In the case of Municipal Committee Katra & Ors. v. Ashwani Kumar, the Supreme Court addressed the dispute arising from a contractual obligation between the parties. The appellant, Municipal Committee Katra, issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for the supply of mules and laborers for pilgrim transportation. Ashwani Kumar, the respondent, became the highest bidder after the original bidder failed to execute the contract. However, Kumar challenged the terms of the NIT, particularly Clause-8, which required the deposit of post-dated cheques and a bank guarantee for the bid amount.
Kumar’s challenge led to delays in issuing the work order. Despite participating in the tender process, he filed a civil suit questioning the legality of Clause-8. The trial court granted him a temporary injunction, and the High Court directed the issuance of a work order. However, Kumar’s contract period commenced later than anticipated, resulting in a claim for damages for the shortened contract period.
The High Court, in its judgment, awarded damages to Kumar based on the principle of equitable relief. It quantified the damages as the net revenue collected by the appellant during the first 32 days of the contract period. The High Court reasoned that the appellant should not profit from Kumar’s inability to work during this period.
The Supreme Court, however, overturned the High Court’s decision. It emphasized the principle of “nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria,” stating that no one should benefit from their own wrong. The Court held that Kumar’s participation in the tender process without contesting Clause-8 estopped him from later challenging its validity.
The Court further noted that disputes arising from purely contractual obligations should be adjudicated in civil courts, not through writ petitions seeking extraordinary relief. It cited precedent to support the view that contractual disputes involving factual questions are better suited for civil adjudication.
Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s judgments as illegal and without jurisdiction, allowing the appeals filed by the Municipal Committee Katra and its officials. The Court’s decision highlights the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and seeking appropriate legal remedies for disputes arising from them.
