Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.15 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Padmavathi Constructions vs The A.P. Industrial Infrastructure ... on 5 July, 1996

Chaggar Singh And Others vs State Of J&K And Others on 7 July, 2020

In the present case, petitioners claim possession over land in question whereas respondents maintain petitioners not being in possession thereof. In such circumstances, questions of fact are to be determined, which can 8 OWP No. 2524/2018 be undertaken when evidence is adduced by the parties. Determination of question of fact, requiring oral evidence is enshrined and available by an ordinary civil suit and not in writ proceedings. My above adages are fortified by the decisions rendered in D.L.F. Housing Construction v. Delhi Municipality AIR 1976 SC 386; Union of India v. Bata India Ltd AIR 1994 SC 921; M/s Padmavathi Constructions v. The A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corp. Ltd AIR 1997 AP 1; and Goa v. Leukoplast (India) Ltd AIR 1997 SC 1875; and Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. v. Timudu Oram (2005) 6 SCC 156.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - V C Koul - Full Document

Ghar Singh vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 6 August, 2020

In a writ petition, theoretically, the High Court has jurisdiction determining questions, both of fact and law, but, usually, the Court is reluctant to go into question of fact, requiring oral evidence for determination thereof. The attitude of the courts is that questions of fact are determined in an ordinary civil suit after adducing evidence and not by/in a writ petition inasmuch as writ jurisdiction is, in core, supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. Same is true about present case. My said sayings are fortified by the decisions rendered in D.L.F. Housing Construction v. Delhi Municipality AIR 1976 SC 386; Union of India v. Bata India Ltd AIR 1994 SC 921; M/s Padmavathi Constructions v. The A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corp. Ltd AIR 1997 AP 1; and Goa v. Leukoplast (India) Ltd AIR 1997 SC 1875; and Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. v. Timudu Oram (2005) 6 SCC 156.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - V C Koul - Full Document

P. Prabhakar Reddy vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 29 April, 1997

8. This High Court in M/s. Padmavathi Constructions v. A.P.Indl Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., , held that where the dispute between the Contractor and a Corporation arose on the basis of the General Law of Contract and the fundamental right of the Contractor was not alleged to have been violated nor constitutionality of any statute or statutory provision is involved for determination, the Writ Court would not be a proper Forum for adjudication of the dispute, precisely because the real dispute between the parties related to the performance of the contract in terms of the contract, the adjudication thereof would depend upon several facts to be established before any relief could be granted to either of the contracting parties and in that view of the matter, the writ petition would not be maintainable.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1