PETITIONER: CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: V.N.ENTERPRISES DATE OF JUDGMENT17/08/1995 BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J) CITATION: 1995 SCALE (5)1 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
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.
