NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

Municipal Committee Katra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 398) - (Supreme Court) (09 May 2024)

Disputes arising out of purely contractual obligations cannot be entertained by High Court in exercise of the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction

MANU/SC/0408/2024

Commercial

The brief controversy presented for adjudication in present appeals is whether the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, was entitled to entertain a dispute which was purely civil in nature filed for claiming monetary relief/damages arising from fallout of contractual obligations.

No one can be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of his own wrong to gain favourable interpretation of law. It is a sound principle that he who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the non-performance he has occasioned. To put it differently, 'a wrong doer ought not to be permitted to make profit out of his own wrong'. The conduct of the Respondent-writ Petitioner is fully covered by the aforesaid proposition.

Once the Respondent-writ Petitioner had participated in the tender process being fully conscious of the terms and conditions of the auction notice, he was estopped from taking a U-turn so as to question the legality or validity of the terms and conditions of the auction notice. By dragging the matter to litigation, the Respondent himself was responsible for the delay occasioned in issuance of the work order which deprived him of the opportunity to work for the entire period of 365 days.

Furthermore, the relief which was sought by the Respondent in the writ petition was purely by way of damages. By no stretch of imagination, such relief could have been subject matter of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The quantification of the damages would require entering into disputed questions of facts and hence, the High Court ought to have relegated the writ Petitioner (Respondent herein) to the competent Court for claiming damages, if so advised.

Law is well settled that disputes arising out of purely contractual obligations cannot be entertained by the High Court in exercise of the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The impugned judgments are quashed and set aside. Appeals allowed.

Tags : WRIT JURISDICTION   DISPUTE   CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved