Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.26 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Escorts Ltd. & Ors on 19 December, 1985
19. If the decision, in Dwarka Das Marfatia & Sons
vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, 1989
AIR 1642,, is carefully read, it becomes more than
abundantly clear that though at the first blush, the
decision, in Radha Krishna Agarwal (supra), appears to
Page 14 of 29
Downloaded on : Fri Aug 27 21:01:13 IST 2021
C/SCA/20864/2019 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2021
have laid down that the remedy of every breach of
contract lies in civil suits and writ jurisdiction would never
be applicable to enforce even constitutional obligations of
the State in contractual matters, the later decision of the
Apex Court, in Dwarka Das Marfatia (supra), clearly shows
that having considered the decision in Radha Krishna
Agarwal (supra) and also the Constitution Bench decision
in Life Insurance Corporatio of India vs. Escorts Ltd.
1986 AIR 1370, it has clearly held that there is no absolute
bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 in a
contractual matter, particularly, when the act or conduct
of the State or its instrumentality is challenged on the
anvil of Article 14.
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Jage Ram And Ors on 21 April, 1980
16. What emerges from the above discussion is that the
remedy, available under Article 226, is an extraordinary
remedy and is not intended for the purpose of declaring
private rights of the parties. For the purpose of enforcing
contractual rights and obligations, the remedy of filing of a
civil suit is available to the aggrieved party and, hence, a
High Court will not exercise its prerogative writ jurisdiction
to enforce such contractual rights or obligations. A writ or
direction in the nature of mandamus would not, therefore,
lie to enforce private rights or contractual rights or
obligations or even to avoid such obligations or rights.
Contracts, which are non-statutory, and the rights, which
are purely contractual and governed only by the terms of
the contract, cannot be enforced by any writ or order
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is
Page 13 of 29
Downloaded on : Fri Aug 27 21:01:13 IST 2021
C/SCA/20864/2019 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2021
formidable array of authorities, which may be referred to
in this regard. (See Lekhraj S. Laluani v. N.M. Shah Deputy
Custodian-Cum-Managing Officer, Bombay ; Radha Krishna
Agarwal (supra); Divisional Forest Officer v. Biswanath Tea
Co Ltd. ; State Bank of Haryana v. Jage Ram AIR 1980 SC
2018; Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative
Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh ; Bareilly Development
Authority v. Ajay Pal Singh ; Life Insurance Corporation of
India v. Escorts Ltd. ; and Kulchinder Singh v. Hardayal
Singh Brar ).
Bihar Eastern Gangetic ... vs Sipahi Singh & Others on 1 September, 1977
16. What emerges from the above discussion is that the
remedy, available under Article 226, is an extraordinary
remedy and is not intended for the purpose of declaring
private rights of the parties. For the purpose of enforcing
contractual rights and obligations, the remedy of filing of a
civil suit is available to the aggrieved party and, hence, a
High Court will not exercise its prerogative writ jurisdiction
to enforce such contractual rights or obligations. A writ or
direction in the nature of mandamus would not, therefore,
lie to enforce private rights or contractual rights or
obligations or even to avoid such obligations or rights.
Contracts, which are non-statutory, and the rights, which
are purely contractual and governed only by the terms of
the contract, cannot be enforced by any writ or order
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is
Page 13 of 29
Downloaded on : Fri Aug 27 21:01:13 IST 2021
C/SCA/20864/2019 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2021
formidable array of authorities, which may be referred to
in this regard. (See Lekhraj S. Laluani v. N.M. Shah Deputy
Custodian-Cum-Managing Officer, Bombay ; Radha Krishna
Agarwal (supra); Divisional Forest Officer v. Biswanath Tea
Co Ltd. ; State Bank of Haryana v. Jage Ram AIR 1980 SC
2018; Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative
Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh ; Bareilly Development
Authority v. Ajay Pal Singh ; Life Insurance Corporation of
India v. Escorts Ltd. ; and Kulchinder Singh v. Hardayal
Singh Brar ).
Bareilly Development Authority & Anr vs Ajai Pal Singh & Ors on 17 February, 1989
16. What emerges from the above discussion is that the
remedy, available under Article 226, is an extraordinary
remedy and is not intended for the purpose of declaring
private rights of the parties. For the purpose of enforcing
contractual rights and obligations, the remedy of filing of a
civil suit is available to the aggrieved party and, hence, a
High Court will not exercise its prerogative writ jurisdiction
to enforce such contractual rights or obligations. A writ or
direction in the nature of mandamus would not, therefore,
lie to enforce private rights or contractual rights or
obligations or even to avoid such obligations or rights.
