Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.25 seconds)Smt. Gunwant Kaur And Ors. vs Municipal Committee, Bhatinda And Ors. on 4 December, 1969
In ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn.
of India Ltd.[9], a two-Judge Bench after referring to various
judgments as well as the pronouncement in Gunwant Kaur
(supra) and Century Spg. And Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar
Municipal Council[10], has held thus:-
Abl International Ltd. & Anr vs Export Credit Guarantee Corportion Of ... on 18 December, 2003
20. We have referred to the aforesaid authorities to highlight
under what circumstances in respect of contractual claim or
challenge to violation of contract can be entertained by a writ
court. It depends upon facts of each case. The issue that had
arisen in ABL International (supra) was that an instrumentality
of a State was placing a different construction on the clauses of
the contract of insurance and the insured was interpreting the
contract differently. The Court thought it apt merely because
something is disputed by the insurer, it should not enter into
the realm of disputed questions of fact. In fact, there was no
disputed question of fact, but it required interpretation of the
terms of the contract of insurance. Similarly, if the materials
that come on record from which it is clearly evincible, the writ
court may exercise the power of judicial review but, a pregnant
12
one, in the case at hand, the High Court has appointed a
Commission to collect the evidence, accepted the same without
calling for objections from the respondent and quashed the
order of termination of contract."
The Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd vs District Municipality Of Ulhasnagar on 9 November, 1967
In the above case of Gunwant Kaur
this Court even went to the extent of holding that in a
writ petition, if the facts require, even oral evidence can
be taken. This clearly shows that in an appropriate case,
the writ court has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ
petition involving disputed questions of fact and there is
no absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition even if the
same arises out of a contractual obligation and/or
involves some disputed questions of fact.
Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998
"28. However, while entertaining an objection as to the
maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the court should bear in mind the
fact that the power to issue prerogative writs under
Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is
10
not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution.
The High Court having regard to the facts of the case,
has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ
petition. The Court has imposed upon itself certain
restrictions in the exercise of this power. (See Whirlpool
Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks[11].) And this plenary
right of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not
normally be exercised by the Court to the exclusion of
other available remedies unless such action of the State
or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as
to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for
other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the Court
thinks it necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction".
Noble Resources Ltd vs State Of Orissa & Anr on 13 September, 2006
In this regard, a reference to Noble Resources Ltd. v. State
of Orissa and Another[12] would be seemly.
Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons vs Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay on 27 April, 1989
The two-Judge
Bench referred to the ABL International (supra), Dwarkadas
Marfatia & Sons v. Board of Trustees, Port of Bombay[13],
Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corp.[14] and Jamshed
Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai[15] and
opined thus:-
Mahabir Auto Stores & Ors vs Indian Oil Corporation & Ors on 6 March, 1990
The two-Judge
Bench referred to the ABL International (supra), Dwarkadas
Marfatia & Sons v. Board of Trustees, Port of Bombay[13],
Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corp.[14] and Jamshed
Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai[15] and
opined thus:-
Jamshed Hormusji Wadia vs Board Of Trustees, Port Of Mumbai & Anr on 13 January, 2004
The two-Judge
Bench referred to the ABL International (supra), Dwarkadas
Marfatia & Sons v. Board of Trustees, Port of Bombay[13],
Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corp.[14] and Jamshed
Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai[15] and
opined thus:-
Binny Ltd. & Anr vs V. Sadasivan & Ors on 8 August, 2005
"29. Although the scope of judicial review or the
development of law in this field has been noticed
hereinbefore particularly in the light of the decision of this
Court in ABL International Ltd. each case, however, must
be decided on its own facts. Public interest as noticed
hereinbefore, may be one of the factors to exercise the
power of judicial review. In a case where a public law
element is involved, judicial review may be permissible.
(See Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan[16] and G.B. Mahajan v.
Jalgaon Municipal Council[17].)"