Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)Food Corporation Of India & Anr vs M/S. Seil Ltd. & Ors on 11 January, 2008
vii. The Court in exercise of its powers under Article - 226 of the
Constitution of India can interfere in contractual disputes
involving public law to set aside arbitrary actions of the State.
viii. Reliance was placed on Food Corporation of India v. Seil Ltd.4
and Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Pvt. Ltd. v.
Devkishan Computed Pvt. Ltd.5.
Bakshi Security And Personnel Services ... vs Devkishan Computed Pvt Ltd And Ors on 26 July, 2016
vii. The Court in exercise of its powers under Article - 226 of the
Constitution of India can interfere in contractual disputes
involving public law to set aside arbitrary actions of the State.
viii. Reliance was placed on Food Corporation of India v. Seil Ltd.4
and Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Pvt. Ltd. v.
Devkishan Computed Pvt. Ltd.5.
State Of U.P. & Anr vs U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam S.S. & Ors on 2 May, 2008
iii) Fixing of levy price is a policy decision and the Court under
Article - 226 cannot interfere in such policy decisions. Reliance
was placed on State of U.P. v. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij
Vikas Nigan Sagharsh Samiti6 and Food Corporation of
India v. Bhanu Lodh7.
Food Corporation Of India & Ors vs Bhanu Lodh & Ors on 24 February, 2005
iii) Fixing of levy price is a policy decision and the Court under
Article - 226 cannot interfere in such policy decisions. Reliance
was placed on State of U.P. v. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij
Vikas Nigan Sagharsh Samiti6 and Food Corporation of
India v. Bhanu Lodh7.
Arun Kumar Agrawal vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 November, 2013
2025
5
KL,J
W.P. No.25070 of 2008 & batch
v. State of Gujarat2 and Arun Kumar Agarwal v. Union of
India3.
S. L. Kapoor vs Jagmohan & Ors on 18 September, 1980
ii) The Supreme Court in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan9 has held
that actions having civil consequences shall also follow principles of
natural justice. The relevant paragraph is extracted below:
State Of Orissa vs Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors on 7 February, 1967
"7. The old distinction between a judicial act and an
administrative act has withered away and we have been
liberated from the psittacine incantation of "administrative
action". Now, from the time of the decision of this Court
in State of Orissa v. Dr (Miss) Binapani Dei [AIR 1967 SC
1269 : (1967) 2 SCR 625 : (1967) 2 LLJ 266] "even an
administrative order which involves civil consequences . . .
must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice".
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
What are civil consequences? The question was posed and
answered by this Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief
Election Commissioner, New Delhi [(1978) 1 SCC 405, 440,
441 : (1978) 2 SCR 272, 308-309] Krishna Iyer, J., speaking
for the Constitution Bench said (at pp. 308-09): (SCC p. 440,
para 66)
"But what is a civil consequence, let us ask ourselves,
by passing verbal booby-traps? 'Civil consequences'
undoubtedly cover infraction of not merely property or
personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations
and non-pecuniary damages. In its comprehensive
connotation, everything that affects a citizen in his civil
life inflicts a civil consequence."
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd on 20 August, 1996
iv) The matter involves several disputed questions of fact which
cannot be decided by this Court under Article 226. Further, the
issue is a civil dispute relating to recovery of the alleged
payments. Therefore, the Petitioners have to approach the civil
court. Reliance was placed on State of U.P. v. Bridge and
Roof Co.8.
1