9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 884 - HC - Indian LawsMaintainability of petition - Disputed questions of facts present or not - time limitation - Locus of the 2nd petitioner to claim the amounts due to the 1st petitioner - Distribution of the liability between the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. Whether the existence of alternative remedy by way of a Civil Suit is a bar to entertaining the Writ Petition? - HELD THAT - Such power is to be exercised in exceptional circumstances where the High Court finds that the action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Whether really there are any disputed questions of fact warranting dismissal of the Writ Petition in the instant case? - HELD THAT - The plea about there being disputed questions of fact arising for consideration in the Writ Petition is mala fide intended only to drive the petitioners to the lengthy dilatory and expensive process by a Civil Suit. Plea of bar of Limitation - HELD THAT - Te plea of the respondents that the claims of the petitioners for performing Cloud Seeding operations for the years 2007 2008 and 2009 is barred by limitation is without any merit. Locus of the 2nd petitioner to claim the amounts due to the 1st petitioner - Firm - HELD THAT - In view of the clear provision in Section 47 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932 the payments due to the 1st petitioner-Firm can certainly be made to the 2nd petitioner and such payments would bind the 1st petitioner as well. Distribution of the liability between the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh - HELD THAT - According to Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 60 the liability has to be apportioned between the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh in the ratio 41.68 58.32 i.e. the liability of the State of Telangana (respondent No. 1) would be 41.68 % of the total liability and the liability of the State of Andhra Pradesh (respondent No. 2) would be 58.32% of the total liability. The Writ Petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 25, 000/- and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pay in three (03) months the arrears of dues under the Cloud Seeding contracts dt. 04.07.2007 25.07.2008 and 20.07.2009 amounting to Rs. 40, 28, 47, 380 with interest thereon from the respective due dates of payment till the date of actual payment at the rate of 9% per annum; and both the liability towards costs and the arrears are apportioned between the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the ratio 41.32 58.68 respectively.
Issues Involved:
1. Existence of alternative remedy by way of a Civil Suit. 2. Whether Writ Petitions can be entertained in contractual matters. 3. Bar of Limitation. 4. Locus of the 2nd petitioner to claim amounts due to the 1st petitioner. 5. Distribution of liability between the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. Detailed Analysis: 1. Existence of Alternative Remedy by Way of a Civil Suit: The respondents contended that the petitioners should approach the Civil Court due to disputed questions of facts. However, the Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in *ABL International Ltd. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.* (2004) which held that the High Court can entertain a Writ Petition involving disputed facts if it does not require elaborate evidence and if the State's action is arbitrary and unreasonable. The Court found no substantial disputed facts warranting dismissal of the Writ Petition and held that the respondents' plea was intended to drive petitioners to a lengthy civil suit process. 2. Whether Writ Petitions Can Be Entertained in Contractual Matters: The Court rejected the respondents' reliance on *Joshi Technologies International INC vs. Union of India* (2015) 7 SCC 728, affirming that Writ Petitions in contractual matters are maintainable against the State or its instrumentality if the State's action is arbitrary and unreasonable. The Court cited *Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil vs. State of Maharashtra* (2020) where relief was granted in a contractual dispute under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Bar of Limitation: The respondents argued that the petitioners' claims were barred by limitation. The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, specifically Sections 18 and 19, which deal with acknowledgment of liability and extension of the limitation period. The Court found multiple acknowledgments of liability by the respondents, extending the limitation period. For instance, the Court noted that acknowledgments in file notings and letters, even if not addressed directly to the petitioners, extended the limitation period. The Court held that the claims for the years 2007, 2008, and 2009 were within the extended limitation period due to these acknowledgments. 4. Locus of the 2nd Petitioner to Claim Amounts Due to the 1st Petitioner: The 1st petitioner was a partnership firm, and the 2nd petitioner was authorized to collect payments on its behalf. The Court referenced Section 47 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which allows partners of a dissolved firm to bind the firm for winding up its affairs. The Court also cited *Poosarla Visweswararao Bros. vs. Vuppala Nookayya Setty* (2004) which upheld the authority of a partner to maintain execution petitions. The Court concluded that the 2nd petitioner had the locus to claim the amounts due to the 1st petitioner. 5. Distribution of Liability Between the New State of Telangana and the Residuary State of Andhra Pradesh: The Court rejected the State of Telangana's contention that the liability should be borne primarily by the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. The Court emphasized that cloud seeding operations affect areas beyond the specific districts where they are conducted. According to Section 60 of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014, liabilities under contracts made by the composite State of Andhra Pradesh should be apportioned between the successor states based on population ratio. The Court determined that the liability should be shared in the ratio of 41.68% (Telangana) and 58.32% (Andhra Pradesh). Conclusion: The Court directed respondents to pay the petitioners Rs. 40,28,47,380 with interest at 9% per annum from the respective due dates until actual payment. The liability was apportioned between the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in the ratio of 41.68% and 58.32%, respectively. The petition was allowed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- and all miscellaneous petitions were closed.
|
