ORISSA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. versus BHARATI INDUSTRIES AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 55 · Decided: 08-11-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

___j 
" 
ORISSA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SHARA TI INDUSTRIES AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 8, 2005 
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDC.K. THAKKER,JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-A/legation of breach of 
contract by State-Contract non-statutory in nature-Writ Petition by 
aggrieved party-Maintainability of-Held, not maintainable-More so since 
disputed questions of fact were involved-Writ petitioner may however resort C 
to any other remedy as available in law. 
Respondent No. I entered into a contract to lift unserviceable 
mach,ineries/equipments and other scrap materials belonging to appellant-
State Corporation. But a dispute arose with regard to the value of the articles 
lifted. Consequently Respondent No.I filed writ petition alleging breach of D 
contract on the part of the appellant-State Corporation. The High Court 
observed that disputed questions of fact were involved which cannot be 
adjudicated in a writ petition, yet allowed the petition virtually on the basis of 
the assertions of Respondent No.I. The Court held that though the appellant-
corporation pleaded that articles worth nearly Rupees 14.90 lakhs were lifted, E 
there was no specific indication of the items and on.that basis held that when 
Respondent No. I claimed that he had taken goods worth Rupees 3,75,300 
and had deposited a sum of Rupees 11 lakhs with the appellant-corporation, 
latter was to pay back a sum of Rupees 8.S lakhs to Respondent No. I. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The judgment of High Court is clearly unsustainable and is 
F 
set aside. A bare perusal of the High Court's judgment shows that there was 
clear non-application of mind. On one hand the High Court observed that the 
disputed questions cannot be gone- into in its writ jurisdiction. It was also G 
noticed that essence of dispute was breach of contract. After coming to the 
above conclusions the High Court should have dismissed the writ petition. 
Surprisingly, the High Court proceeded to examine the case solely on the 
assertion of Respondent No. I-writ petitioner and on a very curious reasoning 
that though the appellant-corporation claimed that the value of articles lifted 
55 
If 
56 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
I 
" 
A was nearly Rupees 14.90 lakhs no details were specifically given. From the 
counter-affidavit filed before the High Court by the appellant-corporation it 
is crystal clear that relevant details disputing claim of the writ petitioner were 
given. (60-G-H; 61-A; 62-C) 
1.2. Value of articles lifted by the writ petitioner is a disputed factual 
B . question. Where a complicated question of fact is Involved and the matter 
requires thorough proof on factual aspects, the High Court should not 
entertain the writ petition. Whether or not the High Court should exercise 
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would largely depend upon 
the nature of dispute and if the dispute cannot be resolved without going into 
, 
c the factual controversy, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition. 
(61-B-C) 
1.3. In the present case, the writ petition was primarily founded on 
allegation of breach of contract Question whether the action of the opposite 
party in the writ petition amounted to breach of contractual obligation 
D . ultimately depends on facts and would require material evidence to be 
scrutinized and in such a case writ jurisdiction should not be exercised. 
(61-C) 
State ofBiharv. Jain Plastic & Chemicals ltd, (200211SCC216, relied 
on. 
E 
1.4. Where disput~ revolves round questions of fact, the mittter ought 
not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution. (61-D) 
State Bank of India and Ors . . v. State Bank of India Canteen Employees' 
Union and Ors., (19981 5 SCC 74 and Chairman, .Grid Corporation of Orissa 
.. 
F Ltd (GRIDCO) and Ors. v. Sukamani Das (Smt.) and Anr., (1999) 7 SCC 298. 
relied on. 
1.5. In the Instant case the High Court has itself observed that disputed 
questions of fact were involved and yet went on to give directions as if it was 
adjudicating the money claim in a suit The course is clearly impermissible. 
G 
(61-EI 
General Manager Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills ltd., Sultanpur U.P. v. 
Satrughan Nishad and Ors., (20031 8 SCC 639; Rourke/a Shramik Sangh v. 
Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 317; National Highways 
Authority of India v. Ganga Enterprises and Anr., (2003) 7 SCC 410; Har 
H Shankar and Ors. et

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.