Disposed

M. Chandra Sekar v. the Manonmaniam Sundaranar

Madras HC25 Aug 2014WP(MD)/12751/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench directed the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University to settle undisputed bills acknowledged for the petitioner in a phased manner by December 15, 2014, citing maintainability of the writ for money claims without complicated factual disputes.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent University to settle the undisputed claim under the acknowledged bills at the earliest or in a phased manner commencing from October 2014, with all payments completed befor

M. Chandra Sekar Vs the Manonmaniam Sundaranar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 25.08.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.12751 of 2014 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014

¶7

M.Chandrasekar Proprietor M/s.Global Scientific Supplies 24, Bethestha Complex College Road, Nagercoil Kanyakumari District-629 001

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

-vs-

¶10

1.The Manonmaniam Sundaranar University

¶11

Rep.by it's Registrar Abishekapatti, Tiruneveli District

¶12

2.Centre for Marine Science

¶13

and Technology Manonmaniam Sundaranar

¶14

University

¶15

Rajakkamangalam-629 502 Kanyakumari District rep.by it's Head of the Department ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent Manonmaniam Sundaranar University to release forthwith a sum of Rs.23,19,689/- (Rupees twenty three lakhs nineteen thousand six hundred and eighty nine only) to the petitioner under the bills acknowledged by the University in No.MSU/R/RTI/44941/C/TNIC/2013, dated 26.11.2013 and No.MSU/R/RTI/B207(i)/2014, dated 21.03.2014.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal For Respondents : Mr.K.Sathyasingh

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ With the consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

¶20

¶21

The petitioner in this writ petition seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent University to sanction the amounts as per the bills acknowledged by the University, dated 26.11.2013 and 21.03.2014.

¶22

The petitioner appears to have been a supplier of scientific materials, chemicals and other glassware to the respondent University. The rate contract was entered into by the respondent University and the petitioner for supply of scientific materials and chemicals. From the information under the Right to Information Act, copy of which has been enclosed in the typed set of papers, it is seen that some of the supplies effected have been settled and some of the supplies effected have not been settled by the respondent University.

¶23

The learned counsel for the respondent University submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus in respect of a money claim and when disputed questions are involved, writ of mandamus cannot be issued to settle the money claim.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. V. Dolly Das , reported in (1999) 4 SCC 450 , wherein the Honourable Supreme Court pointed out that if the facts pleaded are of such a nature as do not involve any complicated questions of fact needing elaborate investigation, the High Court may exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and there is no hard and fast rule in such matters. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is fully applicable to the case on hand, since there is no serious dispute as regards the petitioner's eligibility and there is no complicated question of fact, which requires elaborate investigation and therefore the claim made by the petitioner, invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable.

¶25

6.There is no serious dispute in the quantum of amount payable and the only thing which remains unexplained is delay in effecting settlement of the dues in it's entirety. Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere in the matter and also safeguarding the interest of the respondent University. If there is any dispute as regards the claim of the petitioner, it is well open to respondent University to contest the claim made by the petitioner. However, there is no record to show that there is serious contest to any of the claim made by the petitioner. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondent University to settle the undisputed claim under the bills acknowledged on 26.11.2013 and 21.03.2014 at the earliest or in a phased manner commencing from October 2014 and ensure that the payments of all undisputed claims are paid to the petitioner before 15.12.2014. As regards the disputed claims, it is open to the petitioner to work out his rights in the manner known to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ law.

¶26

¶27

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(Per.Admn)

¶30

/True Copy/

¶31

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶32

To:

¶33

1.The Registrar, Manonmaniam Sundaranar

¶34

University, Abishekapatti, Tiruneveli District.

¶35

2.The Head of the Department, Centre for Marine Science and Technology, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Rajakkamangalam-629 502, Kanyakumari District.

¶36

+One cc to M/s.K.Sathiya Singh, Advocate, SR.No.47648

¶37

+One cc to M/s.Isaac Mohanlal, Advocate, SR.No.47885

¶38

krk

¶39

RL/5 c- 16/9/2014

¶40

W.P.(MD) No.12751 of 2014

¶41

25.08.2014

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M. Chandra Sekar v. the Manonmaniam Sundaranar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Chandra Sekar v. the Manonmaniam Sundaranar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Senthurpandian Vs the Deputy Inspector General

Sundaram Vs the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar

L&T Valves Ltd., Vs the Assistant Commercial Tax

M.S.Sithihajeera Vs the Sub Registrar

Vetrignaniyar Vagaiyarakkal Vs the District Collector

Porkodi Vs the Branch Manager