Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable for recovery of payment arising out of contractual work orders and dishonoured cheques, in the face of a factual defence requiring evidence and the availability of ordinary civil remedies.
Analysis: The claim arose from work orders and alleged unpaid cheques, but the State placed a factual defence based on alleged irregularities, an inquiry, and an FIR alleging coercive procurement of cheques. The relief sought was, in substance, a money decree, and the dispute involved questions of fact that could not appropriately be resolved in writ proceedings. The Court also noted that the petitioner had remedies in civil law, including a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Following the earlier view that contractual payment disputes requiring factual adjudication should not be entertained under Article 226, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for grant of the monetary relief sought, and the petitioner was relegated to the remedy available in law.