Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 325 (3.27 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Bihar And Others vs Jain Plastics And Chemicals Limited on 21 November, 2001

The Tata Power Company Limited Through ... vs Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited ... on 19 November, 2015

Whether or not the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would largely depend upon the nature of dispute and if the dispute cannot be resolved without going into the factual controversy, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition. As noted above, the writ petition was primarily founded on allegation of breach of contract. Question whether the action of the opposite party in the writ petition amounted to breach of contractual obligation ultimately depends on facts and would require material evidence to be scrutinised and in such a case writ jurisdiction should not be exercised. (See State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics & Chemicals Ltd.)
Jharkhand High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 0 - R Mukhopadhyay - Full Document

The State Of Manipur vs M/S Sri Avantika Contractors (I) Ltd on 18 July, 2024

Whether or not the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would largely depend upon the nature of dispute and if the dispute cannot be resolved without going into the factual controversy, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition. As noted above, the writ petition was primarily founded on allegation of breach of contract. Question whether the action of the opposite party in the writ petition amounted to breach of contractual obligation ultimately depends on facts and would require material evidence to be scrutinised and in such a case writ jurisdiction should not be exercised. (See State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics & Chemicals Ltd. [(2002) 1 SCC 216])
Manipur High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ms Agros Impex India Private Limited vs Chief Secretory on 31 March, 2016

In State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd., a two-Judge Bench reiterating the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of enforcement of contractual obligations has stated: (SCC p. 217, para 3) "3. ... It is to be reiterated that writ petition under Article 226 is not the proper proceedings for adjudicating such disputes. Under the law, it was open to the respondent to approach the court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief for breach of contract. It is settled law that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to the litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Equally, the existence of alternative remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to 24 issue writ, but ordinarily that would be a good ground in refusing to exercise the discretion under Article 226."
Jharkhand High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - A K Singh - Full Document

Spml Infra Ltd. & Anr vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 26 November, 2015

33. This Court would in fact found the present case to be fully covered by the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Jain Plastic & Chemicals Ltd. reported in 2002(1)SCC 216 Patna High Court CWJC No.1344 of 2014 29 wherein a writ application filed against the deduction of amount from the final bill to be paid to the contractor due to breach of contract was held to be not maintainable and the Apex Court had gone to hold that even if it is possible to decide the question raised in the petition on the basis of affidavits and counter affidavits, it would not be proper to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in cases of alleged breach of contract.
Patna High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - M K Jha - Full Document

M/S.The Indian Hume Pipe Co vs . on 28 January, 2025

“7. ...Where a complicated question of fact is involved and the matter requires thorough proof on factual aspects, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition.. .As noted above, the writ petition was primarily founded on allegation of breach of contract. Question whether the action of the opposite party in the writ petition amounted to 17/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.12557 of 2017 breach of contractual obligation ultimately depends on facts and would require material evidence to be scrutinised and in such a case writ jurisdiction should not be exercised. (See State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics & Chemicals Ltd. [(2002) 1 SCC 216] )
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - M Shaffiq - Full Document

M/S Chaitanya Energy Private Limited vs Indian Bank on 3 June, 2024

(b) The observations and the view of the Apex Court in the various judgements i.e., (1) (2016) 10 SCC 46 in "Gujarat Maritime Board Vs. Larsen and Toubro Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd., and another, (2) (1999) 8 SC 436 in Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., Vs. State of Bihar & others, (3) (2000) 6 SCC 293 in Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Kurien Ekalathil, (4) (2021) 10 SCC 690 in Union of India Vs. Puna Hinda, (5) (2004) 3 SCC 553 in ABL International Ltd., Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (6) (2002) 1 37 WP_28781_2023 SN,J SCC 216 in State of Bihar Vs. Jain Plastics & Chemicals Ltd., (7) (2015) 7 SCC 728 in Joshi Technologies International Inc., Vs. Union of India, (8) (2021) 6 SCC 771 in M/s. Radhakrishnan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (9) (1998) 8 SCC 1 in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, (10) 2021 SCC Online SC 801 in "Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd., Vs. State of Bihar and others, (referred to and extracted above),
Telangana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - S Nanda - Full Document

Spml Infra Ltd. & Anr vs Sri Gopal Singh on 26 November, 2015

33. This Court would in fact found the present case to be fully covered by the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Jain Plastic & Chemicals Ltd. reported in 2002(1)SCC 216 Patna High Court CWJC No.1344 of 2014 29 wherein a writ application filed against the deduction of amount from the final bill to be paid to the contractor due to breach of contract was held to be not maintainable and the Apex Court had gone to hold that even if it is possible to decide the question raised in the petition on the basis of affidavits and counter affidavits, it would not be proper to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in cases of alleged breach of contract.
Patna High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 3 - M K Jha - Full Document

M/S R.R. Inustries Betul, M.P. ( Joint ... vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited ( ... on 13 May, 2026

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Motors Limited (supra), State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. (supra), ABL International Ltd. (supra) and Joshi Technologies International Inc. (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R Sinha - Full Document

Aakash Exploration Services Limited ... vs Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited on 21 June, 2019

40 In the case of State of Bihar vs. Jain Plastics & Chemicals Ltd. [AIR 2002 SC 206], a grievance was sought to be raised against the deduction of an amount from the final bill to be paid to the contractor due to breach of contract by him. The petition was allowed by the High Court. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court wherein it was held that even if it was possible to decide the question raised in the petition on the basis of affidavits and counter affidavits, it would not be proper to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in cases of alleged breach of contract. The observations made by the Supreme Court are as follows:
Gujarat High Court Cites 81 - Cited by 1 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next