Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 61 (0.35 seconds)
Principal Secretary To The Government ... vs Dimapur Contractors And Suppliers ... on 29 March, 2007
cites
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Escorts Ltd. & Ors on 19 December, 1985
Reliance was also placed on the observations of this Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd. and Ors. 1985 Suppl. (3) SCR 909 in support of the contention that the public corporations' dealing with tenants is a contractual dealing and it is not a matter for public law domain and is not subject to judicial review. However, it is not the correct position. The Escorts' decision reiterated that every action of the State or an instrumentality of the State, must be informed by reason. Indubitably, the respondent is an organ of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution. In appropriate cases, as was observed in the last mentioned decision, actions uninformed by reason may be questioned as arbitrary in proceedings under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution. But it has to be remembered that Article 14 cannot be construed as a charter for judicial review of State action, to call upon the State to account for its actions in its manifold activities by stating reasons for such actions.
Abl International Ltd. & Anr vs Export Credit Guarantee Corportion Of ... on 18 December, 2003
In our considered opinion, ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) in no manner supports the contention of the respondents-writ petitioners that in contractual matters remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is always available even if the contract itself provides a mode for settlement of dispute arising from/out of the contract.
Inspecting Assistant Commissioner Of ... vs Issac Peter on 28 January, 1998
In the present case, heavy reliance has been placed by the appellant on the decision, in Assistant Excise Commissioner and Ors. v. Issac Peter and Ors. (supra), to show that the doctrine of reasonableness or fairness does not apply to the contractual obligations of the State, notwithstanding the fact that the State had not carried out, in a given case, its contractual obligation. In order to appreciate the decision in Issac Peter it is necessary that the material facts giving rise to the case in Issac Peter should be borne in mind.
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Radhakrishna Agarwal & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 17 March, 1977
22. Our attention was drawn to the observations of this Court in Radhakrishna Agarwal and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. .
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
55. Having taken note of the case of Ram Sanehi Singh which followed K.N. Guruswamy and also Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd. , which followed Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and, then, having referred to the case of Escorts Ltd. the court in ABL International Ltd. has pointed out that the decision in Escorts Ltd. does not lay down, as a rule, that in matters of contract, the courts' jurisdiction under Article 226 stands wholly ousted. On the contrary, points out the Supreme Court in ABL International Ltd. the Constitution Bench's use in Escorts Ltd. of the words 'court may not ordinarily examine it unless the action has some public law character attached to it' indicates that in a given case, on the existence of the required factual matrix, a remedy under Article 226 will be available.
Suganmal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 4 November, 1964
In support of the submission that a writ petition seeking mandamus for mere refund of money was not maintainable, the decision in Suganmal v. State of M.P. was cited. In AIR para 6 of the said judgment, it is stated that: