TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rejects mandamus petition for payment of bills under contract with Irrigation Department, advises civil suit route</h1> <h3>M/s R.S. Associate Thru' Prop. Reeta Singh Versus State Of U.P. & 3 Others</h3> M/s R.S. Associate Thru' Prop. Reeta Singh Versus State Of U.P. & 3 Others - TMI Issues:Non-payment of bills under a contract with the Irrigation Department.Analysis:The petitioner had a contract with the Irrigation Department for the supply of materials but faced non-payment of bills. The petitioner sought a mandamus for payment with interest. The court noted that these were contractual matters and not suitable for a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court highlighted that issues like satisfactory completion of work, adherence to agreed rates, and proper execution needed assessment by the competent authority before any decision. The court stated that the contractor's remedy in case of non-payment would be to file a civil suit or invoke arbitration if there was an agreement.The petitioner referred to a Division Bench order in a different case where an amount was sanctioned but not released, leading to a specific interim direction. However, the court emphasized that each case's circumstances were unique, and the present case did not warrant similar intervention. Despite acknowledging the absence of a complete bar on entertaining contractual matters, the court emphasized that various factual issues needed determination by the competent authority, making the exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction inappropriate. The court concluded that the petitioner essentially sought a civil suit decree, which was not suitable for the current proceedings due to the complexity of the issues involved.In the final disposition, the court declined to entertain the petition, emphasizing that the nature of the issues required determination by the competent authority rather than through a writ petition. The petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
TaxTMI 