Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.40 seconds)Section 72 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bhailal Bhai & Ors on 20 January, 1964
11. Recently this court had to consider this matter in some detail in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai 2, The assessee, in that case, by its writ petition, challenged the validity of the assessments and had prayed as a consequential relief for the refund of the taxes collected from him. This court held that the High Court had power for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental and statutory rights to give consequential relief by ordering repayment of money realised by Government without the authority of law and then indicated the various factors the court had to consider in deciding whether such consequential order be passed or not. We may usefully quote the observations at page 1011 in this connection 1 :
Commissioner Of Police, Bombay vs Gordhandas Bhanji on 23 November, 1951
13. Mr. Setalvad, for the appellant, referred us to Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhamji 1 in support of the contention that a writ of mandamus for the refund of money can be issued if the petitioner's right to refund of money does not arise under any statutory laws but arises under any law. In that case a writ of mandamus was prayed for under section 45 of specified Relief Act and the court had to construe the expression "under any law for the time being in force" in proviso (b) to section 45. In that connection this court held that the words "any law" were wide enough to embrace all kinds of law. It may be noted that in that in that particular case the duty soughty to be enforced arose under rules framed in the exercise of a power conferred by a statute. We cannot use the construction placed on the words "any law" in proviso (b) to section 45 of the specific Relief Act for the purpose of issuing a writ of mandamus in the exercise of powers under article 226 of th Constitution and especially when two earlier cases of this Court, already referred to, sepcifically state that a mandamus, for the recovery of money, could be issued only when the petitioner is entitled to recover that money j under some statute.
Messrs. Burmah Construction Co vs The State Of Orissa And Ors on 26 October, 1961
8. We may also refer to Burmah Construction Co. v. State of Orissa 1, where it was prayed that an appropriate writ directing the State of Orissa to refund the amount of sales tax and penalty realised from the appellant be issued Shah J., speaking for the court, said :
Article 26 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 15 in The Northern Indian Ferries Act, 1878 [Entire Act]
Sri Satya Narain Singh vs District Engineer, P.W.D. And Another on 8 February, 1962
7. Reference may be made to the case reported as Sri Satya Narain Singh v. District Engineer, P.W.D.1, where the petitioner had made several prayers in his petition under article 226. Some of these were not available at the time the order was passed by the High Court. He therefore confined his prayer for one relief only. It was for commanding the state to allow abatement of rent on account of the exemption of the state-owned road ways buses from liability to pay the tolls. The single judge issued the with as prayed, but the Division Bench, on Letters Patent appeal, dismissed the petition holding that he was not entitled to the abatement of rent and that he may be entitled to claim abatement of rent or licence fee under the general law but that such a relief could be claimed only in a suit but not in a proceeding under article 226. This court held against the petitioner that no abatement of rent could be claimed as there was no lawful order exempting roadways buses from paying the toll. In view of the petitioners prayer for the grant of any 'other relief' the court felt no difficulty in granting the appropriate relief and, consequently, directing the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the State directing it to pay to the petitioner full tolls with respect to every crossing of the Roadways buses during the relevant period. This was not a case of enforcing a contractual liability of the State Government but it was one where, in the purported exercise of its governmental power, it refused to pay tolls to the contractor though it was liable to pay such tolls under the provisions of the statute viz., S. 15 of the Northern India Ferries Act, 1878. The decision in this case cannot be used in support of the contention that a petition praying merely for a writ of mandamus for refund of tax or any money due from the State can be normally maintainable.
1