Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)M/S. Surya Constructions vs Vikas Gothalwal, Managing Director, ... on 19 September, 2019
3. It is clear, therefore, from the aforesaid order dated 22-3-2014 that there is no
dispute as to the amount that has to be paid to the appellant. Despite this, when the
appellant knocked at the doors of the High Court in a writ petition being Writ Civil
No. 25216 of 2014, the impugned judgment dated 2-5-2014 [Surya
Construction v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 6071] dismissed the writ
petition stating that disputed questions of fact arise and that the amount due arises
2025:JHHC:25277-DB
out of a contract. We are afraid the High Court was wholly incorrect inasmuch as
there was no disputed question of fact. On the contrary, the amount payable to the
appellant is wholly undisputed.
Section 10 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 70 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
M.P. Power Management Company Limited vs M/S Sky Power Southeast Solar India ... on 16 November, 2022
26. Further, in the case of M.P. Power Management Company Ltd.
Vs. Sky Power, South East Solar India Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2023) 2 SCC
703, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given an instance where a writ petition
would lie even in contractual matters. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
categorically stated that the writ petitions can be filed seeking payment of
dues from the State. The relevant part of the Judgment is quoted hereunder:
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Surya Prakash vs State Of Chhattisgarh 16 Wpc/1803/2019 ... on 17 May, 2019
2. By an order dated 21-10-2013 [Surya Construction v. State of U.P., 2013 SCC
OnLine All 14604] , the High Court asked the appellant to make a representation
and finally, in a contempt petition moved on 7-2-2014, directed [Surya
Construction v. Rajendra Kumar, 2014 SCC OnLine All 16549] Uttar Pradesh Jal
Nigam to answer this representation. The representation so made was answered by
Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam as follows:
Abl International Ltd. & Anr vs Export Credit Guarantee Corportion Of ... on 18 December, 2003
4. ... In this case, as we have already noticed that the facts are not in dispute and
this fact shows that the petitioner was given the supply order of goods of Rs.
64,74,761/- and there is no dispute with respect to the quality of the goods as well
as value of the goods. However, the procedure was not followed in giving the
contract to the writ petitioner and that was that before giving the work contract
the department should have invited the tender. This fact is also not in
dispute. Therefore, the petitioner's case stands on a better footing than that
of ABL International Ltd. & Anr. (Supra), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that merely because some disputed question of fact arises, on that ground the writ
jurisdiction cannot be denied to the writ petitioner. The question only survives is
that whether the respondents by taking help of this violation of procedure initially
violated by their own employees and officers, can retain the goods without any
consideration payment to the supplier? The procedure to purchase goods is
prescribed, obviously, for the purpose of getting goods at a fair price from open
market with an object to give an opportunity to all persons to compete as the
Government contracts cannot be given by choice and by method of choose and
pick up. In this case when it is not in dispute that the actual market value of the
goods supplied by the writ petitioner is the same as claimed by the writ petitioner,
in that situation the respondents cannot deny the payment of value of the goods
received and used by them and there is no ground, other than violation of
procedure. This cannot be basis for respondents to take double benefit of
retaining goods of the petitioner as well as the consideration of the goods. If this
is permitted then the principle of unlawful enrichment applies against the
respondents who by entering into an illegal contract will take benefit of the gods
without there being any consideration. We failed to understand as to how such a
plea has been taken by the respondents in the facts of this case when they cannot
justify that they have right to retain the goods of Rs.64,74,761/- merely on the
ground of not following the procedure by their own officers.
State Of Orissa And Ors vs Mangalam Timber Products Ltd. Etc on 11 November, 2003
35. The above Judgments are based on the settled principles of law that
the State cannot take advantage of their own wrong. [See State of Orissa Vs.
Mangalam Timber Product Ltd. reported in (2004) 1 SCC 139].
5 M & T Consultants, Secunderabad vs S.Y. Nawab And Anr on 26 September, 2003
In this regard the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 5 M & T
Consultants v. S.Y. Nawab, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 100, has held as under: