AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Leave granted.
The petitioner made a claim for refund of a sum of eighty-three and odd lakhs of rupees together with interest at the rate of 21% p.a. payable by the Doordarshan. The writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi by entering into the merits of the rival contentions. In our view the High Court ought not have entered upon findings on the contentious issues in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. Instead the parties should have been directed to a Civil Court so that the hotly disputed issues could have been resolved in a civil litigation. The claim made is basically one arising from contractual obligations. Time and again this Court has said that such disputes should not be resolved through the summary proceedings conducted under Article 226 of the Constitution. We, therefore, vacate all such findings made against the appellant in the impugned judgment.
At the same time we do not wish to enter into the controversy as the SLP arose from a writ petition filed under Article 226. We dispose of this appeal without prejudice to the right of the appellant for filing a civil suit and obtaining a decree for the money claimed by him, if the same can be established in law.
Mr. P. Chidambaram, Id. Senior counsel submitted that the respondent is likely to raise the question of limitation if any civil suit is filed and in which case they are entitled to resort to Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The appellant can then raise the plea based on Section 14 of the Limitation Act. If any resistance is offered by the respondent to such plea we leave it to the civil court to decide that issue also.
With these observations this appeal is disposed of.