High Courts may compel payment of admitted contractual dues under Article 226, with interest for delay.

The petitioner, a civil contractor, sought payment for construction work undertaken for Nagar Panchayat, Chandauli, under two work orders.

The respondents admitted that ₹7,92,580 remained payable under the first work order.

As to a further ₹6,31,890 claimed under the second work order, the respondents stated that the work had been measured but the petitioner had not submitted a complete bill in the prescribed form, duly signed and certified by the competent officials.

The petitioner had previously sought payment through representations and reminders, without success.

In an affidavit before the Court, the respondents expressed willingness to pay the admitted amount and to process the further claim upon completion of the required formalities.

Whether the Court could grant relief under Article 226 for unpaid contractual dues where part of the liability was admitted by the respondents.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to payment of the admitted dues, including the amount claimed under the second work order subject to submission of a proper bill, and to interest for delayed payment.

Article 226 may be invoked in an appropriate case to enforce payment of admitted contractual dues; there is no absolute bar on writ relief for monetary claims, particularly where non-payment of admitted sums is arbitrary.

However, writ jurisdiction is ordinarily unsuitable for resolving seriously disputed contractual claims that require detailed factual inquiry or oral evidence (M/s Utkal Highways Engineer and Contractors v. Chief General Manager; State of U.P. v. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd.; Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien E. Kalathil; ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.).

The Court also relied on authorities distinguishing admitted liability from disputed quantum.

A person deprived of money legitimately due may be compensated by interest; Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure recognises the award of interest on money due.

The respondents’ affidavit expressly acknowledged ₹7,92,580 as payable under the first work order, making that part of the claim an admitted liability suitable for relief under Article 226.

The further ₹6,31,890 was not payable immediately because the respondents disputed whether a proper, complete and certified bill had been submitted.

The Court therefore did not determine that sum unconditionally; it made payment dependent on the petitioner completing the prescribed formalities and submitting a fresh bill.

Given the admitted dues and the respondents’ obligation to pay them, continued non-payment would unjustly benefit the respondents at the petitioner’s expense.

The Court accordingly allowed interest on the admitted dues from the date they fell due until payment.

The Court directed the petitioner to complete the required formalities and submit a fresh bill for the second work order within two weeks.

The respondents were directed to pay the admitted dues, including the amount payable upon completion of those formalities, within the following four weeks.

The petitioner was also awarded simple interest at 6% per annum on the admitted dues from the dates they fell due until actual payment.

No order as to costs was made.