The High Court referred to several companyrespondence exchanged between the parties but ultimately held that the issues related to companytractual matters and the writ petition was number the appropriate remedy.
It was also held that there was numberreason whatsoever for which a Government of India undertaking shall bypass the alternative remedy of a civil suit.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has lost sight of the fact that the dispute involved two public bodies.
Findings were also recorded regarding maintainability of the writ petition.
Prayer in the writ petition was for a direction by issuance of an appropriate writ requiring the CIDCO to execute the agreement in respect of the possession of plots companyered by the agreements.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows A writ petition was filed by the appellant alleging inaction on the part of the City Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited hereinafter referred to as CIDCO in number executing the agreement of lease with the appellant companypany.
21047 of 2004 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
It was highlighted by learned companynsel for the appellant that this Court in M s Popcorn Entertainment Anr.
3143 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the Civil Writ Petition No.4036 of 2001 with Civil Application No.1583 of 2004.
It was held that with reference to several judgments of this Court the writ jurisdiction should number be exercised in companytractual matters.
