9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was awarded a contract and was appointed under the contract as sole agent for transportation of parcels to render other allied services and to operate courier services through the buses of the Corporation. The contract was given for the period of 36 months from year 2007-2010. Under the terms of the contract, payment of yearly amounts with monthly installments for the respective years was contemplated. For the year 2007-2008, early amount was Rs. 2,60,00,000/- and the monthly installment was Rs. 21,66,667/-. For the second year 2008-2009, yearly amount was Rs. 2,81,50,000/-, whereas monthly installment was Rs. 23,45,833/-. In the same way, for the year 2009-2010, Rs. 3,13,57,501/- was the yearly amount payable with monthly installment ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- was the amount mentioned towards service tax paid by Corporation on behalf of the petitioner. Thus, the total amount of Rs. 76,41,753/- including aforesaid service tax amount was claimed by the Corporation from the petitioner. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said amount of Rs. 24,21,125/- has been withheld by the Corporation by not releasing the amount of security deposit to the said extent. By impugned communication dated 30.09.2013, the petitioner was intimated that rest of the amount of security deposit of Rs. 24,21,125/- was kept towards service tax and would not be liable to be refunded and that the claim of the petitioner may endure only after the Corporation gets back the amount from the Department. 6. Thus, as is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him would necessarily involve adjudicating upon the contractual terms and conditions and the mutual obligation between the parties arising therefrom with reference to entitlement of the Corporation to claim the amount from the security deposit as well as its justifiability or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner to seek refund/release of the said amount. 8. Jurisdiction under Article 226 is not the appropriate remedy to be invoked for the grievance and the dispute of the above nature which stem from contract between the parties. Therefore, this petition is not entertainable and it does not qualify for any relief. Hence, the same is dismissed summarily. 9. The petitioner is not precluded from pursuing any other remedy which may be perm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
