Legal Reference Library

In the opinion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this question was no more res integra and had been settled by a large number of judicial pronouncements. The Hon’ble Court referred to the judgment rendered in the case of # K.N. Guruswamy v. State of Mysore, AIR 1954 SC 592 and followed subsequently in the case of # D.F.O. v. Ram Sanehi Singh, (1973) 3 SCC 864 wherein it was observed that it was unable to hold that merely becausesource of the right which the Respondent claims was initially in a contract, for obtaining relief against any arbitrary and unlawful action on the part of a public authority, he must resort to a suit and not to a petition by way of a writ. It observed that in view of the judgment rendered in the case of K.N. Guruswamy (Supra), there can be no doubt that the petition was maintainable, even if the right to relief arose out of an alleged breach of contract, where the action challenged was of a public authority invested with statutory power. The Apex Court in AB...

1) Mardia Chemicals v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311 2) Bank of Bihar Ltd. v. Damodar Prasad (1969) 1 SCR 620 3) State Bank of India v. M/s. Indexport Registered and others (1992) 3 SCC 159 4) Industrial Investment Bank of India Limited v. Biswanath Jhunihunwala (2009) 9 SCC 478 5) Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad AIR 1969 SC 556 6) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1 7) Harbanslal Sahnia and another v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others (2003) 2 SCC 107 8) Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes (1964) 6 SCR 654 9) Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1983) 2 SCC 433 10) Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. and others (1985) 1 SCC 260 11) Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan and others (2001) 6 SCC 569 12) CCT, Orissa and others v. Indian Explosives Ltd. (2008) 3 SCC 688 13) City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir...

Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India United Bank Of India vs Satyawati Tondon & Ors. on 26 July, 2010 Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.10145 of 2010) United Bank of India ...Appellant Versus Satyawati Tondon and others ...Respondents JUDGMENT 1. Leave granted. 2. With a view to give impetus to the industrial development of the country, the Central and State Governments encouraged the banks and other financial institutions to formulate liberal policies for grant of loans and other financial facilities to those who wanted to set up new industrial units or expand the existing units. Many hundred thousand took advantage of easy financing by the banks and other financial institutions but a large number of them did not repay the amount of loan, etc. Not only this, they instituted frivolous cases and succeeded in persuading the Civil Courts to pass ord...

Supreme Court of India M/S. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs Union Of India And Anr on 28 April, 2004 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: Cji, S.B. Sinha, S.H. Kapadia. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 9159 of 2003 PETITIONER: M/s. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. RESPONDENT: Union of India and Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/04/2004 BENCH: CJI, S.B. Sinha & S.H. Kapadia. JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T S.B. SINHA, J : INTRODUCTION Whether the seat of the Parliament or the Legislature of a State would be a relevant factor for determining the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 25.7.2003 passed by the High Court of Delhi in C.W.P. No. 4609 of 2003 holding that the said Court has no jurisdiction. BACKGROUND FACTS The appellant is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. Its registered office is at Mumbai. It obtained a loan from th...

14. The maintainability of writ petition in a matter of landlord-tenant dispute was considered by this Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329. In the said case, this Court noticed the scope of interference by the High Court in civil matters/private disputes under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and held that the High Court committed an error in entertaining writ petition in a dispute between landlord and tenant and where the only respondent is a private landlord. 15. Nature and scope of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was considered by this Court in Jai Singh and others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, (2010) 9 SCC 385. In the said case, this Court held: .....The High Court is, therefore, expected to exercise such wide powers with great care, caution and circumspection Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India Jacky vs Tiny @ Antony & Ors on 9 April, 2014 Bench: Sudhansu Jyoti Muk...