https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151139 The court held that the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable to enforce contractual obligations of the State. It interpreted the insurance and export contracts, determining liability for non-payment in US dollars. The court found the respondent liable for non-payment risks and rejected claims of disputed facts requiring a civil suit. Emphasizing the application of Article 14 to state actions in contracts, it set aside the High Court's decision, ruling in favor of the appellants for compensation in US dollars. The appeal was allowed with costs. en-us Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151139 The court held that the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable to enforce contractual obligations of the State. It interpreted the insurance and export contracts, determining liability for non-payment in US dollars. The court found the respondent liable for non-payment risks and rejected claims of disputed facts requiring a civil suit. Emphasizing the application of Article 14 to state actions in contracts, it set aside the High Court's decision, ruling in favor of the appellants for compensation in US dollars. The appeal was allowed with costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151139