Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.27 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Bihar And Others vs Jain Plastics And Chemicals Limited on 21 November, 2001
In "State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd.", 2002 (1)
SCC 216, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the claim
arises out of breach of contract and involves disputed facts, the
appropriate remedy lies in a civil suit and not in a writ petition. In
paragraph 7, it has been observed that:-
S.P.S. Rathore vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 6 May, 2005
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P.S. Rathore v. State of
Haryana and others, (2005) 10 SCC 1, observed as follows:
Chairman Grid Corporation Of Orissa ... vs Smt. Sukamani Das And Anr. Etc on 15 September, 1999
In Chairman, Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd.
(Gridco) v. Sukamani Das [(1999) 7 SCC 298] the
question which arose for consideration was, can
the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
award compensation for death caused due to
electrocution on account of negligence, when the
6
liability was emphatically denied on the ground that
the death had not occurred as a result of
negligence, but because of an act of God or of acts
of some other persons. The Court held that it is the
settled legal position that where disputed questions
of facts are involved, a petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution is not a proper remedy. Therefore,
questions as to whether death occurred due to
negligence or due to act of God or of some third
person could not be decided properly on the basis
of affidavits only, but should be decided by the civil
court after appreciating the evidence adduced by
the parties.
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs Sumathi And Others on 27 April, 2000
In T.N. Electricity Board v. Sumathi
[(2000) 4 SCC 543] it was held that when a
disputed question of fact arises and there is clear
denial of any tortious liability, remedy under Article
226 of the Constitution may not be proper. The
Court carved out exception to this general rule by
observing that, it should not be understood that in
every case of tortious liability, recourse must be
had to a suit. When there is negligence on the face
of it and infringement of Article 21 is there, it
cannot be said that there will be any bar to
proceed under Article 226 of the Constitution."
Joshi Technologies International Inc vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 May, 2015
10. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Joshi Technologies
International Inc. v. Union of India", 2015 (7) SCC 728, where
adjudication involves serious factual controversies necessitating
evidence, the writ court should decline to exercise jurisdiction and
relegate the parties to appropriate forums. In paragraphs 69 and 70, the
legal position has been summarised that:-
Shubhas Jain vs Rajeshwari Shivam on 20 July, 2021
11. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shubhas Jain v.
Rajeshwari Shivam, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 562 has held as under:-
Union Of India vs M/S. Puna Hinda on 6 September, 2021
12. Subsequently, in Union of India Vs. Puna Hinda, (2021) 10 SCC
690, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed:-