Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 384 - HC - Indian LawsWrit petition for for recovery of money - to enforce contractual obligation - bills against the services provided by the appellant were not cleared and the payments withheld ―due to some audit objections - period of limitation - Held that:- The said period of three years expired with respect to the first two bills on 26th April, 2002 and for the third bill on 22nd July, 2002. There is nothing to show that the date of payment was agreed to be any other. The writ petition seeking mandamus was filed only on 28th September, 2007. There is nothing to show any acknowledgment of liability within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. We have thus wondered whether money claim, suit for which had become barred by time/limitation, can be allowed in writ jurisdiction. The answer obviously is no. - merely because the time barred claim of another has been allowed does not constitute a reason for allowing another time barred claim - Decided against the assessee. Public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available to seek damages for breach of contract or specific performance of contract unless the contractual dispute has a public law element. - the powers under Article 226 are to be exercised by applying the Constitutional provisions and judicial guidelines and violation, if any of the fundamental rights and the Court would be reluctant to exercise the power of judicial review in rights on the basis of contracts. It was further held that a contract would not become statutory simply because it has been awarded by a statutory body. - writ petition to enforce the contractual claim was not maintainable and more so when the claim was barred by time.
|