Respondent barred from challenging Clause-8 after winning tender; High Court lacks writ jurisdiction over contract disputes

The SC held that the respondent, having participated in the tender process with full knowledge of Clause-8, was estopped from challenging its validity after becoming the highest bidder. The respondent's civil suit to avoid compliance caused undue delay in awarding the contract. The Court reaffirmed that the HC lacks jurisdiction to entertain disputes purely arising from contractual obligations under its writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the SC quashed and set aside the impugned HC judgments as illegal and without jurisdiction, allowing the appeal.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, was entitled to entertain a dispute arising purely from contractual obligations seeking monetary relief/damages.Whether a party who participates in a tender process with full knowledge of its terms can subsequently challenge the tender conditions and claim damages for delay caused by its own failure to comply with those conditions.Whether the principle of nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria (no one can take advantage of his own wrong) applies to a party seeking relief for loss caused by its own non-compliance with contractual terms.The appropriateness of quantifying damages and awarding compensation through writ jurisdiction as opposed to civil proceedings.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The High Court was not entitled to entertain the claim for damages arising out of a purely contractual dispute in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction; such relief is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.A party who participates in a tender process with full knowledge of the terms and conditions is estopped from subsequently challenging those terms to avoid compliance and cannot claim damages for delay caused by its own failure to fulfill mandatory conditions.The maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria applies, and a party cannot take advantage of its own wrong to gain a favorable interpretation of law or claim undue benefit.The quantification and award of damages require determination of disputed questions of fact, which are beyond the competence of a writ court and should be adjudicated by the competent civil forum agreed upon by the parties.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the principle that disputes arising purely from contractual obligations, without statutory flavor, are not amenable to writ jurisdiction because such jurisdiction is extraordinary and not intended to decide factual disputes or claims for damages.The Court relied on the established legal maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria, as expounded in precedent, emphasizing that a wrongdoer cannot profit from his own wrong, and that a party who causes delay or non-performance cannot claim damages for the consequences of such conduct.The Court referred to authoritative precedent holding that contractual disputes involving disputed facts and quantification of amounts payable are best resolved by the forum agreed upon by the parties, such as civil courts or arbitration, rather than by writ courts lacking expertise in such matters.The Court noted that the respondent-bidder's failure to comply with Clause-8 of the Notice Inviting Tender, including non-deposit of post-dated cheques and bank guarantee, caused the delay in issuance of the work order, thereby disentitling him from claiming compensation for the curtailed contract period.The Court rejected the equitable approach adopted by the High Court, holding that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be used to grant damages or compensation which require detailed factual inquiry and quantification.

---