Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 20 September, 1990
Shrilekha Vidyarthi v.
State of U.P. was a case of mass termination of District
Government Counsel in the State of U.P. It was a case of
termination from a post involving public element. It was a case
of non-government servant holding a public office, on account
.
State Of Orissa & Ors vs Narain Prasad & Ors.,Etc.Etc on 3 September, 1996
(1996) 5 SCC 740,
State of Orissa and others Vs. Narain Prasad and
others, was also pressed in service in support of contention
that a person after securing a contract taking into account
its terms cannot be allowed later on to assail the validity of
::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2020 20:18:31 :::HCHP
27
the contractual terms by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction
of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Panna Lal And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 1 August, 1975
right in the licensees to compel the Government to supply what
all they demand nor has the State the right to compel the
licensees to purchase all that it proposes to sell to them. We
see no unreasonableness in this statement. We are of the
opinion that in the absence of a statutory right in the licensees
to get additional supplies demanded by him, there is no basis
in law for the claim of remission or rebate. As stated by this
Court in Panna Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (1975) 2 SCC 633,
the onerous nature of the terms is no ground for the licensees
to resile from the express obligations undertaken by them. The
Court observed: (SCC p. 638, para 21)
"The licences in the present case are contracts
between the parties. The licensees voluntarily accepted
the contracts. They fully exploited to their advantage the
contracts to the exclusion of others. The High Court
rightly said that it was not open to the appellants to
r resile from the contracts on the ground that the terms of
payment were onerous. The reasons given by the High
Court were that the licensees accepted the licence by
excluding their competitors and it would not be open to
the licensees to challenge the terms either on the ground
of inconvenient consequence of terms or of harshness of
terms."
The Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons vs Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay on 27 April, 1989
In Dwarkadas
Marfatia v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay it was
held that where a public authority is exempted from the
operation of a statute like Rent Control Act, it must be
presumed that such exemption from the statute is coupled
with the duty to act fairly and reasonably. The decision does
not say that the terms and conditions of contract can be
varied, added or altered by importing the said doctrine. It may
::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2020 20:18:31 :::HCHP
24
be noted that though the said principle was affirmed, no relief
was given to the appellant in that case.
1