. This judgment underscores the principle that while Article 226 can provide remedies in certain situations, contractual payment disputes may be better addressed through established civil law mechanisms like arbitration or civil court proceedings.