Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.27 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Ganga Retreat & Towers Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 19 December, 2003
45. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
case of Ganga Retreat & Towers Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan &
Ors (supra) to argue that given the belated stage of the present
petition, the matter ought to be decided on merits. Firstly, in the
present case, it must be considered that the parties herein are
financially sound having adequate resources. There was nothing,
therefore, that prevented the parties from approaching appropriate
forums and agitating their disputes. Secondly, the case concerned does
not act as an authoritative binding precedent which rules that the High
Court must, in cases where a delay has been caused, entertain a
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Joshi Technologies International Inc vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 May, 2015
(supra) and Joshi Technologies (supra) allowed the appeal while
dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner before the High
Court. The Apex Court while accepting the jurisdiction of a High
Court to be wide, held in paragraph no.24, that in respect of pure
contractual matters in the field of private law, where the dispute has
no statutory flavour, the issues are better left to be adjudicated outside
the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
M/S N.N. Global Mercantile Private ... vs M/S Indo Unique Flame Ltd. on 25 April, 2023
Similarly, NN
Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. &
Others31, is a ruling concerned with the issue--whether a writ petition
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would be
maintainable to challenge an order rejecting an application for
reference to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. The same is, therefore, distinguishable as the
issue under consideration is different.
Gujarat Maritime Board vs L&T; Infrastructure Development ... on 28 September, 2016
In Gujarat Maritime Board v. L&T Infrastructure
Development Projects Ltd. & Anr. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court set aside the order of the High Court, where the appellant
therein was restrained from invoking an unconditional bank guarantee.
The said decision reiterated the position of law relating to the relief
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being discretionary.
State Of Bihar And Others vs Jain Plastics And Chemicals Limited on 21 November, 2001
In State of Bihar &Ors. v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd.
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was to adjudicate upon the
issue--whether the High Court ought not to have exercised its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for granting
relief in case of alleged breach of contract. The Apex Court held that a
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the
proper proceeding for adjudicating such disputes. Under the law, it
was open to the respondent therein, 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
available to a litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and
not invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Equally, the
existence of an alternative remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of
the court to issue a writ, but ordinarily, that would be a good ground in
refusing to exercise the discretion under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
Century Spinning & Manufacturing ... vs The Ulhasnagar- Municipal Council And ... on 27 February, 1970
50. Paragraph no.9 of the said decision would reveal that the
solemn agreement so referred above relates to the promise of not
levying octroi. The said promise is inherently an act that solely a State
functionary could discharge. To that end, there is a dominant public
law element in the contracts itself, as action so promised is in
discharge of public duty. The said decision is not found to be
applicable in the facts of the instant petition.