https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289329 A disputed contractual damages claim could not be unilaterally recovered by adjusting the contractor's security deposit or other pending or future bills, because a damages claim becomes recoverable only after adjudication and quantification; that recovery action was liable to be quashed. A writ for refund or payment of amounts withheld under separate pending bills was not maintainable, as such a money claim lay in civil suit or arbitration rather than Article 226. Immediate release of the bank guarantee was also refused, since the underlying contractual claim remained undecided in the proper forum. en-us Fri, 09 May 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Nov 2020 14:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289329 A disputed contractual damages claim could not be unilaterally recovered by adjusting the contractor's security deposit or other pending or future bills, because a damages claim becomes recoverable only after adjudication and quantification; that recovery action was liable to be quashed. A writ for refund or payment of amounts withheld under separate pending bills was not maintainable, as such a money claim lay in civil suit or arbitration rather than Article 226. Immediate release of the bank guarantee was also refused, since the underlying contractual claim remained undecided in the proper forum. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 09 May 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289329