Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G. M. CONTRACTOR
Versus
GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD
Decided on : December 10, 1971
Contract - License and Option to Purchase Undertaking - The license granted in this case is considered a contract, and the option to purchase the undertaking is being exercised by virtue of this contract. The controversy arises from the contract, and as the undertaking is sought to be purchased in terms of the contract, there is no compulsory acquisition within the meaning of Article 31 of the Constitution. Therefore, the writ petition and the appeal are not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed a miscellaneous petition seeking to raise an additional ground related to the nature of the license granted and the exercise of the option to purchase the undertaking as a contract. The appellant objected to this ground being allowed, but it was permitted by the court after compensating the appellants with costs. The court also sought the assistance of the views of the High Court on the matter and remanded the cases to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the raising of the additional ground related to the nature of the license and the exercise of the option to purchase the undertaking as a contract. The cases were remanded to the High Court for further consideration, and the respondents were directed to pay the costs of the hearing to the appellants.
Issues: The main issue was whether the license and the option to purchase the undertaking should be considered a contract, and if so, whether the controversy arising from the contract affects the maintainability of the writ petition and the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the license and the exercise of the option to purchase the undertaking as a contract, and based on this interpretation, found that there was no compulsory acquisition within the meaning of Article 31 of the Constitution. Therefore, the writ petition and the appeal were deemed not maintainable.
Final Decision: The court allowed the raising of the additional ground, remanded the cases to the High Court, and directed the respondents to pay the costs of the hearing to the appellants.
Judgment
S. M. SIKRI
( 1 ) IN these Civil Appeals the respondents have filed miscellaneous petition praying that this Court may be pleased to permit them to raise the following additional ground:
"that the licence granted in this case is nothing but a contract and it is by virtue of the contract that the option to purchase the undertaking is being exercised. As the ocntroversy has arisen out of a contract only and the undertaking is sought to be purchased in terms of the contract, there is no compulsory acquisition of the undertaking within the meaning of Article 31 of the Constitution and as such the writ petition and the appeal are not maintainable".
( 2 ) IT is stated that this ground goes to the very root of the matter but was not raised before the High Court. The appellant objected to this fresh ground being allowed to be taken up, but we consider that as this ground goes to the very root of the matter it should be allowed after the appellants are compensated by costs.
( 3 ) WE further consider that we would like to have the assistance of the views of the High Court on the matter as important questions are involved. The High Court may allow the appellants herein to file counter-affidavits in reply to the ground raised and then after hearing the parties, forward its report to us.
( 4 ) THE miscellaneous petition is accordingly allowed and the cases remanded to the High Court. The respondents will pay to the appellants the costs of hearing on 1/12/1971, in any event. Petition allowed and Case remanded.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
