TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petition dismissed under Article 226 due to identical facts and issues in prior case, earlier order upheld</h1> <h3>M/s Akshat Steel Versus State Of Chhattisgarh, The Collector Bilaspur, Assistant Commissioner and Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Raipur</h3> M/s Akshat Steel Versus State Of Chhattisgarh, The Collector Bilaspur, Assistant Commissioner and Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation ... ISSUES: Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when disputed questions of fact are involved.Whether a writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari is appropriate to direct respondents to clear an admissible amount and pay interest under a rate contract.Whether the petitioner is entitled to the production of complete records related to the case for just and proper decision. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The Court held that 'when there are disputed question of facts involved in a case, the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.'The relief sought by the petitioner, being contingent upon the resolution of disputed questions of fact, 'cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.'The writ petition was found 'devoid of merit' and dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue other alternate remedies available under law.The Court declined to take a view different from a prior identical judgment and dismissed the petition accordingly. RATIONALE: The Court applied the well-settled legal principle that Article 226 jurisdiction is generally inappropriate where disputed factual questions exist.Reliance was placed on precedent establishing that writ petitions under Article 226 are not the proper remedy for disputes involving factual controversies requiring detailed adjudication.The Court adhered to its prior decision in an identical matter, emphasizing consistency and judicial discipline.No dissent or doctrinal shift was indicated; the judgment followed established constitutional jurisprudence regarding the scope of writ jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
