JUDGMENT :

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.

1. The short question which arises for our consideration in the present case relates to whether a party to a contract is entitled to question the amount of consideration after signing the contract. By adverting to the facts of the case, we have held that Respondent No.1 is estopped from doing so because the Appellant, in all its communications, had sought for an amount of Rs.1,00,000 as irrigation restoration charges i.e., consideration for diversion of water for industrial use, which was earlier reserved for irrigational purposes. Even the contract entered into between the parties prescribed the same amount. In fact, Respondent No.1 agreed to the pay the consideration by issuing an undertaking on the date of signing of the contract. In any case, this contractual dispute concerning the reduction of irrigation restoration charges, was contested by the parties in an earlier Writ Petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, and the High Court by its order dated 22.11.2012 had dismissed the challenge. This is the second round of l