Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.40 seconds)
Aluminium Industries Ltd., Rep. By Its ... vs Minerals And Metals Trading ... on 21 October, 1997 cites

Radhakrishna Agarwal & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 17 March, 1977

"12. It is well settled that every action of the State or an instrumentality of the State in exercise of its executive power, must be informed by reason. In appropriate cases, actions uninformed by reason may be questioned as arbitrary in proceedings under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution. Reliance in this connection may be placed on the observations of this Court in . Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar, . It appears to us, at the outset, that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent company IOC is an organ of the State or an instrumentality of the State as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution. The State acts in its executive power under Article 298 of the Constitution in entering or not entering in contracts with individual parties. Article 14 of the Constitution would be applicable to those exercise of power. Therefore, the action of State organ under Article 14 can be checked.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 684 - M H Beg - Full Document

Divisional Forest Officer vs Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd on 5 May, 1981

In Divisional Forest Officer v. Bishwanath Tea Co., Ltd., , it is stated that ordinarily, where a breach of contract is complained of, a party may sue for specific performance of the contract if the contract is capable of being specifically enforced, or the party may sue for damages in civil court. A petition for specific performance of a contract or recovery of damages cannot be entertained under the extra ordinary jurisdiction of High Court. Paragraph 10 of the said Judgment reads:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 142 - D A Desai - Full Document

Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons vs Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay on 27 April, 1989

In this connection reference may be made to E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, ; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, ; Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, ; R.D, Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India , , and also Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, . It appears to us that rule of reason and rule against arbitrariness and discrimination, rules of fair play and natural justice are part of the rule of law applicable in situation or action by State instrumentality in dealing with citizens in a situation like the present one. Even though the rights of the citizens are in the nature of contractual rights, the manner, the method and motive of a decision of entering or not entering into a contract, are subject to judicial review on the touchstone of relevance and reasonableness, fair play, natural justice, equality and non-discrimination in the type of the transactions and nature of the dealing as in the present case."
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 597 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Bareilly Development Authority & Anr vs Ajai Pal Singh & Ors on 17 February, 1989

In Bareilly Development Authority and Anr. v. Ajay Pal Singh and Ors., . reference is made to the three aforementioned Supreme Court judgments, to state that no writ or order can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contract pure and simple. In paragraph 22, the Court has stated about the scope of interference by the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in cases of non-statutory concluded contracts like the one in that case. On the facts of that case, the Apex Court found that the High Court had gone wrong in its finding that there was arbitrariness and unreasonableness on the part of the authority in increasing the cost of the houses/flats.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 414 - S R Pandian - Full Document
1   2 Next