1. Money claim — Alleged violation of allotment terms — Writ petition. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1611
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P.Jeevan Reddy : K.S.Paripoornan
Haryana Urban Development Authority
Versus
Anupama Patnaik
Case No. : .
Date of Decision : 10/4/96
Important Points
A writ petition is not maintainable for a simple money claim involving disputed questions of fact and lacking statutory coverage.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability of writ petition for money claims - A simple claim for money should not be entertained in a writ petition, particularly where there are several disputed questions of fact and the matter is not covered by any statutory provisions - Such a petition is misconceived and ought not to have been entertained. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed seeking a claim for money. The lower court entertained and allowed the petition despite the existence of disputed questions of fact, with both parties alleging violations of the terms of allotment.
Findings of Court:
The petition was misconceived as it sought a simple money claim involving disputed facts and lacked statutory coverage.
Issues: Whether a writ petition is the appropriate remedy for a simple money claim involving disputed questions of fact.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition is not maintainable for a simple money claim when there are disputed questions of fact and no statutory provisions governing the matter.
Result: Appeal allowed and the judgment of the lower court is set aside.
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed seeking a claim for money. The lower court entertained and allowed the petition despite the existence of disputed questions of fact, with both parties alleging violations of the terms of allotment.
Findings of Court:
The petition was misconceived as it sought a simple money claim involving disputed facts and lacked statutory coverage.
Issues: Whether a writ petition is the appropriate remedy for a simple money claim involving disputed questions of fact.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition is not maintainable for a simple money claim when there are disputed questions of fact and no statutory provisions governing the matter.
Result: Appeal allowed and the judgment of the lower court is set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
writ jurisdiction
- maintainability (Para 3)
-
writ jurisdiction
Table of Contents
2. Mutual allegations regarding violation of the terms of the allotment. (Para 3 )
3. Writ petition for a simple money claim involving disputed questions of fact and lacking statutory coverage is misconceived. (Para 3 )
4. Writ petitions are not maintainable for simple money claims involving disputed questions of fact absent statutory provisions. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside. (Para 3 )
6. Is a writ petition maintainable for a simple money claim involving disputed questions of fact?
No, a writ petition is considered misconceived and should not be entertained if it involves a simple claim for money where there are several disputed questions of fact and the matter is not covered by statutory provisions. (Para 3 )
B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, J.
(1) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2) SPECIAL leave granted.
(3) IT is rather strange that a simple claim for money was made in a writ petition and was entertained by the High Court and allowed. There are several disputed questions of fact. Each party is alleging that the other party is guilty of violation of the terms of the allotment. The matter is not covered by any statutory provisions. The writ petition itself was misconceived and not ought to have been entertained. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. No costs.
