Back
S. TALAPATRA
Utpal Datta – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim for payment and release of deposits. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondents argue against maintainability and completion. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. jurisdiction under article 226 not ousted in contractual matters. (Para 7) |
| 4. court observes completion acknowledgment and challenge to objections. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. court orders payment and release of funds; decision on interest provided. (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
S. Talapatra, J. - Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. assisted by Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a category-1 Contractor as registered under the Public Works Department, Government of Tripura, NBCC, NPCC, ONGC, HSCL and several other Government and Public Sector Enterprises. The petitioner has claimed his robust experience in the business. In response to the DNIT No. 62/CE/PWD (R & B)/SQC/PD-III/2007-08 for up-gradation of Panisagar to Sailen Bari Road under 40% renewal under Bharat Nirman Programme, the petitioner participated in the tendering and got selected. The work order No. 31-713/EE/(DD)/606
Writ petitions are maintainable for contractual claims against state entities, and withholding payments due to contractors on arbitrary grounds violates constitutional obligations to act fairly.
State cannot withhold admitted dues for executed works from which it benefited, citing procedural lapses or paucity of funds; such arbitrary action violates Article 14, attracting writ jurisdiction u....
Reimbursement of amount - Entitlement of - Grant of relief of this nature would virtually amount to a money decree. Petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to remedies available by raising such a c....
The significance of admitted liabilities, conflicting stands, and serious disputed questions of fact in contractual matters, and the discretion of the court in exercising jurisdiction.
The Court determined that contractual disputes involving factual questions requiring evidence must be resolved outside the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The court reaffirmed that contractual disputes with an arbitration clause are not maintainable under Article 226 unless exceptional circumstances arise, emphasizing lawful forfeiture of security for ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
