Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2016 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 1156 - HC - Indian LawsBreach of Contract - Recovery of certain money from U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited - based on contractual matter for which remedy lies in common law - availment of Article 226 to claim any money in respect of breach of contract or tort or otherwise - Held that:- In Kerala State Electricity Board and another Vs. Kurien E. Kalathil and others [2000 (7) TMI 920 - SUPREME COURT], Court said that interpretation and implementation of a clause in a contract cannot be subject-matter of a writ petition. Whether a contract envisages actual payment or not is a question of construction of contract. If a term of contract is violated, ordinarily remedy is not the writ petition under Article 226. A contract would not become statutory simply because it is for construction of a public utility and it has been awarded by a statutory body. A statute may expressly or impliedly confer power on a statutory body to enter into contracts in order to enable it to discharge its functions. Disputes arising out of the terms of such contracts or alleged breaches have to be settled by the ordinary principles of law of contract. The fact that one of the parties to the agreement is a statutory or public body will not by itself affect the principles to be applied. The disputes about the meaning of a covenant in a contract or its enforceability have to be determined according to the usual principles of the Contract Act. Every act of a statutory body need not necessarily involve an exercise of statutory power. Statutory bodies have power to contract or deal with property like private parties. Such activities may not raise any issue of public law. When it is not shown that contract is statutory and parties are within the realm of their authority, contract between the parties is in the realm of private law. The disputes relating to interpretation of terms and conditions of such contract cannot be agitated in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The same has been reiterated in many other cases. therefore, in view of the same, mandamus sought by petitioner is nothing but grant of a money decree in extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 which ought not to have been granted. - Decided against the petitioner
|