Supreme Court Bars Writ Petitions for Money Recovery if Civil Remedy Already Pursued
Arvind Sehdev
Passionate Advocate | Partner at a prestigious law firm | G20 YEA Delegate | Council member - CII Chandigarh | Past Chair Yi Chandigarh (2024) |
The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Director of Agriculture vs. State of Punjab, gave a judgment on August 19, 2021, in relation to the recovery of money due under a bill or invoice. The issue before the Court was whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be initiated for the recovery of money due under a bill or invoice.
Summary of the Judgment
The Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 could not be entertained for the recovery of money due under a bill or invoice. The Court relied on the principle of separation of powers and held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 was not intended to replace the remedies available under the law for recovery of money. The Court further held that the remedy of recovery of money was available under the law, and the parties must resort to the available legal remedies. The Court observed that the powers under Article 226 were extraordinary in nature, and they should not be used to circumvent the available legal remedies.
An Analysis of the Supreme Court's Judgment
The Supreme Court's recent judgment in Director of Agriculture vs. State of Punjab has clarified the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in cases involving the recovery of money due under a bill or invoice.
Background
The issue before the Court was whether a writ petition under Article 226 could be entertained for the recovery of money due under a bill or invoice. The Court answered this question in the negative and held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 was not intended to replace the remedies available under the law for recovery of money.
The Court's Rationale
The Court relied on the principle of separation of powers and observed that the remedy of recovery of money was available under the law, and the parties must resort to the available legal remedies. The Court emphasized that the powers under Article 226 were extraordinary in nature, and they should not be used to circumvent the available legal remedies.
领英推荐
Significance of the Judgment
The Court's judgment is significant as it clarifies that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used as a substitute for the remedies available under the law for the recovery of money. It reinforces the principle of separation of powers and emphasizes the importance of respecting the role of the legislature and the judiciary in the recovery of money due under a bill or invoice.
The judgment also highlights the need for parties to be aware of the available legal remedies for the recovery of money. The Court's observation that the powers under Article 226 are extraordinary in nature emphasizes the need for parties to use the available legal remedies before resorting to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment in Director of Agriculture vs. State of Punjab is a significant development in the jurisprudence of the recovery of money due under a bill or invoice. It clarifies the scope of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and reinforces the principle of separation of powers. It also highlights the need for parties to be aware of the available legal remedies for the recovery of money and to use them before resorting to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
The Supreme Court's judgment comes in the backdrop of a longstanding ambiguity over the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the recovery of money due under a bill or invoice. The judgment lays down an important principle regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and reinforces the importance of respecting the role of the legislature and the judiciary in the recovery of money due under a bill or invoice.
In light of this judgment, it is essential for parties to be aware of the available legal remedies for the recovery of money due under a bill or invoice, and to use them before resorting to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court's observation that the powers under Article 226 are extraordinary in nature emphasizes the need for parties to exhaust the available legal remedies before approaching the writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Overall, the Supreme Court's judgment in Director of Agriculture vs. State of Punjab is a significant development in the jurisprudence of the recovery of money due under a bill or invoice in India. It reinforces the importance of the separation of powers and the need for parties to be aware of the available legal remedies for the recovery of money.
For more information on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Director of Agriculture vs. State of Punjab, please refer to the following articles: