Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (1.03 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Abl International Ltd. & Anr vs Export Credit Guarantee Corportion Of ... on 18 December, 2003
Their Lordships of the Apex Court then
relied on the earlier judgment of the Court in
22
the case of ABL International Ltd. (Supra) in
Para 21 of the reports to justify maintainability
of writ in contractual matters to set right the
arbitrary actions of State or its
instrumentalities.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ... vs Dolly Das on 13 April, 1999
The next issue is as raised by the
learned Advocate General of Bihar that once the
power to terminate the agreement and forfeiture
was exercised under a contract the remedy is
only Civil Court has to be answered in the
negative. The observations of the Apex Court in
the decision above have to be kept in mind which
clearly indicate and hold otherwise. Here, I may
also usefully refer to the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. Dolly Das
(1999) 4 Supreme Court Cases 450 and in
particular the law as laid down in Paragraph 9
thereof;
Gaya Prasad vs Shri Pradeep Srivastava on 7 February, 2001
In words
26
of the Apex Court in the case of Gaya Prasad Vs.
Pradeep Srivastava (2001)2 SCC 604
".......If a citizen is
told that once you resort to
legal procedure for
realization of your urgent
need you have to wait and wait
for 23 to 30 years, what else
is it if not to envitably
incur and force him to resort
to etc. legal measures for
realizing the required relief.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
In my view, State and State instrumentality
apart from being bound by contractual obligation
like an individual has additional responsibility
to see that its action conform to Article 14 of
the Constitution and this to my mind was set at
rest by the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. The
International Airport Authority of India and
Ors. AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1628. It would be
useful to quote from Paragraph 12 of the reports
in the above mentioned case :
Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 14 March, 2008
In the said judgment the Apex Court has
further laid down that where an action can be
taken on formation of an opinion which is a
condition precedent then even though the opinion
is subjective, it must be based on material
disclosing the necessity to take action. The
formation of opinion should reflect intense
application of mind with reference to the
material available on record. The exercise
should reflect application of mind which
postulates consideration of all the relevant
facts and aspect of the matter. This, in my
view, is a necessary fall out of application of
Article 14 of the Constitution and if it is
found that while taking action the relevant
aspect has been ignored or not taken note of the
action would be liable to be questioned as being
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Hindustan Sugar Mills vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 31 August, 1979
proceeding before a writ Court in a short time
and relief granted, then, this Court wonders why
State or State instrumentalities fear facing the
27
proceedings in a writ Court and drive a person
to prolong litigation elsewhere? State must do
what is just and fair and must not be permitted
to take technical pleas to defeat the legitimate
claims of citizen and drive them to civil suit
as held in the case of Hindustan Sugar Mills Vs.
State of Rajasthan AIR 1981 SC 1681.
Delhi Transport Corporation vs D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress on 4 September, 1990
the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court
17
in the case of Delhi Road Transport Corporation
Vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and Ors. AIR 1991
Supreme Court 101 and in particular the judgment
of Sawant J. wherein in Paragraph 223 at Page 173
of the report, after pointing out that, it is
inadvisable to depend on the good sense of the
individuals, however, high-placed they may be. It
is all the more improper and undesirable to
expose the precious rights like the rights of
life, liberty and property to the vagaries of the
individual whims and fancies. It is trite to say
that individuals are not and do not become wise
because they occupy high seats of power, and good
sense, circumspection and fairness does not go
with the posts, however, high they may be. There
is only a complaisant presumption that those who
occupy high posts have a high sense of
responsibility. The presumption is neither legal
nor rational.
1