Writ court may defer a contested money claim to civil proceedings while granting limited protection to preserve supply.

A contested supplier's money claim arising from alleged tax-related liability under the Sale of Goods Act was treated as a matter better left for civil adjudication, and the writ court declined to decide the merits of the demand or underlying liability. That substantive question was left open for determination in appropriate proceedings. To prevent disruption of supply pending such adjudication, the court granted only limited protective relief restraining discontinuance of supply merely because the demanded amount had not been paid until final decision in the suit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to a limited writ direction restraining discontinuance of supply of ammonium nitrate melt, 80% concentrate, and whether the court should decide the underlying money claim and tax-related liability in writ proceedings.

Analysis: The dispute concerning the amount claimed by the supplier was treated as a money claim better suited to adjudication in a civil court, particularly in the context of rights and liabilities arising under Section 64-A of the Sale of Goods Act. The court declined to enter upon the merits of the tax liability or the validity of the demand, leaving that question open for determination in appropriate proceedings. To protect the petitioner from interruption of supply pending such adjudication, a limited interim safeguard was warranted.

Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded only to the extent of obtaining a direction that supply should not be discontinued merely because the demanded amount had not been paid until final decision in a suit.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court may decline to adjudicate a contested money claim and leave the substantive liability open for civil determination, while granting limited protective relief to preserve supply or status quo.

---