Back
J.B.PARDIWALA, A.C.RAO
Aakash Exploration Services Limited Through Director Heman Navinbhai Haria – Appellant
Versus
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(J.B. PARDIWALA, J.)
1. Leave to amend the cause title is granted. The same shall be carried out forthwith.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Ajay Mehta, the learned counsel waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent – Corporation.
3. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant, a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, through one of its Directors, has prayed for the following reliefs:
(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus holding and declaring that the action of the respondent of terminating the contract of the petitioner vide termination notice dated 01.04.2019 without issuance of any show cause notice or without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and be pleased to quash and set-aside the same.
(c) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition in favour of the petitioner, proh
No cases identified as bad law. None of the provided case law summaries contain keywords or phrases explicitly indicating they have been overruled, reversed, abrogated, criticized, questioned, or otherwise treated as bad law (e.g., no mentions of "overruled," "reversed," "abrogated," or similar negative treatments).
Verigarnto Naveen: A. P. Mineral Development Corporation VS Govt. of A. P. : Y. S. Vivekananda Reddy - 2001 7 Supreme 170: Treated as partly allowed with observations; indicates a neutral to positive outcome where appeals were partly allowed and specific reliefs addressed ("The second set of appeals are partly allowed to the extent High Court has wrongly granted the relief... subject to certain observations").
Whirlpool Corporation VS Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai - 1998 8 Supreme 176: Articulates important points on jurisdiction and powers under Article 226 and Trade Marks Act; presented as authoritative legal principles without negative treatment ("Important Points 1. Power under Article 226...").
State Of H. P. VS Raja Mahendra Pal - 1999 3 Supreme 414: Lists important points on writ jurisdiction, quasi-judicial authorities, and royalty; authoritative without indication of negative treatment ("Important Points 1. Powers conferred upon the High Court...").
Kerala State Electricity Board VS Kurien E. Kalathil - 2000 5 Supreme 158: States clear rule on writ petitions for contract interpretation; no negative treatment indicators ("The interpretation and implementation of a clause in a contract cannot be the subject matter of a writ petition").
State Of Punjab VS Nestle India LTD. - 2004 4 Supreme 274: Positive application of promissory estoppel leading to directed exemption; favorable outcome ("the Court directed an exemption to be granted").
State Of U. P. VS Bridge And Roof Company India LTD. - 1996 6 Supreme 586: Reiterates rule on private contract disputes not for writs; standard principle without negative cues ("Any dispute relating to interpretation... cannot be agitated in a writ petition").
Noble Resources LTD. VS State Of Orissa - 2006 9 Supreme 162: Affirms writ maintainability for Article 14 violations in contracts but cautions on factual disputes; balanced authoritative holding ("It is trite that if an action... a writ petition would be maintainable").
Bastar Oil Mills and Industries Ltd. VS State of M. P. - 1998 0 Supreme(MP) 914: Affirms State's binding by contract terms; clear positive rule ("The State is bound by the terms of a valid and enforceable contract").
Suprabhat Steel Limited VS State Of Bihar - 1995 0 Supreme(Pat) 446: Declares notification inconsistent with policy; authoritative invalidation without self-negative treatment ("was inconsistent with the Industrial Incentive Policy").
Binny LTD. VS V. Sadasivans - 2005 6 Supreme 214: States rule on mandamus against private bodies with public element; standard principle ("A writ of mandamus can be issued against a private body... but... public law element").
Mohan Baitha VS State Of Bihar - 2001 2 Supreme 542: Expands interpretation of Cr.P.C. Section 177; presented as valid legal point ("For permitting joint trial... exceptions may be provided by law").
State Of Bihar VS Jain Plastics And Chemicals LTD. - 2001 8 Supreme 334: Advises civil suit over writ for contract breaches; consistent principle ("Disputed questions... rather than by a High Court exercising... Article 226").
ABL International LTD. VS Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India LTD. - 2003 0 Supreme(SC) 1301: Affirms court discretion for writs on facts and contract interpretation; positive on maintainability ("The court has the discretion to entertain a writ petition").
JAGDISH MANDAL VS STATE OF ORISSA - 2006 0 Supreme(SC) 1336: Emphasizes limited judicial review in tenders; standard guidance ("highlighted the limited scope of judicial review").
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. VS NILOUFER SIDDIQUI - 2015 0 Supreme(SC) 1237: States rules on unsigned agreements and fairness; neutral authoritative ("Unsigned/unexecuted agreement is not binding... should act fairly").
National Highway Authority Of India VS Ganga Enterprises - 2003 6 Supreme 527: Reiterates no writ for contract disputes and rule on earnest money; standard holdings ("Disputes relating to contracts cannot be agitated under Article 226").
None. All cases have clear summaries presenting holdings, important points, or outcomes without ambiguous or conflicting treatment indicators. Treatments are consistently neutral or affirmative statements of law.
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
