Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937
Gujarat State Financial Corporation vs Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd. on 3 May, 1983
The decision in Gujarat
State Financial Corporation's case (supra) is clearly
distinguishable and is not an authority for any such
proposition. No such question arose in that case at all.
There, the Court was dealing with a contract entered into by
the Gujarat State Financial Corporation with Messrs Lotus
Hotels Private Limited for the purpose of setting up a 4-
star hotel. The Company approached the Corporation for a
loan of rupees 30 lakhs and tile Corporation sanctioned a
loan of Rs. 29.93 lakhs on certain terms and conditions
which the Company accepted. The Corporation however finally
resolved not to disburse the loan to the Company whereupon
the Company moved Gujarat High Court by a petition under
Act. 226 for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the
Corporation to disburse the loan. A learned Single Judge of
the High Court issued the writ as prayed for and it was
confirmed by a Division Bench. on appeal by the Corporation,
this writ Court held that the High Court was justified in
issuing the writ of mandamus.
The State Of Tamil Nadu, Represented By ... vs C. Vadiappan on 11 February, 1982
It is difficult to subscribe to the doctrine evolved by
the High Court in Vadiappan's case, (supra) that the
Commissioner is the 'sole arbiter' under r. 7 of the Rules.
K. Ramaswamy vs Government Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. on 10 July, 1979
The High Court
further observed in Ramaswamy's case, supra, that 'the
weighing of the pros and cons and the consideration of the
merits and demerits of the rival clai-
Kishan Chand Arora vs Commissioner Of Police, Calcutta on 9 December, 1960
In such cases; the right to hearing has been denied on
the ground that the claim or interest or legitimate
expectation is a more 'privilege or 'licence'. This is in
consonance with the decision of a Constitution Bench of this
Court in Kishan Chand Arora v. Commissioner of Police,
Calcutta following the judgment of the Privy Council in
Nakkuda Ali v. M.F.De S. Jayaratne's case.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 17C in Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 [Entire Act]
K. N. Guruswamy vs The State Of Mysore And Others on 24 May, 1954
We should not be understood as laying down an
inflexible rule that the High Courts cannot, under any
circumstances, regulate or control the manner of grant of a
liquor licence by the issue of a writ of mandamus. It would
all depend upon the facts and circumstances as to whether
the High Court should issue a writ of mandamus or not. The
grant of a liquor licence is a matter of privilege. In the
very nature of things, the grant of refusal of licence is in
the discretion of the State Government. Normally, where the
statute vests a discretionary power upon an administrative
authority, the Court would not interfere with the exercise
of such discretion unless it is made with oblique motives or
extraneous purposes or upon extraneous considerations. The
present case does not fall within the rule laid down in K.
N. Guruswamy v. The State of Mysore & or and P. Bhooma Reddy
v. State of Mysore & ors. The decisions in Guruswamy's and
Bhooma Reddy's cases are both in consonance with the well-
settled principle that the High Court can always issue a
202
writ of mandamus under Art. 226 of the Constitution against
a public authority to compel the performance of a public
duty where such authority acts in violation of the law.