Disputed contractual payment claims requiring factual adjudication are ordinarily unsuited to writ jurisdiction.

The appellant claimed that it had supplied and installed tent and related materials pursuant to an NIT issued by the Municipal Council on 29 March 2021, but had not been paid the claimed amounts of ₹7,60,368 and ₹9,56,756, totalling ₹17,17,124, with interest.

The Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, holding that the claim involved factual questions requiring adjudication and could be pursued through a civil remedy.

The appellant challenged that order in this appeal under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is an appropriate remedy for the appellant’s contractual claim for payment, where the respondent had not admitted liability and the claim involved disputed questions of fact?

Whether the Single Judge erred in relegating the appellant to a civil remedy?

Under ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd., a contractual dispute or monetary claim is not categorically excluded from writ jurisdiction, and disputed facts alone do not invariably bar a petition; however, the High Court retains discretion to decline relief where an alternative remedy is appropriate.

Surya Constructions v. State of U.P. and M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager recognise that writ relief may be available for admitted or undisputed dues, or where non-payment is arbitrary, but that disputed facts requiring evidentiary determination may justify an alternative remedy.

Unitech Ltd. v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corpn. confirms that contractual dealings do not exempt State instrumentalities from Article 14, while writ jurisdiction may be declined where factual disputes require a trial.

Under Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India, contractual money claims are normally not entertained in writ proceedings, particularly where the dispute is private in character or involves complex factual issues requiring evidence.

The appellant’s claim depended on its assertion that it had supplied the materials and was entitled to rent, but it produced no document showing that the Municipal Council had admitted liability.

The Court considered the governing authorities, which preserve writ jurisdiction in appropriate contractual cases but allow the High Court to decline it where the claim requires factual adjudication.

It held that the Single Judge had not erred in relegating the appellant to a civil remedy because disputed factual questions were involved.

It affirmed the order dated 15 March 2024 and dismissed the appeal.