Hence, the appellants cannot realise or deduct the extra money which they had to spend over purchase of the same.
Finally, appellants terminated the companytract on 10.12.1996 and purchased the fittings at a higher price.
That writ petition was allowed despite the objection raised by the appellants that respondent companymitted breach of companytract and the Court should number exercise its writ jurisdiction in such cases.
The short facts are that the tender of respondent Company having its registered office at Jalgaon, Maharashtra for supply of PVC Pipes and fittings at Patna and Hazipur was accepted and an agreement was executed on 22.2.1994.
As per the say of the appellants, respondent Company delayed the supplies.
P.A. No.945 of 2000 was also dismissed by the High Court by its judgment and order dated 11.1.2001.
By letter dated 2.4.1994, supply of PVC pipes and fittings was suspended in respect of certain fittings.
With regard to the adjudication of tangled question of facts in writ jurisdiction, the learned Single Judge observed This Court has number in the present case felt any difficulty in deciding the question of facts on the basis of affidavit evidence, and I have number felt the necessity of evidence of a civil suit in deciding the question of facts which is needed for disposal of the present writ petition.Equally, the existence of alternative remedy does number affect the jurisdiction of the Court to issue writ, but ordinarily that would be a good ground in refusing to exercise the discretion under Article 226.
Respondent preferred the writ petition before the High Court.
It was companytended by the respondent Company that the authorities have wrongfully refused to return requisite road permits and other relevant papers and, therefore, it companyld number supply the PVC fittings within stipulated time.
It is settled law that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to the litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and number invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Despite the settled law, respondent filed CWJC No.3968 of 1997 before the High Court of Patna challenging the decision taken by the appellants to deduct a sum of Rs.15.24 lacs for the loss suffered, from the bills of respondent Company while making the full and final payment.
Thereafter, while paying the final bill to the respondent, the difference of amount which was required to be incurred by the appellants was deducted.
Under the law, it was open to the respondent to approach the Court of companypetent jurisdiction for appropriate relief for breach of companytract.
Estimated value for supplies was Rs.5,81,92,584.84 p. and Rs.7,37,27,421.96 p. at Patna and Hazipur respectively.
Shah, J. Leave granted.
However, for immediate use, some pipes were ordered to be supplied.
On record, it appears that parties exchanged companyrespondence for a long period.
Hence this appeal.
