9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On one hand the High Court observed that the disputed questions cannot be gone into a writ petition. It was also noticed that essence of dispute was breach of contract. After coming to the conclusions the High Court should have dismissed the writ petition. Surprisingly, the High Court proceeded to examine the case solely on the writ petitioner's assertion and on a very curious reasoning that though the appellant-Corporation claimed that the value of articles lifted was nearly rupees 14.90 lakhs no details were specifically given. From the counter- affidavit filed before the High Court it is crystal clear that relevant details disputing claim of the writ petitioner were given. Value of articles lifted by the writ petitioner is a dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 lakhs within a period of three months from the date of order with default stipulation that in case of non-payment the amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. after three months. The writ petition filed by respondent no. 1 was accordingly allowed. 2. Background facts as projected by the writ petitioner in a nutshell are as follows: Appellant-Corporation for disposal of its unserviceable machineries/equipments and other scrap materials called for successive tenders on three different dates, but because of low offers cancelled them and the respondent no. 1 writ petitioner on all these occasions was a tenderer. On the last occasion the writ petitioner offered price of ₹ 4,950 per metric tonne. However, ultimately on negotiation his offer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... risingly enough without any response to the various letters of the writ petitioner about such deficiencies sent on different dates, the Corporation by letter dated 2.3.1994 directed the writ petitioner to deposit the balance price amounting to ₹ 40,16,000 within a period of fifteen days. The writ petitioner by his letter dated 27.4.1994 gave details of articles which were found missing and also stated that although he had deposited ₹ 14,84,000 which included earnest money, it could take delivery of goods only worth ₹ 3,75,000, since rest of the materials could not be lifted because of inaction of the functionaries of the Corporation. As no positive response was received, writ petition was filed. 3. The appellant-Corporatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h distant places be lifted within a short period is difficult one to be fulfilled, even the party makes his best effort for the same to lift the same. Availability of stock at such distant places is itself a factor to create bottleneck in many ways to get them lifted from their respective places. Be that as it may, from the allegation and counter allegation of the parties the mercantile cordiality is broker and it will be difficult to join the thread even if we direct. Therefore, we feel it appropriate to consider the petitioner's prayer for the refund of his amount which will be rather a just relief the petitioner may be entitled to get in equity.'' 4. The High Court also noted that though it was pleaded that articles worth nea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... untenable disputes. It is pointed out that effort was made to arrive at a compromise by the Corporation apprehending non success in the appeal. That itself is a ground to dismiss the appeal. 7. By way of clarification, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation brought on record correspondences between the writ petitioner and the appellant-Corporation. It appears that to sort out the controversy the Corporation wanted to explore the possibility of a settlement. But the writ petitioner made a claim of rupees 18.46 lakhs which include the following amounts: 1. Amount as per order of High Court of Orissa ₹ 8.50 lakhs 2. Interest accrued thereon ₹ 6.12 lakhs 3. Security Money (EMD) ₹ 2.75 lakhs 4. Additional Deposit ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of breach of contract. Question whether the action of the opposite party in the writ petition amounted to breach of contractual obligation ultimately depends on facts and would require material evidence to be scrutinized and in such a case writ jurisdiction should not be exercised. (See: State of Bihar v. Jain Plastic and Chemicals Ltd., [2002] 1 SCC 216). 9. In a catena of cases this Court had held that where dispute revolves round questions of fact, the matter ought not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution. (See: State Bank of India and Ors. v. State Bank of India Canteen Employees' Union and Ors., [1998] 5 SCC 74, Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and Ors. v. Sukamani Das (Smt.) and Anr., [1999] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
