Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (0.69 seconds)
Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd vs Ramagundam Fertilizers And Chemicals ... on 2 February, 2026 cites

Abl International Ltd. & Anr vs Export Credit Guarantee Corportion Of ... on 18 December, 2003

"21. Although the dispute arises from a commercial contract, we find that the writ petition challenging the clauses was maintainable. It is not disputed that GAIL is a public sector undertaking and thus qualifies under the definition of "State" as per Article 12 of the Constitution. At the time of entering into contract, GAIL was enjoying a monopolistic position with respect to the supply of natural gas in the country. IPCL, having incurred a significant expense in setting up the appropriate infrastructure, had no choice but to enter into agreement with GAIL. Thus, there was a clear public element involved in the dealings between the parties. Further, writ jurisdiction can be exercised when the State, even in its contractual dealings, fails to exercise a degree of fairness or practises any discrimination. We are fortified in our view by this Court's decision in ABL International [ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553] and Joshi Technologies [Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 728]"
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 1154 - Full Document

M.P. Power Management Company Limited vs M/S Sky Power Southeast Solar India ... on 16 November, 2022

In view of the law laid down by this Court in ABL [ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553 : (2004) 118 Comp Cas 213] , Joshi Technologies [Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 728 : (2015) 374 ITR 322] and in M.P. Power [M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India (P) Ltd., (2023) 2 SCC 703] , it is difficult to accept the contention of the respondent that the writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 6570/2021 Page 16 of 31 KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:03.02.2026 19:23:09 Court was not maintainable and the relief prayed for was rightly declined by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Where State action is challenged on the ground of being arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable, the State would be under an obligation to comply with the basic requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution and not act in an arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable manner. This is the constitutional limit of their authority. There is a jural postulate of good faith in business relations and undertakings which is given effect to by preventing arbitrary exercise of powers by the public functionaries in contractual matters with private individuals. With the rise of the social service State more and more public-private partnerships continue to emerge, which makes it all the more imperative for the courts to protect the sanctity of such relations.
Supreme Court of India Cites 89 - Cited by 44 - K Joseph - Full Document

Joshi Technologies International Inc vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 May, 2015

"21. Although the dispute arises from a commercial contract, we find that the writ petition challenging the clauses was maintainable. It is not disputed that GAIL is a public sector undertaking and thus qualifies under the definition of "State" as per Article 12 of the Constitution. At the time of entering into contract, GAIL was enjoying a monopolistic position with respect to the supply of natural gas in the country. IPCL, having incurred a significant expense in setting up the appropriate infrastructure, had no choice but to enter into agreement with GAIL. Thus, there was a clear public element involved in the dealings between the parties. Further, writ jurisdiction can be exercised when the State, even in its contractual dealings, fails to exercise a degree of fairness or practises any discrimination. We are fortified in our view by this Court's decision in ABL International [ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553] and Joshi Technologies [Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 728]"
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 393 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 6 November, 2020

17. The aforesaid discussion, therefore, leads us to the conclusion that the writ petition was not barred by unexplained delay as the appellant had been pursuing the matter with the authorities and it is they who sat over it, triggering rejection of the appellant's tender by the Rajasthan Government on 5-7-2019 leading to the institution of the writ petition on 24-7-2019. The High Court therefore erred in dismissing the writ petition on grounds of delay. The illegality and the disproportionate nature of the order dated 8-9-2009, with no third-party rights affected, never engaged the attention of the High Court in judicious exercise of the discretionary equitable jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned order [Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 6734] of the High Court as well as the order dated 8- 9-2009 of the respondents are set aside, and the appeal is allowed."
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 78 - N Sinha - Full Document

Harbanslal Sahnia And Anr. vs Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And Ors. on 20 December, 2002

39.2. The decision in ABL International, cautions that the plenary power under Article 226 must be used with circumspection when other remedies have been provided by the contract. But as a statement of principle, the jurisdiction under Article 226 is not excluded in contractual matters. 39.3. Article 23.1 of the development agreement in the present case mandates the parties to resolve their disputes through an arbitration. However, the presence of an arbitration clause within a contract between a State instrumentality and a private party has not acted as an absolute bar to availing remedies under Article 226 [Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107; Ram Barai Singh & Co. v. State of Bihar, (2015) 13 SCC 592 : (2016) 1 SCC (Civ) 770] .
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 1488 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next