1 CGHC010315812026 2026:CGHC:37018-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4302 of 2026 Mdd Medical System India Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Authorised Representative Being Rakesh Singh Having Registered Office At Santram Complex, Block L- 3, Mahilapur Extension, New Delhi And Corporate Office At Plot No. 125, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1, Gurgaon ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Hindustan Prefab Limited Jangupra, New Delhi – 110014 2 - Union Of India Through The Secretary Ministry Of Housing And Urban Affairs Nirman Bhawan, Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat, New Delhi 110001 ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Cause Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Smt. Krishna Saroff, Advocate (through virtual mode), and Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2. : Mr. Rishabh Deo Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19/08/2026 1. Heard Smt. Krishna Saroff, Advocate (through virtual mode) and Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Rishabh Deo Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.08.20 11:55:18 +0530 2 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seek for the following relief(s): “10.1 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of mandamus, directing Respondent No. 1 to forthwith release and pay to the Petitioner the admitted, crystallized and undisputed outstanding amount of Rs. 27,29,083/- as duly acknowledged and arising out of the concluded contract; 10.2 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 1 to pay interest on the aforesaid amount at the contractual rate of 7.5% per annum with annual compounding, or in the alternative at such rate as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, from the date the amount became due and payable till the date of actual realisation; 10.3 Further direct that the Petitioner shall be entitled to interest till the date of actual payment/realisation, and any delay beyond the period fixed by this Hon'ble Court shall carry further interest at an enhanced rate, so as to ensure full restitution and prevent unjust enrichment of Respondent No. 1; 10.4 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to act in a fair, reasonable, and non-arbitrary manner in discharge of their public law obligations and restraining them from withholding admitted and undisputed contractual dues of the Petitioner; 10.5 Pass an interim order, pending disposal of the present petition, directing Respondent No. 1 to forthwith deposit the admitted amount of Rs. 27,29,083/- before this Hon'ble Court or, in the 3 alternative, directly release the said amount to the Petitioner within time-bound period. 10.6 Award costs of the present proceedings in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents; and 10.7 Grant any other relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including costs of the petition.” 3. The brief facts of the case that the petitioner, MDD Medical Systems India Private Limited, is engaged in the business of supply, installation, testing and commissioning of specialised medical equipment and systems. Respondent No.1 issued NIT dated 31.03.2018 for supply, installation, testing and commissioning of a Medical Gas Pipeline System and equipments for the 100-bedded ESIC Hospital at Raipur, Chhattisgarh, pursuant to which the petitioner was declared the successful bidder and awarded the work vide Work Order dated 05.05.2018 for Rs.1,25,14,900/-, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.2,09,68,712/- on account of approved deviated and extra items. The petitioner duly completed the work on 30.03.2019 and raised the requisite RA/final bills; however, an amount of Rs.27,29,083/- remained outstanding despite repeated requests and representations. Clause 9 of the General Rules and Directions forming part of the tender conditions provides for payment of the final bill within the prescribed period and further stipulates payment of interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, compounded annually, in case of delayed payment. Although Respondent No.1 sought certain documents in connection with a GST communication, the petitioner duly furnished the requisite documents on 13.02.2025. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 itself issued a Performance/Completion Certificate dated 24.03.2026, certifying satisfactory completion of the work by the petitioner, yet failed to 4 release the admitted outstanding dues. The petitioner had earlier approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by filing W.P.(C) No.7793/2026, which, vide order dated 29.05.2026, granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional forum. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to Respondent No.1 to release the admitted amount of Rs.27,29,083/- along with contractual interest at the stipulated rate till the date of actual realization. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed seeking release of the admitted and undisputed outstanding amount of Rs.27,29,083/- payable by Respondent No.1 towards the work duly executed and completed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has fully performed its contractual obligations and the same has been duly acknowledged by Respondent No.1 by issuing the Performance/Completion Certificate dated 24.03.2026, certifying satisfactory completion of the work. Despite such categorical acknowledgment, Respondent No.1 has failed to release the outstanding dues, which is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that the contractual conditions specifically provide for payment of interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, compounded annually, in the event of delayed payment of the final bill. It is further submitted that the existence of a contractual relationship or availability of an alternative remedy does not constitute an absolute bar to exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly when the claim is admitted and undisputed and the action of a State instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable. Learned counsel submits that in the present case there is no disputed question of fact requiring elaborate adjudication, as the petitioner's entitlement is evident from 5 the contractual records, bills, correspondence and the Performance/Completion Certificate issued by Respondent No.1 itself. It is therefore submitted that Respondent No.1 cannot unjustifiably withhold the admitted dues after accepting and certifying satisfactory completion of the work. Learned counsel accordingly prays that Respondent No.1 be directed to forthwith release the admitted outstanding amount of Rs.27,29,083/-, along with contractual interest at the stipulated rate from the date the amount became due till the date of actual realization. 5. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the entire claim of the petitioner relates to the alleged non-payment of contractual dues by Respondent No.1, Hindustan Prefab Limited. It is submitted that Respondent No.2 has neither entered into any contract with the petitioner nor issued the Work Order in its favour and, therefore, no liability can be fastened upon Respondent No.2 for payment of the amount claimed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the dispute, if any, is purely contractual in nature and arises out of the terms and conditions of the contract between the petitioner and Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 has no role in processing or releasing the petitioner's bills or in determining the amount payable under the said contract. It is therefore submitted that no specific cause of action has been disclosed against Respondent No.2 and no relief is liable to be granted against it. Learned counsel accordingly submits that the writ petition, insofar as Respondent No.2 is concerned, deserves to be dismissed and Respondent No.2 may kindly be deleted from the array of parties. 