Contracts, which are non-statutory, and the rights, which
are purely contractual and governed only by the terms of
the contract, cannot be enforced by any writ or order
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is
Page 13 of 29
Downloaded on : Fri Aug 27 21:01:13 IST 2021
C/SCA/20864/2019 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2021
formidable array of authorities, which may be referred to
in this regard. (See Lekhraj S. Laluani v. N.M. Shah Deputy
Custodian-Cum-Managing Officer, Bombay ; Radha Krishna
Agarwal (supra); Divisional Forest Officer v. Biswanath Tea
Co Ltd. ; State Bank of Haryana v. Jage Ram AIR 1980 SC
2018; Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative
Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh ; Bareilly Development
Authority v. Ajay Pal Singh ; Life Insurance Corporation of
India v. Escorts Ltd. ; and Kulchinder Singh v. Hardayal
Singh Brar ).
Kulchhinder Singh & Ors vs Hardayal Singh Brar & Ors on 18 March, 1976
16. What emerges from the above discussion is that the
remedy, available under Article 226, is an extraordinary
remedy and is not intended for the purpose of declaring
private rights of the parties. For the purpose of enforcing
contractual rights and obligations, the remedy of filing of a
civil suit is available to the aggrieved party and, hence, a
High Court will not exercise its prerogative writ jurisdiction
to enforce such contractual rights or obligations. A writ or
direction in the nature of mandamus would not, therefore,
lie to enforce private rights or contractual rights or
obligations or even to avoid such obligations or rights.
Contracts, which are non-statutory, and the rights, which
are purely contractual and governed only by the terms of
the contract, cannot be enforced by any writ or order
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is
Page 13 of 29
Downloaded on : Fri Aug 27 21:01:13 IST 2021
C/SCA/20864/2019 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2021
formidable array of authorities, which may be referred to
in this regard. (See Lekhraj S. Laluani v. N.M. Shah Deputy
Custodian-Cum-Managing Officer, Bombay ; Radha Krishna
Agarwal (supra); Divisional Forest Officer v. Biswanath Tea
Co Ltd. ; State Bank of Haryana v. Jage Ram AIR 1980 SC
2018; Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative
Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh ; Bareilly Development
Authority v. Ajay Pal Singh ; Life Insurance Corporation of
India v. Escorts Ltd. ; and Kulchinder Singh v. Hardayal
Singh Brar ).
K. N. Guruswamy vs The State Of Mysore And Others on 24 May, 1954
17. However, the principle that in an appropriate case,
writ jurisdiction can be invoked even to enforce a
contractual obligation of the State or its instrumentality
was made clear by the Apex Court, in K.N. Guruswamy
v. State of Mysore, AIR 1954 SC 992.
Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons vs Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay on 27 April, 1989
It has been further made
clear, in Dwarka Das Marfatia (supra), that even in
contractual matters, the State's action must be
reasonable, lawful and 'on relevant ground of public
interest'.
Life Insurance Corporation Of India & ... vs Smt.Asha Goel & Anr on 13 December, 2000
22. From the decision in Asha Goel (supra), what emerges
is that ordinarily, a High Court should not entertain a writ
petition, under Article 226, for mere enforcement of claims
under a contract of insurance; however, the Constitution
having not placed any fetters on the exercise of
extraordinary jurisdiction by the High Court under Article
226, it is in the discretion of the High Court to interfere or
not to interfere in a contractual matter. No exercise of
discretionary power can be unfettered, unguided,
unsettled or arbitrary, and, hence, the position of law, on a
given subject, should not be completely unforeseen and
legal decisions must have some standards or parameters
in order to enable the people at large to know as to what
the position of law, on a given subject, is. Considered,
thus, the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot
be unfettered or arbitrary. However, it is not possible to
enumerate exhaustively the circumstances in which a writ
application even in contractual matter would lie, for,
exercise of jurisdiction would depend upon a considerable
number of factors, such as, the question as to whether the
Page 20 of 29
Downloaded on : Fri Aug 27 21:01:13 IST 2021
C/SCA/20864/2019 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2021
writ applicant is merely attempting to enforce his or her
contractual rights or has raised important questions of law
or constitutional issues, the nature of the dispute raised
and the nature of enquiry necessary for determination of
the dispute, etc. In short, the exercise of jurisdiction would
depend on the facts and circumstances of each given
case. While jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a
writ petition, under Article 226, should not be denied
altogether, the courts must bear in mind the self-imposed
restrictions constitutionally followed by the High Courts
not to, ordinarily, entertain writ petitions for enforcement
of purely contractual rights and obligations, particularly,
when determination of such questions necessitates taking
of oral evidence or when the parties had agreed to resolve
their disputes, arising out of the contract, in the
alternative forum selected by them.