Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (6.14 seconds)Zonal Manager, Central Bank Of India vs M/S. Devi Ispat Ltd & Ors on 30 July, 2010
14. Contending contra, Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the first respondent Trust would submit that dehors the
reasoning of the Writ Court, the conclusion that the Writ Petition is
maintainable can be sustained on other grounds. The learned Senior Counsel
would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zonal
Manager, Central Bank of India v. Devi Ispat Limited and others,
24/33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 45 of 2015
reported in 2010 (11) SCC 186, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that if there is a legal right and a corresponding legal duty on the part of the
State or the instrumentality of the State and if any action on the part of the
State or instrumentality of the State is wholly unfair or arbitrary, the Writ
Courts can exercise their power even in contractual matters. While doing so,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 28 of the said judgment has observed as
follows:
Union Of India & Ors vs Tantia Construction Pvt.Ltd on 18 April, 2011
In Union of India and others v. Tantia Construction Pvt Ltd.
and others, reported in 2011 (5) SCC 697, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
while concluding that existence/availability of an alternative remedy by way
of arbitration does not act as a bar for the exercise of the jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India has observed as follows in
paragraphs 33 and 34 of the said judgment:
M/S Ram Barai Singh & Co vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 17 December, 2014
16. A similar view was expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Ram Barai Singh and Co. vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in
2015(13) SCC 592. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court again
reiterated the established position of law that availability of alternative
remedy is not an absolute bar for a Constitutional Court to exercise its
jurisdiction under Article 226, at best it could be a self-imposed restriction.
Mahabir Auto Stores & Ors vs Indian Oil Corporation & Ors on 6 March, 1990
In Mahabir Auto Stores and others v. Indian Oil Corporation and others,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court justified interference in contractual matters
citing the responsibility of an instrumentality of a State to act fairly. From
the above catena of cases, it could be seen that the following two principles
emerge.
Sridhar Suar & Anr vs Shri Jagan Nath Temple & Others on 21 April, 1976
In Sridhar Suar and another v. Shri Jagannath Temple and
others, reported in (1976) 3 SCC 485, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while
examining the scope of a license granted to sell mahaprasad in the premises
of the Temple of Lord of Shri Jagannath at Puri concluded that permanent
alienation of Temple property is beyond the powers of the Trustee.
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1