6. We have learned counsel for the parties, perused the material annexed with the petition. 6 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Motors Limited v The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (Best) and Others passed in Civil Appeal No. 3897 of 2023 vide judgment dated 19.05.2023 held as follows : “48. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is duty-bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. However, this Court has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. This Court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out. One must remember that today many public sector undertakings compete with the private industry. The contracts entered into between private parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior courts but this discretionary power must be exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution. The courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving technical issues the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in Judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. The courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give “fair play in the joints” to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer. (See: Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489). 52. Ordinarily, a writ court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer unless something very gross or palpable is pointed out. The court ordinarily should not interfere in matters relating to tender or contract. To set at naught the entire tender process at the stage when the contract is well 7 underway, would not be in public interest. Initiating a fresh tender process at this stage may consume lot of time and also loss to the public exchequer to the tune of crores of rupees. The financial burden/implications on the public exchequer that the State may have to meet with if the Court directs issue of a fresh tender notice, should be one of the guiding factors that the Court should keep in mind. This is evident from a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 679. 53. The law relating to award of contract by the State and public sector corporations was reviewed in Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617 and it was held that the award of a contract, whether by a private party or by a State, is essentially a commercial transaction. It can choose its own method to arrive at a decision and it is free to grant any relaxation for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It was further held that the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process, the court must exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should interfere. 54. As observed by this Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and Others, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517, that while invoking power of judicial review in matters as to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind that evaluations of tenders and awarding of contracts are essentially commercial functions and principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance in such matters. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not interfere by exercising powers of judicial review even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. Power of judicial review will not be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes.” 8 8. It is trite law that writ jurisdiction is not intended to supplant ordinary civil remedies, particularly in matters involving contractual disputes requiring adjudication of complex and disputed questions of fact. In "State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd.", 2002 (1) SCC 216, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the claim arises out of breach of contract and involves disputed facts, the appropriate remedy lies in a civil suit and not in a writ petition. In paragraph 7, it has been observed that:- “7. In the present case many matters could be decided after referring to the contentions raised in the affidavits and counter-affidavits, but that would hardly be a ground for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in case of alleged breach of contract. Whether the alleged non-supply of road permits by the appellants would justify breach of contract by the respondent would depend upon facts and evidence and is not required to be decided or dealt with in a writ petition. Such seriously disputed questions or rival claims of the parties with regard to breach of contract are to be investigated and determined on the basis of evidence which may be led by the parties in a properly instituted civil suit rather than by a court exercising prerogative of issuing writs.” 9. Though in "ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.", 2004 (3) SCC 553, the Hon'ble Apex Court recognized that a writ petition may be maintainable in contractual matters in limited circumstances, it was clearly observed that such jurisdiction is to be exercised where the facts are undisputed or where the State action is patently arbitrary, unreasonable, or in violation of Article 14. The present case does not fall within such an exception, as the very substratum of the petitioner's claim is contested. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India", 2015 (7) SCC 728, where adjudication involves serious factual controversies necessitating evidence, the writ court should 9 decline to exercise jurisdiction and relegate the parties to appropriate forums. In paragraphs 69 and 70, the legal position has been summarised that:- “69. The position thus summarised in the aforesaid principles has to be understood in the context of discussion that preceded which we have pointed out above. As per this, no doubt, there is no absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition even in contractual matters or where there are disputed questions of fact or even when monetary claim is raised. At the same time, discretion lies with the High Court which under certain circumstances, it can refuse to exercise. It also follows that under the following circumstances, "normally", the Court would not exercise such a discretion: 69.1. The Court may not examine the issue unless the action has some public law character attached to it. 69.2. Whenever a particular mode of settlement of dispute is provided in the contract, the High Court would refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and relegate the party to the said mode of settlement, particularly when settlement of disputes is to be resorted to through the means of arbitration. 69.3. If there are very serious disputed questions of fact which are of complex nature and require oral evidence for their determination. 69.4. Money claims per se particularly arising out of contractual obligations are normally not to be entertained except in exceptional circumstances. 