https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304920 Writ jurisdiction remained available despite an arbitration clause where State action in a contractual matter was challenged as arbitrary, and the High Court held that disputed facts or an alternative contractual remedy did not create an absolute bar to Article 226 review. Applying that principle, the Court found the forfeiture of earnest money deposit arbitrary because the contractor had not been given effective physical possession of the work site and no reliable record showed lawful transfer of possession for performance. The forfeiture was set aside and refund directed, while other contractual disputes were left to arbitration or other appropriate remedy. en-us Thu, 25 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Nov 2022 16:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304920 Writ jurisdiction remained available despite an arbitration clause where State action in a contractual matter was challenged as arbitrary, and the High Court held that disputed facts or an alternative contractual remedy did not create an absolute bar to Article 226 review. Applying that principle, the Court found the forfeiture of earnest money deposit arbitrary because the contractor had not been given effective physical possession of the work site and no reliable record showed lawful transfer of possession for performance. The forfeiture was set aside and refund directed, while other contractual disputes were left to arbitration or other appropriate remedy. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 25 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304920