SHRI BALAJI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — WPC/2294/2026
Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 08th May 2026.
CNR: CGHC010174032026
Filing Number
WPC/10050/2026
Filing Date
28-Apr-2026
Registration No
WPC/2294/2026
Registration Date
06-May-2026
Judge
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Coram
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
MERCANTILE LAWS, COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS INCLUDING BANKING ( 21 )
Sub-Category
CONTRACT ACT. ( 2103 )
Judicial Branch
Writ Section
Decision Date
08-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 05-Jun-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SHRI BALAJI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Adv. PRASHANT DANSENA,ADARSH PATEL,ADARSH PATEL, ADARSH PATEL
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
-
2.Chief Municipal Officer
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-May-2026
Hon'ble The Chief Justice,Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar AgrawalView PDF
Case Summary: WPC/2294/2026 Decision: The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed Balaji Construction Company's writ petition seeking ₹1,88,55,399 in unpaid contractual dues for road construction work. The court found that contractual payment disputes involving disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 writ jurisdiction and directed the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies before competent forums. Key Reasoning: The court applied established Supreme Court precedent holding that courts should exercise restraint in contractual matters and decline jurisdiction where factual adjudication is required, such as verification of measurement books, bills, and admissibility of claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-May-2026
Fresh Matters
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
-
28-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WPC/2294/2026
Case Summary: WPC/2294/2026 Decision: The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed Balaji Construction Company's writ petition seeking ₹1,88,55,399 in unpaid contractual dues for road construction work. The court found that contractual payment disputes involving disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 writ jurisdiction and directed the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies before competent forums. Key Reasoning: The court applied established Supreme Court precedent holding that courts should exercise restraint in contractual matters and decline jurisdiction where factual adjudication is required, such as verification of measurement books, bills, and admissibility of claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts