Tuesday, 19, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

M/S Trading Engineers vs Central Public Works Department
2022 Latest Caselaw 1368 MP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1368 MP
Judgement Date : 31 January, 2022

Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Trading Engineers vs Central Public Works Department on 31 January, 2022
Author: Chief Justice
                                                       1
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
                                                  CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                        &
                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
                                             ON THE 31st OF JANUARY, 2022

                                         WRIT PETITION No. 1991 of 2022

                               Between:-
                               M/S TRADING ENGINEERS, BUNGLOW NO-46,
                               OPPOSITE CANTONMENT BOARD, JHANSI,
                               ( U . P . ) THROUGH      ITS AUTHORISED
                               SIGNATORY SHRI SAURABH AGARWAL S/O
                               SHRI SATISH SHARAN AGARWAL, R/O
                               BUNGLOW NO-46, OPPOSITE CANTONMENT
                               BOARD, JHANSI, (U.P.) 284001

                                                                                  .....PETITIONER
                               (BY SHRI ISHAN SONI, ADVOCATE )

                               AND

                      1.       CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
                               THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, JABALPUR
                               CENTRAL DIVISION, CPWD, SURVEY OF
                               INDIA COLONY, TYPE IV, QTR NO-3 AND 4,
                               NEAR KACHNAR CITY, VIJAY NAGAR,
                               JABALPUR (M.P.)

                      2.       INDRA     GANDHI    NATIONAL TRIBAL
                               UN IVER S ITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,
                               AMARKANTAK DISTRICT ANUPPUR M.P.

                                                                                .....RESPONDENTS
                               (BY SHRI J.K. JAIN, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL AND
                               SHRI SANDEEP KUMAR SHUKLA, ADVOCATE )
                                           (Heard through Video Conferencing)
                             This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
                      Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice passed the following:
                                                        ORDER

The case of the petitioner is that he was awarded a tender for construction of pharmacy building for respondent No.2. The work is completed and final bills have also been submitted. In spite of the same, the payments have not been made. Hence, the instant writ petition seeking recovery of about Rs.4.5 crores from the respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of submitting Signature SAN Not Verified

Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL Date: 2022.02.01 19:27:26 IST

the bills, the payments have not been made. He relies on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 291, vide para 12 to contend that a writ petition is maintainable even in contractual matters.

However, on hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this matter. The question is not one of maintainability. Certainly a writ petition is

maintainable. It is whether the court would like to exercise discretion in the given facts of this case. On considering the contentions, we are of the view that this court cannot act as a recovery agent for the petitioner in order to recover the amount. The recovery of amounts are governed by contract. Therefore, it is more appropriate that he invokes his right under the contract. A writ court cannot be converted into a court for recovery of money for the petitioner. Hence, we decline to interfere.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.




                           (RAVI MALIMATH)                    (PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
                             CHIEF JUSTICE                               JUDGE
                      pp




Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
PUSHPENDRA
PATEL
Date: 2022.02.01
19:27:26 IST
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter