A writ petition for contractual recovery is not maintainable if the underlying monetary claim is barred by limitation.

The Petitioner, a solid waste management company, entered into concession agreements and subsequent work orders with the Municipal Corporations of Delhi (MCD) in 2012 for waste collection and disposal

Between 2012 and 2015, payments were released without deductions

Following an audit objection in December 2015, the Respondent began withholding amounts from the Petitioner’s bills toward service tax and labor cess

The Petitioner argued that service tax was exempt under Notifications No. 12/2012 and 25/2012

The Petitioner approached the High Court in September 2020 seeking a refund of withheld amounts totaling approximately Rs. 52,20,381/-

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for the recovery of monetary claims arising out of contractual obligations

A writ petition for contractual recovery is not maintainable if the underlying monetary claim is barred by limitation.

The court examined the timeline of the withheld payments and the filing of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The court's reasoning on how a law applied to the facts focused on the principle that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to bypass the period of limitation prescribed for civil suits.

The petition was dismissed as the claims sought were barred by the law of limitation.