Condonation of Delay: directoral disputes and pending company proceedings can constitute reasonable cause, allowing a belated return to be treated as ...
Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Article 226 writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not used to enforce purely contractual monetary claims where liability is disputed and no public law element is shown. The source decision turned on contested issues about supplies, invoice genuineness, an alleged settlement, the parties' relationship, contractual performance, and account correctness, all requiring oral and documentary evidence. The fact that official respondents benefited from the work did not itself create a right to divert amounts payable to the contractor. The writ petition was therefore not amenable to adjudication under Article 226, leaving the claimant to pursue remedies in accordance with law.
Article 226 writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not used to enforce purely contractual monetary claims where liability is disputed and no public law element is shown. The source decision turned on contested issues about supplies, invoice genuineness, an alleged settlement, the parties' relationship, contractual performance, and account correctness, all requiring oral and documentary evidence. The fact that official respondents benefited from the work did not itself create a right to divert amounts payable to the contractor. The writ petition was therefore not amenable to adjudication under Article 226, leaving the claimant to pursue remedies in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
