https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184056 Writ jurisdiction is inappropriate for quashing a contract cancellation where the core dispute turns on seriously contested facts requiring evidence. The Court noted that whether the respondent was prevented from performing the contractual work was hotly disputed and could not be resolved on assertions alone. In such circumstances, the writ court should not make factual findings or grant substantive contractual relief, and the parties must seek adjudication before a civil court of competent jurisdiction. An earlier proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was noted only as background. en-us Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Jun 2016 16:34:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184056 Writ jurisdiction is inappropriate for quashing a contract cancellation where the core dispute turns on seriously contested facts requiring evidence. The Court noted that whether the respondent was prevented from performing the contractual work was hotly disputed and could not be resolved on assertions alone. In such circumstances, the writ court should not make factual findings or grant substantive contractual relief, and the parties must seek adjudication before a civil court of competent jurisdiction. An earlier proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was noted only as background. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184056