- (1.) The only point that arises in this appeal is whether the division bench of the High court of Karnataka was justified in allowing the Writ Appeal filed by the respondent against the judgment of the learned single Judge of that High court, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was dismissed on the ground that it was not a proper remedy as the dispute between the parties pertained to correct interpretation of the terms of the contract and the claim was for money.
(2.) The appellant-corporation had entered into a contract with the respondent for supply of coal @ Rs. 2,691. 00 per m. T. inclusive of applicable taxes, dues, levies etc. Pursuant to that contract coal was supplied by the respondent to the appellant and the appellant had also paid the price. Thereafter, a second order was placed for supply of another 30,000. 00 M. T. of coal on the same terms and conditions. The coal was supplied and payment was also made. Thereafter, the third order was placed again for 30,000. 00 M. T. coal. The respondent supplied coal and preferred bills for the amounts payable to it. The balance due as per the last invoice was Rs. 2,20,17,988. 00. While making payment the appellant deducted Rs. 1,13,99,535. 00 on the ground that the said amount was paid in excess in respect of all the three orders. This deduction came to be challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition in the High court.
(3.) The learned Single Judge of the High court was of the view that as the dispute between the parties arises out of the contract entered into between them and the dispute involves interpretation of the terms of that contract it could be properly resolved only after taking into consideration the correspondence between the parties and other evidence that may be adduced by them. He therefore, held that filing of a suit was the proper remedy. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. The Division bench took the view that no disputed questions of facts were involved in the present case because full payment was made under the previous two orders and no objection was raised regarding inclusion of 4 per cent central Sales Tax and therefore it was not open to the appellant to raise that dispute and deduct the amount. The division bench also held that the respondent was not seeking enforcement of any right flowing from the contract but was only asking for a direction to the appellant to release the amount due in respect of coal already supplied. It also held that the balance amount was payable under admitted terms of contract and therefore, the said amount was unjustly withheld. It allowed the appeal and directed the appellant to release Rs. 1,13,19,535. 00 with the interest at 12 per cent till the date of the payment.;