https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793241 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was found unsuitable for enforcing disputed contractual monetary claims where liability, settlement, the extent of supplies, and the parties' performance remained contested on facts. The court held that such issues required evidence and detailed fact-finding, and no public law element was shown to justify a writ direction to withhold or divert retention amounts. The petition was therefore not maintainable in writ proceedings, and the claimant was left to pursue the appropriate remedy in law. en-us Tue, 07 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Jun 2026 08:33:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793241 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was found unsuitable for enforcing disputed contractual monetary claims where liability, settlement, the extent of supplies, and the parties' performance remained contested on facts. The court held that such issues required evidence and detailed fact-finding, and no public law element was shown to justify a writ direction to withhold or divert retention amounts. The petition was therefore not maintainable in writ proceedings, and the claimant was left to pursue the appropriate remedy in law. Case-Laws GST Tue, 07 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793241