RANCHI, India, April 18 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on March 17:

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the parties agree that these writ petitions can be disposed of by a common order. They point out that the material facts in all these writ petitions are substantially same, though the actual quantities or amounts involved may differ. Accordingly, we propose to dispose of these writ petitions by a common order by treating W.P.(C) No.1601 of 2026 as the lead case.

3. The petitioner seeks an appropriate writ upon the respondents for quashing and setting aside the letters issued by the respondents directing the deduction of certain amounts on account of highly quoted items.

4. The petitioner argues that such deduction was inconsistent with and in fact contrary to the terms of the contract between the parties. The petitioner has urged that such deduction was made despite the fact that the variation in contract price due to change in quantity was within the prescribed limits and further, the same, was at the instance of the respondents themselves.

5. Based on the above contention, the petitioner, seeks a writ of mandamus upon the respondents to refund the deducted amount of Rs.1,26,17,214.70/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum because according to the petitioner, such deduction was unilateral, illegal and in violation of the terms of the contract.

6. The issue raised in these petitions is almost identical to the issue involved in W.P.(C) Nos.5303, 6007 and 2583 of 2025 which were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 22nd January, 2026. There, this Court noted that the dispute, similar to the dispute raised in these Petitions, was a purely contractual dispute and any resolution of such dispute would involve adjudication into highly disputed question of facts with regard to excess quantities, if any, the rates that would apply to such excess quantities, whether the variation was within the permissible limits or not and which of the parties was indeed responsible for the variation.

7. In some of these petitions, the respondents have filed returns disputing the petitioners' claims and raising serious factual disputes. The returns also point out that the petitioners have an alternative remedy of resorting to arbitration under the agreement/contract between the parties.

8. The resolution of the above-referred disputes would undoubtedly involve adjudication into highly disputed questions of fact. Such an exercise cannot be ordinarily undertaken when exercising the summary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This is especially so when at least some of the Petitioners have undisputedly agreed to resort to arbitration to resolve such disputes.

9. Mr Mittal, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, pointed out that arbitration clauses are to be found in the agreements which are the subject matter of the W.P.(C) Nos. 416, 1105 and 1315 of 2026. He submitted that, in the agreements that are the subject matter of the remaining petitions, there is no arbitration clause.

10. The presence or absence of an arbitration clause is not crucial. The crucial issue is that the disputes raised in all these petitions arise from allegations and counter-allegations of breaches of the contract between the parties. Further, any resolution of such disputes would involve adjudication into highly disputed questions of fact, some of which are referred to hereinabove.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63Kv%2FTGLeaDBaiY8DRuWq0aJJxeOlGXFU07LBQSZPqFWUCN&caseno=WPC/1105/2026&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010014292026&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.