Supreme Court Overturns Judgment on Payment, Citing Unsuitability of Writ Petitions for Factual Disputes in Contract Breaches.

The SC set aside the Orissa HC's judgment directing the appellant-Corporation to pay the respondent, finding it unsustainable due to the presence of factual disputes inappropriate for adjudication under Article 226. The SC emphasized that writ petitions are not suitable for resolving factual disputes in breach of contract claims. The appeal was allowed without costs, permitting the respondent to pursue alternative legal remedies.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to judgment directing payment to respondent, Disputed facts in writ petition, Contradictory conclusions by High Court, Non-application of mind by High Court, Entertaining writ petition on factual disputes, Impermissible directions by High Court, Maintainability of writ petition in breach of contract claim.

Analysis:
The appeal challenges a judgment by the Orissa High Court directing the appellant-Corporation to pay the respondent a sum within a specified period, with interest for non-payment. The respondent, a writ petitioner, alleged breach of contract by the Corporation regarding the purchase of materials. The High Court allowed the writ petition, noting disputed facts and the difficulty in lifting materials within the stipulated time. However, the High Court's conclusions were contradictory, as it directed payment based on the petitioner's assertions, despite acknowledging the factual disputes involved.

The Corporation contended that the writ petition should not have been entertained, as it was based on disputed facts and sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was untenable. The Corporation provided documentary evidence to support its claim that the respondent had lifted goods worth a higher value than claimed. The respondent argued that there were no factual disputes and accused the Corporation of introducing unwarranted disputes to confuse the issue.

The High Court's judgment was criticized for a lack of application of mind, as it acknowledged disputed facts but proceeded to give directions as if adjudicating a money claim in a suit. The Supreme Court emphasized that where disputes revolve around questions of fact, matters should not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court cited various precedents to support the view that a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy for breach of contractual obligations, especially when factual disputes are involved.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, deeming it unsustainable. The Court clarified that its interference did not preclude the respondent from seeking other available remedies in law. The appeal was allowed without costs.

---