Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, J
M/s Sawalkote Prosjektutvikling As – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Whether the petitioner-M/s Sawalkote Prosjektutvikling AS has any actual status and locus to be a petitioner to maintain the present writ petition, with respect to purported cause of action forming subject matter of the writ petition, is a preliminary aspect without first dealing with which the adjudication of the writ petition, on its core-cause, may amount to be putting the cart before the horse.
2. It is in said context that this Court came to draw an order dated 15.04.2024 which has led to address of submissions from both sides, in particular from the petitioner’s side, with respect to the petitioner’s purported status and locus in maintaining the present writ petition.
3. Before this court comes to deal with the effort and energy invested submissions on the part of Senior Advocate Mr. C.M. Koul arguing for the petitioner, the facts of the case in a chronological manner need to be fetched and laid out at first so as to subserve the perspective in which the issue of status and locus of the petitioner- M/s Sawalkote Prosjektutvikling AS has self-popped to invite and engage the court’s attention for adjudication.
4. The petitioner-M/s Sawalkote Prosjektutvikling AS (in s
A foreign company lacks locus standi to maintain a writ petition without joining necessary consortium members, and the authority of its representative to file the petition was insufficient.
A writ petition can be dismissed for lack of maintainability if an arbitration clause exists; however, constitutional violations may warrant judicial review.
The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court can be exercised in view of the admission made by the 3rd respondent regarding payments to be payable to the petitioner.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of forum conveniens in determining the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitu....
The court found that the petitioner's location did not give it the right to challenge the blacklisting order before the court, and dismissed the writ petition.
As the contract between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation, an instrumentality of the State, is under the realm of a private law and there is no element of public law, the only course for ....
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
