Duty of court to rescue common man, especially if old and sick.

2011 (29) LCD 950
SP Mittal v. State of UP

Sent from phone

Tender condition

AIR 2011 SC 2194
AIR 2011 Ori 112

Tender condition liable to be struck down if irrational and arbitrary.
Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone

Court interference in Tender - eligibility criteria

Appellants: Directorate of Education and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Educomp Datamatics Ltd. and Ors.

AIR2004SC1962, 2004 2 AWC(Supp)1789SC

As a matter of policy Government took a conscious decision to deal with one
firm having financial capacity to take up such a big project instead of
dealing with multiple small companies which is a relevant consideration
while awarding such a big project. Moreover, it was for the authority to set
the terms of the tender. The Courts would not interfere with the terms of
the tender notice unless it was shown to be either arbitrary or
discriminatory or actuated by malice. While exercising the power of judicial
review of the terms of the tender notice, the Court cannot say that the
terms of the earlier tender notice would serve the purpose sought to be
achieved better than the terms of tender notice under consideration and
order change in them, unless it is of the opinion that the terms were either
arbitrary or discriminatory or actuated by malice.

226 maintainable against private individuals

2010 8 SCC 329 (para 55)
--------------------------------------
Sent from handheld device

Equality

Nobody is above the law. Arundhati Walavalkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2011 (2) Bom CR (SC) 14. [prosecution of a judge travelling without ticket]

Contracts and change in law

Contracts already entered into giving rise to accrued rights and interest are not disturbed by change in law (esp designated legislation)

See


Parag Milk Foods P Ltd v. Union of India, WP No. 2231/2011 (pending)
Parag Milk Foods P Ltd v. Union of India, 2007 Vol. 109 (3) Bom LR 1774 (para 10c, 8c)
Eurotex Industries v. Exports Limited, (2011) 113 (2) Bom LR 0834 (para 33)
Union of India v. Asian Food Industries, (2006) 13 SCC 542 (para 48)
Agri Trade India Services P Ltd v. Union of India, 132 (2006) DLT 500 (para 48)

Southern Petrochemical Industries Co Ltd v. Electricity Inspector, (2007) 5 SCC 447 (para 127)

Vishwant Kumar v. Madan Lal Sharma, (2004) 4 SCC 1 (para 4) - there is a difference between a mere right and what is right accrued or acquired.

Bar Council Resolution to not defend accused is illegal

AS Mohammad Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2011 SC 308

Writ Petition: Money Claim / Refund as consequential relief

"We are of the opinion that though the High Courts have power to pass any appropriate order in the exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, such a petition solely praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State to refund the money is not ordinarily maintainable for the simple reason that a claim for such a refund can always be made in a suit against the authority which had illegally collected the money as a tax.

We, therefore, hold that normally petitions solely praying for the refund of money against the State by a writ of mandamus are not to be entertained. The aggrieved party has the right of  going to the civil court for claiming the amount and it is open to the State to raise all possible defences to the claim, defences which cannot, in most cases, be appropriately raised and considered in the exercise of writ jurisdiction."

2001 (2) SCC 549 relied in ABL v. ECGC, 2004 (3) SCC 553