Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10935

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Nipro Medical India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPC No. 750 of 2021|WPC No. 2846 of 2021

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Saloni Jain, Sabyasachi Bhaduri
For the Respondents: P.K.Bhaduri, Raghavendra Pradhan, Trivikram Nayak

High Courts should generally refrain from entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in contractual matters concerning money claims, especially when disputed questions of fact exist or where an effective alternative remedy, such as arbitration, is stipulated in the contract.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Contractual dispute - Writ jurisdiction - Petitioner sought recovery of outstanding dues for medical equipment supplied to the respondent Corporation - Preliminary objection regarding maintainability raised by respondents on the ground of existing arbitration clause and presence of disputed questions of fact - Held, High Court should decline to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction in pure contractual matters involving money claims, especially when alternative efficacious remedies like arbitration are available. (Paras 8, 12, 14)

(B) Arbitration - Dispute Resolution Clause - Petitioner contended that tender arbitration clause was not incorporated into the final rate contract - Court observed that the matter involves investigation into alleged misappropriation of funds and disputed questions of fact - Relegation to alternative remedy is appropriate. (Paras 7, 9, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, through competitive tendering, were awarded contracts to supply medical equipment to state health facilities. After delivering the equipment, the petitioners claimed that the Corporation made only partial payments and withheld significant dues. The respondents contended that payments were withheld due to an ongoing criminal investigation into massive financial irregularities and tender misappropriation involving the former administration of the hospital. The respondents further argued that the petitions involve complex factual disputes and are barred by the existence of an arbitration clause.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the claims are purely contractual and disputed, and that the state's refusal to pay is tied to a criminal investigation (FIR) regarding systemic tender irregularities. The Court ruled that such complex matters, which lack admitted liability and contain specific dispute resolution mechanisms, are not fit for adjudication under Article 226.

Issues: Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition for recovery of money arising out of a contractual agreement when disputed questions of fact and alternative remedies like arbitration exist.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that in contractual matters, particularly those involving disputed facts and where an alternative efficacious remedy (arbitration) exists, the Court should not exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 226, nor should it substitute itself for the arbitrator or trial court to determine contractual dues.

Result: Petitions dismissed with liberty to pursue arbitration.

Table of Content
1. overview of tender disputes and payment claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. contentions regarding contractual maintainability and alternative remedy. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. court's refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction in contractual money claims. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)

(Cause Title Taken from Case Information System)

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Ms. Saloni Jain and Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.K.Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, and Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, Mr. Trivikram Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent CGMSCL.

2. Since the facts and issue involved in these petitions are identical, they are being considered and decided by this common order.

3. In WPC No. 750/2021, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for record of 10.1 entire tender process which is subject matter of the present petition.

10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Corporation to make good remittance of the payment pending to be made to petitioner for the services already rendered by the petitioner.

10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Corporation to make the outstanding payments as per the invoices raised by the Petitioner alongwith interest.

10.4 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

10.5 Cost of the petition.”

4. In WPC No. 2846/2021, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s):

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for record of entire tender process which is subject matter of the present petition.

10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Corporation to make good remittance of the payment pending to be made to petitioner for the goods and services already rendered by the petitioner.

10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Corporation to make the outstanding payments as per the invoices raised by the Petitioner alongwith interest.

10.4 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner. which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

10.5 Cost of the petition.”

5. The facts, as projected by the petitioner(s) are that the respondent Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited (for short, the Corporation) floated multiple Notices Inviting Tenders for the purchase of numerous medical tools and equipment for the procurement and distribution of the equipments and then infrastructure services to DKS Hospital and other Medical Departments of the State. The idea of the State, probably, was to furnish the Hospitals of the State with super specialty equipments and top most infrastructure and facilities, so as, to match to the qualities of the best hospitals of India. In furtherance of the said scheme, the respondent-Corporation invited proposals (bids) for the purpose of executing rate contract from the prospective organizations. The petitioners applied for the same and were the successful bidder/ lowest bidder (L1) and subsequently they were given was given two purchase orders (in WPC No. 750/2021) and 12 purchase orders (in WPC No. 2846/2021). The petitioners successfully completed all the purchase orders and delivered the requisite equipments in time to the concerned medical units of the State. The respondents had never disputed the quality or pointed out any defect in the equipments delivered by the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners raised invoices against the said purchase orders as per the term

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10935

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURRamesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, JNipro Medical India Pvt. Ltd. – AppellantVersusState Of Chhattisgarh – RespondentWPC No. 750 of 2021|WPC No. 2846 of 2021

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Nipro Medical India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPC No. 750 of 2021|WPC No. 2846 of 2021