Court : Delhi
..... clear from the above observations of this court, once state or an instrumentality of state is a party to the contract, it has an obligation in law to act fairly, justly and reasonably which is the requirement of article 14 of the constitution of india. therefore, if by the impugned repudiation of the claim ..... .52. the supreme court in mahabir auto store (supra) further held :-"17. we are of the opinion that in all such cases whether public law or private law rights are involved, depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. the dichotomy between rights and remedies cannot be obliterated by any straight jacket formula ..... a fit case for award of costs, more so, when the appellant has suffered heavily............"65. the division bench of this court in 2004 (110) dlt 186 entitled indian steel & wire products v. b.i.f.r. (db), held that the sole purpose of filing the petition was to sabotage the proposal/scheme ..... of the petitioner.185. the letter dated 6th august, 2009 by the petitioner to the mort&h; makes no reference at all to the consortium. 186. the nhai is admittedly not a party to the concession agreement. it is not the petitioner's case that the national highway authority of india is ..... seb vs. kurien e. kalathil & ors. (2000) 6 scc 293, such grievances of the petitioner do not raise any issue of public law. the term of the proposed termination or the authority to do so is not even a quasi-judicial act, let alone a judicial act, looked at from any angle.45. in (1994) 3 .....Tag this Judgment!