Statute v Contract- CST related !
Issuing C form is statutory obligation of buyer, can be enforced by a writ petition in HC
Statutory Obligation - Why the Need to Specify in Contract al all ???
This is cmmonly faced misconception-, - understanding even in the minds of many known
'lawyers' - with name and fame in the field of law practice ?>>>>
To Elaborate:
Statutory Obligation - Why the Need to Specify in Contract al all ???
This is cmmonly faced misconception-, - understanding even in the minds of many known
'lawyers' - with name and fame in the field of law practice ?>>>>
To Elaborate:
“,…. such statutory obligation can be enforced by a writ petition in the High Court.”
Impromptu (viewing from a different perspective) :
One is not at all clear, rather finds it difficult to believe that, for forcing, instead of through coercive tactics or any other alternate recourse as may be available, and less expensive, also time and energy saving, the party to discharge any such mandated obligation under a statute has to be taken to court. Regardless of , whether it is by way of ordinary civil litigation, or by invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction or its ilk.
As common sense may tell, court litigation, because of its inherent repulsive and abhorring facets, may have to be prudently thought of, if at all, only as the ultimate resort or legal recourse.
As specially noted, the faulted party is a ‘statutory corporation’. The primary responsibility to tell the erring party to ‘behave’ is that of the government, itself being the creator of the statute. Further, this being clearly a statutory obligation, the power or fundamental duty to implement and enforce is presumably vested in the competent authority (ies) as named there under. By no logic or reasoning, court can be rightly looked upon as the ‘enforcing’ authority- in any sense normally understood.
On the obvious disadvantage of court litigation, nothing else can be more revealing or illuminating than among others the following random chosen Quote:
Q
The greatest illusion of our people is the infantile belief in the legal solubility of all problems. In the wise words of Lord Halisham, the former Lord Chancellor of the UK, “We might do well to remember that in the whole realm of human relations there is no field more vulnerable to corruption, dishonesty, chicanery, and sheer quackery and charlatanism than contested litigation.. real, imagined or invented”. We might also do well to consider that few of the safeguards we have achieved against these evils…” (italics/underlining SUPPLIED)
UQ
(< As the greatest legal luminary and exponent of our nation’s constitutional law, Nani A Palkhivala, voicing his long-nurtured, -cherished wisdom said in his published article (titled,- Crisis of Public Faith in the Judicary) in TOI, july 9, 1990; Source: Book-We, the Nation )
An Entreaty: Recommended to usefully read also his other writings and speeches in, inter alia, Chapter 11 of same Book -The law, Judges and Lawyers)
Impromptu (viewing from a different perspective) :
One is not at all clear, rather finds it difficult to believe that, for forcing, instead of through coercive tactics or any other alternate recourse as may be available, and less expensive, also time and energy saving, the party to discharge any such mandated obligation under a statute has to be taken to court. Regardless of , whether it is by way of ordinary civil litigation, or by invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction or its ilk.
As common sense may tell, court litigation, because of its inherent repulsive and abhorring facets, may have to be prudently thought of, if at all, only as the ultimate resort or legal recourse.
As specially noted, the faulted party is a ‘statutory corporation’. The primary responsibility to tell the erring party to ‘behave’ is that of the government, itself being the creator of the statute. Further, this being clearly a statutory obligation, the power or fundamental duty to implement and enforce is presumably vested in the competent authority (ies) as named there under. By no logic or reasoning, court can be rightly looked upon as the ‘enforcing’ authority- in any sense normally understood.
On the obvious disadvantage of court litigation, nothing else can be more revealing or illuminating than among others the following random chosen Quote:
Q
The greatest illusion of our people is the infantile belief in the legal solubility of all problems. In the wise words of Lord Halisham, the former Lord Chancellor of the UK, “We might do well to remember that in the whole realm of human relations there is no field more vulnerable to corruption, dishonesty, chicanery, and sheer quackery and charlatanism than contested litigation.. real, imagined or invented”. We might also do well to consider that few of the safeguards we have achieved against these evils…” (italics/underlining SUPPLIED)
UQ
(< As the greatest legal luminary and exponent of our nation’s constitutional law, Nani A Palkhivala, voicing his long-nurtured, -cherished wisdom said in his published article (titled,- Crisis of Public Faith in the Judicary) in TOI, july 9, 1990; Source: Book-We, the Nation )
An Entreaty: Recommended to usefully read also his other writings and speeches in, inter alia, Chapter 11 of same Book -The law, Judges and Lawyers)
<Related>
