Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)Bareilly Development Authority & Anr vs Ajai Pal Singh & Ors on 17 February, 1989
That is a matter either for arbitration as provided by the contract
or for the civil court, as the case may be. The learned counsel further relied
on the decision reported in Barilly Development Authority and Another v.
Ajai Pal Singh and others (1989) 2 SCC116) to contend that the writ petition
in this case is not sustainable. It was held in that decision that there is a line
of decisions where the contract entered into between the State and persons
aggrieved is non -statutory and purely contractual, that the rights are
governed only by the terms of the contract. Hence, no writ or order can be
W.P.(C) No.29125/2020 9
issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to compel the
authorities to remedy a breach of contract pure and simple.
State Of Bihar And Others vs Jain Plastics And Chemicals Limited on 21 November, 2001
In State of
Bihar & others v. Jain Plastics And Chemicals Ltd.(2002) 1 SCC 216) , it
was held that question of fact which was based on serious disputed
questions or rival claims arising out of the breach of contract are required to
be investigated and determined on the basis of evidence led in a civil suit.
K.K. Saksena vs International Commission Of ... on 25 February, 2015
To
further buttress this argument, the learned counsel relied on a Division
Bench decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.27395/2020 and on
K.K.Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage
and Others ( 2015) 4 SCC 670). In the later case, it was affirmed by the
Supreme Court that contractual and commercial obligations are enforceable
only by ordinary civil action and not by judicial review.
Abl International Ltd. & Anr vs Export Credit Guarantee Corportion Of ... on 18 December, 2003
In ABL International Ltd. &
another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & others.
(2004 KHC 506) , the question that came up for consideration was whether
W.P.(C) No.29125/2020 10
the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was
maintainable to enforce a contractual obligation of the State or its
instrumentality. In the above proceedings which commenced from the writ
petition filed before the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, the prayer
sought was to quash the letter of repudiation was issued by the first
respondent and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to make
payment of the dues to it under the contract of insurance. Since the only
limited question was whether the letter of repudiation sustainable in law, it
was held by the Supreme Court that writ was maintainable in such cases.
Punjab National Bank vs Atmanand Singh And Ors on 4 February, 2020
In all the above cases
referred above, disputed question of facts were not involved and the attack
W.P.(C) No.29125/2020 11
was essentially based on legal issues.
Satyabrata Ghose vs Mugneeram Bangur & Co., And Another on 16 November, 1953
16) ( C.No.44) , Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co.and
Another (1954 KHC 413(SC), Thomas v. Moran Mar Baselious
Ougen(1979 KHC 305), Thomas v. Piravanthoor Panchayat (1985 KLT
SN 47), Xavier v. Joseph(1994 (2) KLT SN 26,) Vigneshwara Bhar v.
Srikrishna Bhat (2006 (1) KLT SN 94), Syed Khursed Ali v. State of
Orissa and Another (2007 KHC 7548), Alluri Narayana Murthy Raju v.
Dist.Collector Visakhapatnam Dist.and Others (2008 KHC 7457),
Kuriakose v. State of Kerala (2009 (4) KLT SN 17), Delhi Development
Authority v. Kenneth Builders & Developers Ltd. And Others (2016 KHC
6421)
Dda vs M/S Kenneth Builders Developers Ltd. ... on 29 June, 2016
16) ( C.No.44) , Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co.and
Another (1954 KHC 413(SC), Thomas v. Moran Mar Baselious
Ougen(1979 KHC 305), Thomas v. Piravanthoor Panchayat (1985 KLT
SN 47), Xavier v. Joseph(1994 (2) KLT SN 26,) Vigneshwara Bhar v.
Srikrishna Bhat (2006 (1) KLT SN 94), Syed Khursed Ali v. State of
Orissa and Another (2007 KHC 7548), Alluri Narayana Murthy Raju v.
Dist.Collector Visakhapatnam Dist.and Others (2008 KHC 7457),
Kuriakose v. State of Kerala (2009 (4) KLT SN 17), Delhi Development
Authority v. Kenneth Builders & Developers Ltd. And Others (2016 KHC
6421)
Mary vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 22 October, 2013
11. Petitioners have also a case that the contract has become void . To
substantiate it, the petitioner relied on the decision reported in Mary v.
State of Kerala and Others (2013 (4) KHC 372). According to the
W.P.(C) No.29125/2020 13
petitioners, they are entitled for refund of the entire amount deposited . The
learned counsel, relying on the decision reported in Krishna and
Company (M/s.) v. Government of A.P. And Others (1993 KHC 1359)
contended that the petitioners were prevented from exercising their rights
and consequently, entitled for the refund of the amount. This fact is also
disputed by the KSRTC by contending that the petitioners voluntarily
refrained from performing their parts of the duties.