Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)Radha Krishna Agrawal And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 8 January, 1976
In M/s. Radha Krishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar , the Supreme Court while carving out three categories of cases vis-a-vis the right of judicial review, inter alia, held that where a contract entered into between the State and persons aggrieved is non-statutory and purely contractual of the rights and obligation of the parties thereto are governed by the terms of the contract, a writ petition shall not lie.
Pancham Singh vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 25 January, 1991
However, keeping in view the subsequent development in law in the field a contract vis-a-vis jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ application, a Full Bench of the Patna High Court presided over by N. P. Singh, J. (as His Lordship then was) in M/s. Pancham Singh v. State of Bihar held that apart from three categories
adumbrated in Radhakrishnan there exists fourth category namely, that a writ petition shall also be maintainable where the contract has been terminated by the State on a ground de hors any of the terms of the contract and which is per se violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Escorts Ltd. & Ors on 19 December, 1985
16. No such base has been made out in the instant case. Furthermore, it is well known that the court will have no jurisdiction to entertain a writ application in a matter governed by contract-qua-contract as in such a matter public law element is not involved. Reference in this connection may be made to Life Insurance Corporation v. EScortS , F.C.I, v. Jagannath Dutta , State of Gujarat v. Meghraj Peth Raj Shah Charitable Trust , Assistant Excise Commissioner v. Issac Peter which have been followed me in a decision in A. C. Roy Co. v. Union of Indja . In the case , the Supreme Court held that the materials placed before the court fall far short but the law required to justify interference.
Asstt. Excise Commissioner vs Issac Peter on 22 February, 1994
16. No such base has been made out in the instant case. Furthermore, it is well known that the court will have no jurisdiction to entertain a writ application in a matter governed by contract-qua-contract as in such a matter public law element is not involved. Reference in this connection may be made to Life Insurance Corporation v. EScortS , F.C.I, v. Jagannath Dutta , State of Gujarat v. Meghraj Peth Raj Shah Charitable Trust , Assistant Excise Commissioner v. Issac Peter which have been followed me in a decision in A. C. Roy Co. v. Union of Indja . In the case , the Supreme Court held that the materials placed before the court fall far short but the law required to justify interference.
Union Of India & Ors vs E.G. Nambudiri on 23 April, 1991
18. In a given case, the respondents are entitled to show that although no hearing has been given or no reason has been assigned that sufficient reasons existed and there had been sufficient materials in support of its action. Reference in this connection may be made to Union of India v. E. G. Nambadri which has been noted with approval in Chandra Gupta IPS v. Secretary of Govt. of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest .
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh Etc on 17 January, 1989
In State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh , the Apex Court held as follows :