TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 622
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o and accepted by Petitioner along with the terms and conditions stipulated therein. 1.2. Pursuant to the said sub-contract, Petitioner supplied materials in accordance with the agreed terms through various invoices raised during the period from 07.12.2023 to 15.10.2024; they paid GST to the Government through the 6th Respondent from out of its bills; the 6th Respondent did not make payments properly from time to time and that the last payment made by them was only Rs.17,75,603/- on 22.08.2024. As per the ledger account maintained by Petitioner, the last supply of material was made on 15.10.2024 under Invoice No.131 for Rs.13,08,337/-. It is contended that after accounting for all transactions, a total outstanding amount of Rs.79,15,179/- remained due as on 15.10.2024. It is further contended that despite repeated requests made by Petitioner to the 6th Respondent for clearance of the outstanding dues, the same were not paid. Consequently, a legal notice dated 24.01.2025 was got issued demanding payment of the outstanding amount of Rs. 79,15,179/- with accrued interest, and copies of the said notice were also marked to Respondents No.2 to 5. However, no positive response was rece....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;s bills, they would be put to irreparable loss and injury. 2. Respondent No.6 filed counter contending that Petitioner had suppressed the factum of settlement dated 27.11.2025, under which accounts between them stood settled. In view of the said settlement, no amount is due to Petitioner. It is further contended that the alleged dues claimed by Petitioner under Invoice Nos. 129 to 131 dated 23.08.2024 and 14.10.2024 were never for materials supplied to Respondent No.6, and calculation of Rs.79,15,179/-is incorrect. It is also contended that such disputed questions cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction. A preliminary objection was raised as to the maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that Petitioner is seeking recovery of money arising out of contractual obligations against Respondent No.6, which is outside the scope of Article 226. The dispute is purely in the realm of private law and does not involve any public law element, and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 2.1. It is contended that the Petitioner approached this Court with an intention to blackmail and pressurize Respondent No.6 for release of Rs. 79,15,179/with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the request of one Mr. Indra Sena Reddy, which were utilized for the project but payment was not made, and thereby demanding that no payment be released to Petitioner. It is contended that Petitioner suppressed this fact despite being aware of the same. It is also stated, Petitioner is not a subcontractor as alleged, but only a supplier under the purchase order dated 25.11.2023 and has already received payment for the materials supplied. The claim that Respondents are enjoying the benefit of work executed by Petitioner and Petitioner is unable to run its organization is fictitious and made only for the purpose of the writ proceedings. 2.5. Petitioner itself is due to several persons, having procured materials from various suppliers and failed to pay them, including Mr. Yogesh Gupta representing M/s Arihant Steels, who issued legal notice to Respondent No.6. It is further contended that Petitioner has no right to object to release of amounts to Respondent No.6 by the official Respondents and that Petitioner issued false notice and representation dated 31.01.2026 only to invoke writ jurisdiction. It is contended that under the purchase order, Petitioner was responsible for supp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the same is a matter of record. It is further contended that the plea that the issues involve disputed questions of fact and that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked is untenable. 3.2. Petitioner contends that writ petition is maintainable and that the relief sought is not barred merely because it arises out of contractual obligations. They have specifically invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 in terms of the averments made in the affidavit and that the judgments relied upon by Respondent No.6 are distinguishable on facts and have no application to the present case. The allegation that writ petition was filed to blackmail or pressurize Respondent No.6 was denied. It is reiterated that the alleged settlement dated 27.11.2025 is not between Petitioner and Respondent No.6 but between another individual. Though Petitioner has liabilities towards several persons including wages, financiers and suppliers, including Mr. Yogesh Gupta, the claim of Rs.1,51,58,905/- is denied and it is stated that Petitioner is liable only to the extent of Rs.25,00,000/- to the said person. 3.3. It is contended that since Respondent No.6 has admitted the purchase order dated 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hi Rao, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri D. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent No.6. 5. From a perusal of the material on record, it is to be noted that the genesis of the dispute lies in a purchase order dated 25.11.2023 issued by Respondent No.6 in favour of Petitioner in relation to supply of materials for execution of work pertaining to Pit Line Sheds at Cherlapally Railway Station, Secunderabad. The relationship between the parties, as pleaded, is founded on the said purchase order, the terms of which govern the rights and obligations inter se. The primary grievance of the Petitioner is that an amount originally quantified at Rs.79,15,179/- and subsequently revised by Petitioner itself to Rs.59,15,179/- with accrued interest remains unpaid. Petitioner seeks not only recovery of the said amount but also a consequential direction to Respondents 2 to 5 to withhold and divert the retention amounts payable to Respondent No.6 and to remit the same to Petitioner. 6. On the other hand, Respondent No.6 has not only disputed the entitlement of Petitioner to the said amount but has also raised a fundamental objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. It....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led examination of evidence. 10. In addition, the conduct of the parties, including the issuance of legal notice dated 24.01.2026, the service thereof on 27.01.2026, and the filing of the Writ Petition on 02.02.2026 without waiting for expiry of the stipulated 15 days, has been put in issue by Respondent No.6 to allege mala fides, which again requires factual adjudication. 11. In the considered view of this Court, the aforesaid disputes, relating to supply of materials, genuineness of invoices, existence and effect of settlement, nature of contractual relationship, performance of obligations, and determination of liability, are all questions of fact of a serious and complex nature. Such questions cannot be satisfactorily adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226, which are essentially summary in nature and not designed for recording evidence or conducting a detailed trial. 12. The relief sought by Petitioner is essentially for recovery of money arising out of contractual obligations between the Petitioner and Respondent No.6. The further relief sought against Respondents 2 to 5 is in the nature of a direction to withhold and divert amounts payable to Respondent No.6. Ho....