M/S Indra Resources Thru.Proprietor Gayaneshwar Shukla vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chairman U.P.Jal Nigam Lko. And Ors.
Held
The Court did not decide on the merits of the disputed amount or the maintainability of the writ petition. Instead, the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the stage where the respondent raised the issue of disputed claims and non-maintainability of the writ petition, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. The Court granted this prayer, disposing of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy permissible under the law, specifically mentioning the filing of a Suit for Recovery. Therefore, no finding was reached on the core legal issues, and the matter was resolved by allowing the withdrawal.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Indra Resources, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to compel the respondents to pay a total amount of Rs. 19,20,463/-, including GST. This amount comprised a maintenance sum of Rs. 15,50,735/-, a variation amount of Rs. 2,21,255/-, and another variation amount of Rs. 1,48,473/-. The petitioner relied on prepayment certificates, a bill, and other bills as evidence. The Court had previously granted time to the respondents to seek instructions. Upon receiving instructions, the respondents' counsel stated that the claimed amount was disputed and not admitted, arguing that a writ petition was not maintainable in such circumstances.
Key Issues
1. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel payment of a disputed and unadmitted amount, thereby raising a question of law regarding the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for payment of the claimed amount, implicitly arguing for the maintainability of the writ petition to resolve the dispute. Respondent's Contention: The respondent argued that since the amount claimed by the petitioner was disputed and not admitted, the writ petition was not maintainable. They did not cite any specific provisions or precedents in this regard, relying on the principle that writ jurisdiction is not for adjudication of disputed facts or claims.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28528 of 2021 Petitioner :- M/S Indra Resources Thru.Proprietor Gayaneshwar Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Chairman U.P.Jal Nigam Lko. And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Daya Shankar Yadav,Sanjiv Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Rishabh Kapoor Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
The present writ petition has been preferred with the following main prayer:- "(i) to issue a Writ, Order of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opposite Parties, to pay maintenance amount Rs. 15,50735/- (Rs. Fifteen Lakh Fifty Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Five Only) which was mentioned in the Bond/Agreement and variation amount Rs. 2,21,255/- (Rs. Two Lakh Twenty One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Five Only), + Rs. 1,48,473/- (Rs. One Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Three Only), total amount Rs. 19,20,463/- (Rs. Nineteen Lakh Twenty Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Three Only) alongwith GST, which is evident to the prepayment certificates of mentioned amount dated 27.07.2020, Bill No. 22 Running and final bill and undated two bills for variation amount, in the interest of justice."
This Court by its
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.