Chief
General Manager, Telecom & Ors Vs. V.N.Enterprises [1995] INSC 404 (17
August 1995)
Punchhi,
M.M. Punchhi, M.M. Manohar Sujata V. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCALE (5)1
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Leave
granted.
The
respondent herein on supply of goods to the appellants raised bills which were
partly cleared. Since the balance was substantial and the appellants a
statutory authority and its representatives, the respondent moved the High
Court of Orissa in a writ Petition for a direction so as to recover the balance
outstanding. The High Court on entertainment of the Writ Petition came to grips
of the matter inclusive of the objection by the appellants that a civil suit
was the appropriate remedy. Overruling the objection, the High Court was moved
by the fact that the writ petitioner before it, i.e.,the respondent herein, had
undeniably supplied the goods at the rate quoted by it and that the appellants
had after taking delivery utilised the said goods, which factum was not
disputed. It took the view that when the facts were admitted, there was no
justifiable reason on the part of the appellants not to pay the amount due to
the respondent when it had supplied the goods to the appellants. It is, in
these circumstances, that the High Court ordered payment of the quoted price of
goods supplied, allowing the writ petition. That view of the High Court has
been put to challenge here.
We do
not wish either to comment on the step taken or the view arrived at by the High
Court in these proceedings since we find that before the High Court the
appellants in their counter had pleaded that since they had been put to a loss
of Rs.43,16,400/- due to high quotations they had a right to withhold that
amount for being paid-over to the respondent. On the other hand, in the pleadings
of the respondent herein, before the High Court, as also here, claim is laid
that a sum of Rs.66,09,669.36 was outstanding and had been wrongly withheld. Interwining
these two claims, it would become apparent that a sum of about Rs. 23 lacs on
the parties' own showing is not disputed to be due to the respondent towards
its claims. For this reason, we explain away the orders of the High Court by
ordering that the appellants shall pay without prejudice a sum of Rs.23 lacs to
the respondent towards part clearance of the outstanding bills and sequally the
orders of the High Court shall be meant to confine to the payment of Rs.23 lacs,
which is more or less not disputed, as payable. Regarding the balance claim of
respondent, since it is disputed, it would have to move the civil court
claiming it in a regular suit.
Necessarily
accounting will be resorted to in that suit and the sums of moneys already paid
to the respondent inclusive of the sum of Rs.23 lacs, as ordered to be paid
today, would have to be reckoned in finalizing the accounts. We, thus, modifyingly
clarify the High Court's orders confining it to ordering the above payment of
Rs.23 lacs leaving all questions open inclusive of the claim to interest on all
payments made delayedly to be settled before the civil court. The appeal would
stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Back