License agreement breach and GST liability upheld; court declines writ relief but permits contractual remedies.

The High Court finds the license agreement to be a binding contract and that the petitioner breached express payment obligations, producing substantial arrears; consequence: termination for breach was upheld and the writ petition was dismissed. The court also held that GST is a statutory levy not excluded by the agreement; consequence: GST and interest on delayed payments remain payable. The presence of a contractual dispute resolution clause and availability of an alternative contractual remedy led the court to refuse exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226; consequence: petitioner may pursue remedies under the contract instead.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking quashment of the termination notice and mandamus to grant time to deposit outstanding license fee (including GST) should be entertained and relief granted, or whether the termination effected for persistent breach of contractual payment obligations should be left to contractual remedies.

Analysis: The License Agreement is a binding contractual instrument containing clear payment obligations, including liability for GST and interest on delayed payments, and providing a contractual dispute-resolution/alternative remedy mechanism. The petitioner admitted failure to comply with the stipulated payment schedule, resulting in substantial arrears. The contention of confusion regarding GST liability is unsupported where the agreement does not exclude applicability of GST and GST is a statutory levy. Given the existence of a material and persistent breach of express contractual terms and an available contractual remedy, extraordinary writ relief under Article 226 is not appropriate to substitute contractual remedies or to re-write agreed terms. The petitioner is therefore permitted to invoke the alternative remedy provided under the agreement.

Conclusion: Writ relief is refused and the petition is dismissed; the decision to terminate the license for persistent breach is sustained and the petitioner is left to pursue the contractual remedy provided in the agreement (decision in favour of the respondent).

Final Conclusion: The Court will not exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction to interfere with a lawfully terminated contract where there is clear contractual default and an alternative remedy is available under the contract.

Ratio Decidendi: Where parties have expressly agreed contractual payment obligations and an alternative contractual remedy, and where there is a material breach of those obligations including statutory dues, courts will not ordinarily exercise Article 226 writ jurisdiction to set aside a termination grounded on such breach.

---