Madhya Pradesh High CourtContract LawAdministrative and Public Law

MP HC Leaves Parking-Contract Cancellation Warning In Place After Contractor Stopped ₹19-Lakh First-Instalment Cheque

Tanishqa Infratech Through Its Proprietor Himanshu Tyagiv.The State Of Madhya Pradesh

MP HC Leaves Parking-Contract Cancellation Warning In Place After Contractor Stopped ₹19-Lakh First-Instalment Cheque. Tanishqa Infratech Through Its Proprietor Himanshu Tyagi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the respondent’s notice requiring payment of the first instalment and threatening cancellation, where the agreement provided for consequences in the event of cheque dishonour.

The court held

The Court dismissed the writ petition.

It also directed

The impugned notice was issued in accordance with Clause 8 and that interference with the respondent’s exercise of contractual rights was unwarranted in the absence of mala fides or arbitrariness.

01Facts

The petitioner was awarded a contract for four-wheeler parking for 2026–2027 and entered into a parking licence agreement with the respondent Nagar Parishad on 19 August 2026.

¶ 1–3, 6, 8

The respondents stated that the petitioner’s cheque for the first instalment was dishonoured on its instruction and that the amount remained unpaid.

¶ 8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the respondent’s notice requiring payment of the first instalment and threatening cancellation, where the agreement provided for consequences in the event of cheque dishonour.

¶ 8–10

ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s complaints about parking-site capacity and the reduced per-vehicle rate warranted the relief sought in the writ petition.

¶ 1–2, 6–10

03Law Applied

Clause 6, which required payment of the bid amount in seven instalments and the issue of seven post-dated cheques, and Clause 8, which provided for action including forfeiture of the security deposit and cancellation of the contract if a cheque was dishonoured.

¶ 7–8

In the absence of established mala fides or arbitrariness, the exercise of rights arising from the parties’ agreement is not to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

¶ 9–10

04Reasoning

The first-instalment cheque was dishonoured following the petitioner’s stop instruction, and the agreement expressly set out the consequences of cheque dishonour.

¶ 8

The Court considered the payment notice and threatened cancellation to be consistent with Clause 8, and found no basis to interfere with the respondent’s contractual action absent mala fides or arbitrariness.

¶ 9–10

05Holding

The Court dismissed the writ petition.

¶ 10–11

The impugned notice was issued in accordance with Clause 8 and that interference with the respondent’s exercise of contractual rights was unwarranted in the absence of mala fides or arbitrariness.

¶ 10–11
Madhya Pradesh High Court

Original Court PDF

Tanishqa Infratech Through Its Proprietor Himanshu TyagivsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · November 04, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment