Topic
Meghalaya High Court rules that withholding undisputed contractual payments violates natural justice, directing release of Rs. 17.79 lakhs while disputed Rs. 7.89 lakhs undergoes independent assessment. The ruling sets a precedent for equitable relief in public works contracts, ensuring contractors receive undisputed dues without procedural delays.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that when factual disputes exist over limitation periods in arbitration referrals, the issue must be adjudicated by the arbitral tribunal, not the court during Section 11 appointment proceedings. This clarifies the limited scope of judicial review at the arbitrator appointment stage, reinforcing tribunal autonomy in contested factual matters.
MP High Court reaffirms that writ petitions under Article 226 cannot resolve disputed factual questions requiring witness examination or evidence. Parties must approach civil courts for adjudication, reinforcing the limited scope of writ jurisdiction in factual disputes.
The Calcutta High Court has clarified that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to enforce payment for public works when core facts - such as the validity of the work order or existence of prior administrative sanction - are genuinely disputed and require evidentiary inquiry. This reinforces that contractual disputes with factual complexity must be resolved through civil suits, not constitutional remedies, safeguarding judicial efficiency and procedural fairness in public contract disputes.