Calcutta HC refuses writ jurisdiction over a contractual payment dispute where an arbitration clause exists and facts are disputed.
Arbitration Clause Precludes Writ Jurisdiction in Contract Disputes
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition filed over a contractual payment dispute, holding that such matters involving disputed facts and an arbitration clause must be resolved through arbitration, not writ proceedings. The petitioner sought enforcement of payment under a commercial contract but failed to invoke the arbitration mechanism.
The court reiterated settled jurisprudence that when a dispute is fundamentally contractual and an arbitration clause is present, the appropriate remedy lies under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The bench observed that allowing writs in such cases would circumvent the exclusive forum agreed upon by parties.
Legal practitioners should advise clients to invoke arbitration at the earliest. This decision reaffirms the judiciary’s pro-arbitration stance and prevents misuse of writ jurisdiction to bypass contractual dispute resolution mechanisms.
Citations
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
