https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198035 A writ petition under Article 226 was held inappropriate for recovery of payment arising from contractual work orders and dishonoured cheques, because the dispute turned on contested facts requiring evidence. The State's defence included alleged irregularities, an inquiry and an FIR alleging coercive procurement of cheques, which made the claim unsuitable for summary writ adjudication. The Court treated the relief as, in substance, a money decree and noted that ordinary civil remedies remained available, including a civil suit under Order XXXVII CPC and a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Writ jurisdiction was therefore declined, and the petitioner was relegated to the remedy available in law. en-us Wed, 30 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 21 Jan 2018 09:28:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198035 A writ petition under Article 226 was held inappropriate for recovery of payment arising from contractual work orders and dishonoured cheques, because the dispute turned on contested facts requiring evidence. The State's defence included alleged irregularities, an inquiry and an FIR alleging coercive procurement of cheques, which made the claim unsuitable for summary writ adjudication. The Court treated the relief as, in substance, a money decree and noted that ordinary civil remedies remained available, including a civil suit under Order XXXVII CPC and a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Writ jurisdiction was therefore declined, and the petitioner was relegated to the remedy available in law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 30 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198035