https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170079 A writ petition under Article 226 was treated as unsuitable for enforcing rights arising from a lease contract or recovering royalty paid under protest, because the claim flowed from the contract, involved disputed facts, and could be pursued through civil remedies; a company also could not invoke Article 19(1)(g) as a citizen's fundamental right. On construction of the lease clause and Rule 37, royalty-free timber removal was confined to use connected with exploitation of the very grant from which it was cut. Timber taken for tea gardens outside the leased area did not qualify, even if those gardens belonged to the same company. en-us Tue, 05 May 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 May 2015 12:05:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170079 A writ petition under Article 226 was treated as unsuitable for enforcing rights arising from a lease contract or recovering royalty paid under protest, because the claim flowed from the contract, involved disputed facts, and could be pursued through civil remedies; a company also could not invoke Article 19(1)(g) as a citizen's fundamental right. On construction of the lease clause and Rule 37, royalty-free timber removal was confined to use connected with exploitation of the very grant from which it was cut. Timber taken for tea gardens outside the leased area did not qualify, even if those gardens belonged to the same company. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 May 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170079