Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 39 (0.75 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
In
Tata Cellular v. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651] this Court has held
that:
Joshi Technologies International Inc vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 May, 2015
In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
56
Court in Joshi Technologies International Inc. Vs. Union of
India (supra) relied on by the Corporation has no relevance at
all to the present case. In the said case, petitioners therein
sought to incorporate a new clause in its agreement, which
alleged to have been missed to be included in the agreement by
oversight. It has been held that it is a contractual matter and
that the High Court cannot grant such a relief under Article 226
of the Constitution. The relief sought by petitioners from this
Court in the present Writ Petitions are totally different and
distinct and has nothing to do with the enforcement of
contractual obligations, being totally outside the scope of
contract, as the issue involved in the present batch of cases is a
legal issue pertaining to a situation arose under unprecedented
visualized by anyone by any stretch of imagination and which is
not governed by the licence deeds. Pandemic was very much
prevalent for a period of more than 1 ½ years ever since
imposition of National Lock Down in March, 2020. Merely
because 1st Lock Down was lifted after two months, it does not
mean the pandemic ceased to exist and it continued for more
than one and half year even after lifting of Lock Down. The
Government of Telangana imposed 2nd lock down for a period of
3 months from April to June, 2021, with slight relaxations.
57
During the second lock down period also, stalls of petitioners
remain closed.
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Abl International Ltd. & Anr vs Export Credit Guarantee Corportion Of ... on 18 December, 2003
37. Petitioners also relied upon ABL International Ltd
vs. Export Credit Guarantee, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court
held that where the State behaves arbitrarily, even in the realm
of contract, the High Court can interfere under Article 226 of
the Constitution.
Article 298 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Radha Krishna Agrawal And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 8 January, 1976
ii. The principle laid down in Bareilly Development
Authority (supra) that in the case of a nonstatutory contract the
rights are governed only by the terms of the contract and the
decisions, which are purported to be followed, including
Radhakrishna Agarwal (supra), may not continue to hold good, in the
light of what has been laid down in ABL (supra) and as followed in the
recent judgment in Sudhir Kumar Singh (supra).
Md.Nazeeb Pasha, vs Telangana State Road Transport ... on 26 April, 2019
In yet another case of this Hon'ble Court i.e. Md.
Nazeeb Pasha vs Telangana State Road Transport
[W.P.No.42128 of 2018 Dated 26.4.2019], this Court at Para 8 held
as under: