M/S Allahabad Traders And Another v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, M/S Allahabad Traders and Another, filed a writ petition seeking payment of Rs. 76,145/- due to them for work done, which has remained unpaid since 2020. The petition challenges the non-payment by the respondents, specifically respondent No. 2, and seeks relief for the outstanding amount. The petition was before the Allahabad High Court for adjudication.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive the outstanding payment of Rs. 76,145/- for work done, which has been due since 2020.
2. Whether the respondents are obligated to make the payment within a stipulated time frame and the consequences of delay in payment.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the admitted fact that Rs. 76,145/- was due and payable to the petitioner since 2020. Given the undisputed nature of the amount, the court found no utility in keeping the petition pending or requiring a counter affidavit at this stage. The reasoning was based on the principle that admitted dues ought to be paid promptly and that judicial intervention is warranted to ensure enforcement of such admitted liabilities. The court thus directed respondent No. 2 to make the payment within two months, with an 8% interest payable on delayed amounts from the date they became due until actual payment.

Holding and Implications

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to pay the admitted amount of Rs. 76,145/- within two months, failing which interest at 8% per annum shall be payable from the due date until payment.

The decision directly compels the respondent to discharge the admitted debt promptly and imposes a financial consequence for delay, thereby reinforcing the principle of timely payment of dues. No broader precedent or novel legal principle was established; the ruling serves to enforce an existing, undisputed monetary liability between the parties.