2005 (12) TMI 591

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Agreements in July 2002, in terms of which sundry Bank Guarantees favoring the Respondent were made available by the Petitioner. Towards the end of 2003 the Petitioner encountered financial difficulties. To overcome this, fresh infusion of capital was sought to be located and procured. A Shareholders Agreement was entered into on 26.8.2004 which, according to the contention of the Petitioners, superseded all previous Agreements. The new investors were assured that the total liability would not exceed ₹ 300 crores, and if it exceeded that figure the liability would be borne by Mr. Siddharth Ray, the promoter of the Petitioner Company. The Petitioner states that Mr. Ray has reneged and defaulted on his assurances and liability and has f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r to the opinion in Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Anupama Patnaik in which the Apex Court had found it rather strange that a simple claim for money was made in a writ petition and was entertained by the High Court and allowed. There are several disputed questions of fact. Each party is alleging that the other party is guilty of violation of the terms of the allotment. The matter is not covered by any statutory provisions. The writ petition itself was misconceived and ought not to have been entertained. In National Highways Authority of India v. Ganga Enterprises, it has been held that it is settled law that disputes relating to contracts ought not to be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution. In Barielly Development Auth....