70. Further, the legal position which emerges from various Judgments of this Court dealing with different situations/aspects relating to contracts entered into by the State/public authority with private parties, can be summarised as under: 70.1. At the stage of entering into a contract, the State acts purely in its executive capacity and is bound by the obligations of fairness. 70.2. State in its executive capacity, even in the contractual field, is under obligation to act fairly and cannot practise some discriminations. 70.3. Even in cases where question is of choice or consideration of competing claims before entering into the 10 field of contract, facts have to be investigated and found before the question of a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution could arise. If those facts are disputed and require assessment of evidence the correctness of which can only be tested satisfactorily by taking detailed evidence, involving examination and cross-examination of witnesses, the case could not be conveniently or satisfactorily decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In such cases the Court can direct the aggrieved party to resort to alternate remedy of civil suit, etc. 70.4. Writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was not intended to facilitate avoidance of obligation voluntarily incurred. 70.5. Writ petition was not maintainable to avoid contractual obligation. Occurrence of commercial difficulty, inconvenience or hardship in performance of the conditions agreed to in the contract can provide no justification in not complying with the terms of contract which the parties had accepted with open eyes. It cannot ever be that a licensee can work out the licence if he finds it profitable to do so: and he can challenge the conditions under which he agreed to take the licence, if he finds it commercially inexpedient to conduct his business. 70.6. Ordinarily, where a breach of contract is complained of, the party complaining of such breach may sue for specific performance of the contract, if contract is capable of being specifically performed. Otherwise, the party may sue for damages. 70.7. Writ can be issued where there is executive action unsupported by law or even in respect of a corporation there is denial of equality before law or equal protection of law or if it can be shown that action of the public authorities was without giving any hearing and violation of principles of natural justice after holding that action could not have been taken without observing principles of natural justice. 70.8. If the and the contract between private party State/instrumentality and/or agency of the State is under the realm of a private law and there is no element of public law, the normal course for the aggrieved party, is to invoke the remedies provided under ordinary civil law rather than approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction. 70.9. The distinction between public law and private law 11 element in the contract with the State is getting blurred. However, it has not been totally obliterated and where the matter falls purely in private field of contract, this Court has maintained the position that writ petition is not maintainable. The dichotomy between public law and private law rights and remedies would depend on the factual matrix of each case and the distinction between the public law remedies and private law field, cannot be demarcated with precision. In fact, each case has to be examined, on its facts whether the contractual relations between the parties bear insignia of public element. Once on the facts of a particular case it is found that nature of the activity or controversy involves public law element, then the matter can be examined by the High Court in writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to see whether action of the State and/or instrumentality or agency of the State is fair, just and equitable or that relevant factors are taken into consideration and irrelevant factors have not gone into the decision-making process or that the decision is not arbitrary. 70.10. Mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirements of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness. 70.11. The scope of judicial review in respect of disputes falling within the domain of contractual obligations may be more limited and in doubtful cases the parties may be relegated to adjudication of their rights by resort to remedies provided for adjudication of purely contractual disputes.” 11. The claim of the petitioner arises out of a concluded contractual relationship with Respondent No.1 and essentially seeks recovery of Rs.27,29,083/- along with interest. Though the existence of a contractual relationship does not constitute an absolute bar to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, such jurisdiction is discretionary and is ordinarily not exercised for adjudication of purely contractual and monetary disputes. In Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 728, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that money 12 claims arising out of contractual obligations are normally not to be entertained in writ jurisdiction except in exceptional circumstances, particularly where the dispute falls within the private law field and involves no public law element. Likewise, in State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd., (2002) 1 SCC 216, it has been held that contractual disputes involving disputed questions of fact are more appropriately adjudicated before the competent civil forum. 12. In the present case, the petitioner seeks a positive direction for payment of a particular amount along with contractual interest. The precise liability of Respondent No.1, the effect of the running account/final bills, the amount already paid, the contractual conditions governing final payment and the date from which interest, if any, would become payable are matters which arise from the contractual records and require appropriate adjudication. The Performance/Completion Certificate dated 24.03.2026, relied upon by the Petitioner, may establish satisfactory completion of the work, but by itself cannot be treated as an unconditional admission of the precise monetary liability claimed. Though in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a contractual or monetary claim is not per se barred under Article 226, the exercise of such jurisdiction remains discretionary. Further, in Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 671, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that courts should exercise considerable restraint in contractual and commercial matters. In the facts of the present case, no exceptional circumstance or independent public law element warranting interference under Article 226 has been established. 13 13. We also take note of the fact that the petitioner had earlier approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.7793/2026, wherein, vide order dated 29.05.2026, liberty was granted to the Petitioner to approach the jurisdictional forum. The said order does not adjudicate the petitioner's entitlement to the amount claimed. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the present petition, being essentially a claim for recovery of contractual dues, does not warrant exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 14. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the Petitioner to avail such other remedy as may be available to it under law for adjudication and recovery of its claim, including the claim for interest. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim. 15. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok