Disposed¶22

Amirtharaj T v. The Divisional Engineer (Works)

Madras HC4 Nov 2025WP(MD)/14082/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(MD)No.14082 of 2022; Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; G.R. Swaminathan J.; 04.11.2025; writ of mandamus; railway contractor; Southern Railway; fourth and final bill; Rs.15,48,870/-; Rs.53,436/-; disputed questions of fact; Article 226; alternative remedy; liberty to file civil suit; suit within eight weeks without limitation; entitlement left to civil court; disposed of with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a suit before the jurisdictional civil court; such suit, if filed within eight weeks, to be entertained without reference to limitation; no costs. ¶22

Amirtharaj T Vs The Divisional Engineer (Works) — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)NO.14082 OF 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.14082 of 2022

¶7

T.Amirtharaj ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Divisional Engineer(Works), Southern Railway, Divisional Railway Office, Trivandrum – 695 014,

¶10

Kerala.

¶11

The Senior Section Engineer(Works), Southern Railway, Nagercoil Junction, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents herein to prepare a bill for an amount of Rs.15,48,870/(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy only) as fourth and final bill which is payable to the petitioner as per the agreement made between the first respondent herein and the petitioner in L.No.118/TVC/2018 dated 08.08.2018 and 22.11.2019 and further direct the respondents herein to sanction and disburse the above amount with 12% interest to the petitioner within a stipulated time frame by this Court.

¶13

1/3

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

2 W.P.(MD)NO.14082 OF 2022

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Kishore For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, Central Government Standing counsel. * * *

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Heard both sides.

¶19

The petitioner is a railway contractor. According to him,

¶20

a sum of Rs.15,48,870/- remains to be paid towards bill amount. The stand of the respondents is that only a further sum of Rs.53,436/- is liable to be paid. There are serious factual disputes. In the writ Court, this issue cannot be agitated. The petitioner is therefore permitted to move the jurisdictional civil Court. If the suit is filed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same will be entertained without reference to limitation. It is for the

¶21

civil Court to decide the actual entitlement of the writ petitioner.

¶22

With the aforesaid liberty to the writ petitioner, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶23

04.11.2025

¶24

NCS : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No PMU

¶25

2/3

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

3 W.P.(MD)NO.14082 OF 2022

¶28

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

¶29

PMU

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.14082 of 2022

¶31

04.11.2025

¶32

3/3

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Amirtharaj T v. The Divisional Engineer (Works)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amirtharaj T v. The Divisional Engineer (Works)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arasan, S/O.Rasuthevar Vs the District Collector

Marimuthu. K.S Vs the District Collector

S.Jothimani Vs The Regional Transport Authority cum District Collector

Mjs Travels Represented by its Proprietor, Vs The Assistant Commissioner (Circle)

Ms Om Agencies Vs The Deputy Commercial TAx Officer

Ramachandran.N Vs The State of Tamilnadu