Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)Section 45 in The Insurance Act, 1938 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Mohinder Singh Chawla Etc on 17 December, 1996
Similarly, in
State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chowla [1997 (2) SCC 83],
it was reiterated that the right to health is an integral part of Article
Md. Hanif vs The State Of Assam on 3 September, 1969
The position is also well settled that if the contract entered
between the parties provide an alternate forum for resolution of
disputes arising from the contract, then the parties should
approach the forum agreed by them and the High Court in writ
jurisdiction should not permit them to by-pass the agreed forum of
dispute resolution. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that in
the above discussions we have only indicated some of the
circumstances in which the High Courts have declined to entertain
petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for enforcement
of contractual rights and obligation; the discussions are not
intended to be exhaustive. This Court from time to time disapproved
of a High Court entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution in matters of enforcement of contractual rights and
obligation particularly where the claim by one party is contested by
the other and adjudication of the dispute requires inquiry into facts.
We may notice a few such cases; Mohammed Hanif vs. The State of
Assam (1969) 2 SCC 782; Banchhanidhi Rath vs. The State of
Orissa and ors. (1972) 4 SCC 781; Smt. Rukmanibai Gupta vs.
Collector, Jabalpur and others (1980 (4) SCC 556; Food
Corporation of India v. Jagannath Dutta (1993 Supp (3) SCC 635)
and State of H.P. v. Raja Mehndra Pal and Others ((1999) 4 SCC
Banchhanidhi Rath vs The State Of Orissa And Ors. on 9 December, 1971
The position is also well settled that if the contract entered
between the parties provide an alternate forum for resolution of
disputes arising from the contract, then the parties should
approach the forum agreed by them and the High Court in writ
jurisdiction should not permit them to by-pass the agreed forum of
dispute resolution. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that in
the above discussions we have only indicated some of the
circumstances in which the High Courts have declined to entertain
petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for enforcement
of contractual rights and obligation; the discussions are not
intended to be exhaustive. This Court from time to time disapproved
of a High Court entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution in matters of enforcement of contractual rights and
obligation particularly where the claim by one party is contested by
the other and adjudication of the dispute requires inquiry into facts.
We may notice a few such cases; Mohammed Hanif vs. The State of
Assam (1969) 2 SCC 782; Banchhanidhi Rath vs. The State of
Orissa and ors. (1972) 4 SCC 781; Smt. Rukmanibai Gupta vs.
Collector, Jabalpur and others (1980 (4) SCC 556; Food
Corporation of India v. Jagannath Dutta (1993 Supp (3) SCC 635)
and State of H.P. v. Raja Mehndra Pal and Others ((1999) 4 SCC
Smt. Rukmanibai Gupta vs Collector Jabalpur And Ors. on 22 October, 1980
The position is also well settled that if the contract entered
between the parties provide an alternate forum for resolution of
disputes arising from the contract, then the parties should
approach the forum agreed by them and the High Court in writ
jurisdiction should not permit them to by-pass the agreed forum of
dispute resolution. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that in
the above discussions we have only indicated some of the
circumstances in which the High Courts have declined to entertain
petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for enforcement
of contractual rights and obligation; the discussions are not
intended to be exhaustive. This Court from time to time disapproved
of a High Court entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution in matters of enforcement of contractual rights and
obligation particularly where the claim by one party is contested by
the other and adjudication of the dispute requires inquiry into facts.
We may notice a few such cases; Mohammed Hanif vs. The State of
Assam (1969) 2 SCC 782; Banchhanidhi Rath vs. The State of
Orissa and ors. (1972) 4 SCC 781; Smt. Rukmanibai Gupta vs.
Collector, Jabalpur and others (1980 (4) SCC 556; Food
Corporation of India v. Jagannath Dutta (1993 Supp (3) SCC 635)
and State of H.P. v. Raja Mehndra Pal and Others ((1999) 4 SCC
Food Corporation Of India And Ors vs Jagannath Dutta And Ors on 18 March, 1993
The position is also well settled that if the contract entered
between the parties provide an alternate forum for resolution of
disputes arising from the contract, then the parties should
approach the forum agreed by them and the High Court in writ
jurisdiction should not permit them to by-pass the agreed forum of
dispute resolution. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that in
the above discussions we have only indicated some of the
circumstances in which the High Courts have declined to entertain
petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for enforcement
of contractual rights and obligation; the discussions are not
intended to be exhaustive. This Court from time to time disapproved
of a High Court entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution in matters of enforcement of contractual rights and
obligation particularly where the claim by one party is contested by
the other and adjudication of the dispute requires inquiry into facts.
We may notice a few such cases; Mohammed Hanif vs. The State of
Assam (1969) 2 SCC 782; Banchhanidhi Rath vs. The State of
Orissa and ors. (1972) 4 SCC 781; Smt. Rukmanibai Gupta vs.
Collector, Jabalpur and others (1980 (4) SCC 556; Food
Corporation of India v. Jagannath Dutta (1993 Supp (3) SCC 635)
and State of H.P. v. Raja Mehndra Pal and Others ((1999) 4 SCC
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
30. Even on that ground, the detailed contentions taken in
the counter affidavit cannot be accepted in the absence of such
reasons in the impugned order, in the light of the principles laid
down by the Apex Court in Mohinder Sing Gill and another v. Chief
Election Commission and others [1978 KHC 478].
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoorsamity Of Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 6 May, 1996
In Paschim Banga
Khet Mazdoor Samithi v. State of West Bengal [1996 (4) SCC
37], medical treatment was held as a fundamental right and denial
of the same is violative of Article 21. Here, declining the claim in
respect of the treatment undergone amounts to denial of
treatment itself. Thereby, there is violation of the right to life
provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.