https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97551 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to enforce private contractual obligations or to direct a judicial officer to exercise discretion in a particular manner; the HC applied principles limiting mandamus and certiorari where disputed contractual and possession questions require appropriate fora and factual determination, and therefore quashing District Judge orders or directing dispossession by writ was refused. The Court also held that official liquidators are statutory officers acting under court supervision but are not identical with or agents of the court for treating their transfers as judicial acts; leases executed by liquidators are transfers, not court orders, and are not susceptible to certiorari on that basis. en-us Mon, 28 Oct 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:08:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97551 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to enforce private contractual obligations or to direct a judicial officer to exercise discretion in a particular manner; the HC applied principles limiting mandamus and certiorari where disputed contractual and possession questions require appropriate fora and factual determination, and therefore quashing District Judge orders or directing dispossession by writ was refused. The Court also held that official liquidators are statutory officers acting under court supervision but are not identical with or agents of the court for treating their transfers as judicial acts; leases executed by liquidators are transfers, not court orders, and are not susceptible to certiorari on that basis. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 28 Oct 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97551