Dismissed

Vihaan Enterprises through Its Proprietor v. State of Maharashtra through P.P. High Court, Mumbai

Bombay HC23 Sept 2024WP/13106/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking direction to CIDCO to release alleged dues for construction work executed under a verbal order. The court held the claim required determination of pure questions of fact not possible under Article 226 and dismissed it with liberty to pursue civil suit remedies.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petitioner granted liberty to take other legal recourse including a civil suit before competent civil jurisdiction.

Vihaan Enterprises through Its Proprietor vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

901-WP-13106-2024

¶2

Pdp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 13106 OF 2024

¶5

Vihaan Enterprises

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Ajit Lulla a/w Ms. Sunita Warang a/w Suchitra Singh i/by Mr. S. R. Mishra for petitioner.

¶10

Digitally signed byPRAVIN PRAVIN DASHARATH DASHARATH PANDIT PANDIT Date: 2024.09.25 15:19:08 +0530

¶11

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader a/w Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. Govt. Pleader and Ms. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for State.

¶12

CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & M. M. SATHAYE, J.

¶13

DATE: 25^th SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the State of Maharashtra.

¶16

2. By instituting this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a prayer has been sought to issue direction to the respondent-CIDCO for releasing alleged due amount of Rs.11,86,737/- in respect of work allegedly carried out by the petitioner at the entrance gate of new Administrative Building of CIDCO.

¶17

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under a verbal order issued by the competent authority of CIDCO, the petitioner had executed the said work

¶18

¶19

901-WP-13106-2024

¶20

in respect of which certain payments have also been made, however, full and final payment is being denied to the petitioner.

¶21

4. Such issue, in our considered opinion, will necessarily involve determination of pure questions of fact which is neither permissible nor possible in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In fact, proper recourse available to the petitioner for claiming the prayer made in this petition is to institute a civil suit before a Court of competent civil jurisdiction and not to invoke writ jurisdiction.

¶22

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to take any other recourse for redressal of its grievances which may be available to it under law, including institution of an appropriate suit before the Court of competent civil jurisdiction.

¶23

(M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶24

Vihaan Enterprises through Its Proprietor v. State of Maharashtra through P.P. High Court, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vihaan Enterprises through Its Proprietor v. State of Maharashtra through P.P. High Court, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai Thr. Mumbai Legal Hub vs Vivek Niwas Patil and Anr.

Kumar Gaurav vs Vishnukant R Upadhay

Padma Dattaram Ugale and Anr. vs Bhagyashree Dattaram Ugale

Lemon Seeds Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India and 5 Ors.

Krishna Anna Nalawade vs Sajjangadh Education Trust through Its President Pralhad Devrao Jadhav

Sagar Satish Shinde vs State of Maharashtra