Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
