01Facts
The first respondent contracted with the appellants for the supply of LED lights and sourced them from the second respondent.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3, 6After the first respondent allegedly failed to pay the second respondent, the latter filed O.S. No. 66 of 2019 against the first respondent, which remained pending.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3, 6The first respondent then filed a writ petition seeking payment of amounts allegedly due under the contract, refund of earnest money, and return of bank guarantees.
p. 3 · ¶ 4The Single Judge directed the appellants to deposit Rs. 94,06,667 to the credit of the civil suit. The appellants challenged that direction in this writ appeal.
p. 2 · ¶ 202Issues
i.Whether the writ petition was maintainable where the dispute arose from a contractual supply transaction and required determination of disputed facts concerning materials and payment.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 5, 8ii.Whether the Single Judge’s direction to deposit Rs. 94,06,667 to the credit of the pending civil suit warranted interference.
p. 2 · ¶ 2 · p. 5 · ¶ 903Law Applied
The Court applied the principle that proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not an appropriate forum to determine contractual payment disputes requiring adjudication of disputed questions of fact; such disputes should be pursued before the competent civil court.
p. 5 · ¶ 8The Court also directed that, if the first respondent filed a civil suit, the time spent prosecuting the writ petition and appeal be excluded when computing limitation, leaving the remaining limitation period for the competent court to assess on its merits and in accordance with law.
p. 5 · ¶ 10Provisions in the judgment · 1
Letters Patent Section 15
04Reasoning
The claim arose from a contract for the supply of goods and involved alleged non-payment, with a related recovery suit already pending between the respondents.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 6–8The Court considered that deciding the amount payable would require resolving disputed facts and therefore was unsuitable for determination under Article 226.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 6–8It concluded that the first respondent should pursue the remedy before the competent civil court and that the Single Judge’s deposit direction could not stand.
p. 5 · ¶ 8–905Holding
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable for determination of the contractual dispute and set aside the Single Judge’s order directing deposit of Rs. 94,06,667.
p. 5 · ¶ 8–9The appeal was allowed, with liberty to the first respondent to pursue a remedy in accordance with law.
p. 5 · ¶ 9–11If a civil suit is filed, the time spent in the writ proceedings and appeal is to be excluded in computing limitation, subject to the competent court’s consideration of the remaining limitation period.
p. 5 · ¶ 9–11No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
p. 6 · ¶ 11Original Court PDF
District Rural Development Agency (DRDA)vsS .K .Sukumar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
