https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354183 The High Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable for recovery of money pursuant to a contract. Emphasizing that contractual disputes should be resolved through civil suits or arbitration, not writ petitions, the court dismissed the petition as devoid of merits and imposed costs on the petitioner. The court clarified that seeking a money decree through mandamus is not suitable under Article 226, highlighting that contractual disputes, including payment issues, should be addressed through appropriate legal avenues. The judgment reaffirmed that writ petitions are not the proper recourse for contractual disputes or monetary claims. en-us Tue, 05 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354183 The High Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable for recovery of money pursuant to a contract. Emphasizing that contractual disputes should be resolved through civil suits or arbitration, not writ petitions, the court dismissed the petition as devoid of merits and imposed costs on the petitioner. The court clarified that seeking a money decree through mandamus is not suitable under Article 226, highlighting that contractual disputes, including payment issues, should be addressed through appropriate legal avenues. The judgment reaffirmed that writ petitions are not the proper recourse for contractual disputes or monetary claims. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 05 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354183