STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. versus JAIN PLASTICS AND CHEMICALS LTD.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 313 · Decided: 21-11-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
v. 
JAIN PLASTICS AND CHEMICALS LTD. 
NOVEMBER 21, 2001 
[M.B. SHAH AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226--Contract-Breach of-Writ 
petition for enforcing a contractual obligation-Held, writ is not the proper 
proceeding for adjudicating contractual obligations-Proper remedy is adju-
dication of dispute on the basis ~f evidence by .filing a civil suit. 
Appellants and respondent-company entered into a contract for snp-
ply of PVC pipes and fittings, There was certain delay on the part of the 
respondent-company to snpply the fittings. Conseqnently, appellants ter-
minated the contract and pnrchased the fittings at a higher price. Thereaf-
ter, while making the final payment to the respondent, the appellants 
dedncted the extra money incurred by them for purchase of the fittings. 
Respondent-company filed a writ petition challenging the deduction con-
tending that the non-supply of materials was due to failure or refusal on 
the part of the appellants to supply the road permits and thus, they cannot 
be faulted for such a non-supply. Appellants raised an objection that the 
respondent committed breach of contract and the court should not exer-
cise its jurisdiction in such cases. Single Judge of High Court rejected the 
objection observing that there was no difficulty to decide the dispute on the 
basis of affidavit without any evidence of a civil suit. Thus, High Court 
allowed the writ petition. Appellants' Letters Patent Appeal was also 
dismissed by High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
The issue involved in the present appeal was whether High Court 
should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for 
granting relief in case of alleged breach of contract. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Writ petition under Article 226 is not the proper pro· 
ceeding for adjudicating contractnal obligations. Under the law, it was 
open to the respondent to approach the conrt of competent jurisdiction for 
appropriate relief for breach of contract. When an alternative and equally 
313 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
314 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
efficacious remedy is open to the litigant, he should be required to pursue 
that remedy and not invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Equally, 
the existence of alternative remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the 
Court to issue writ, but ordinarily that would be a good ground in refusing 
to exercise the discretion under Article 226. (314-H; 31S·A·B] 
2.1. It is true that many matters could be decided after referring to 
the contentions raised in the affidavits and counter-affidavits, but that 
would hardly be ground for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under 
Article 226 of the Constitution in case of alleged breach of contract.[316-C] 
2.2. In the instant case, the question whether the alleged non-supply 
of road permits by the appellants would justify breach of contract by the 
respondent would depend upon facts and evidence and is not required to 
be decided or dealt with in a writ petition. Such seriously disputed ques-
tions or rival claims of the parties with regard to breach of contract are to 
be investigated and determined on the basis of evidence which may be led 
by the parties in a properly instituted civil suit rather than by a court 
exercising prerogative of issuing writs. Thus, the order passed by the High 
Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is 
on the face of it illegal and erroneous. (316-C-EJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7932 of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.1.2001 of the Patna High Court 
in L.P.A. No. 945 of 2000. 
Kumar Rajesh Singh and B.B. Singh for the Appellant. 
F 
Shri Narain, Sandeep Narain and Ms. Anjali for Mis. S. Narain & Co. 
G 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHAH, J. Leave granted. 
Limited question involved in this appeal is-whether the High Court 
ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitu-
tion of India for granting reliefin case of alleged breach of contract. 
Settled law-writ is not the remedy for enforcing contractual obliga-
H 
tions. It is to be reiterated that writ petition under Article 226 is not the proper 
STATE v. JAIN PLASTICS &CHEMICALS LTD. [SHAH, J.] 
315 
proceeding for adjudicating such disputes. Under the law, it was open to the 
respondent to approach t

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