Questions of fact

Disputed question of fact and/or contractual matters are not generally amenable for determination in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.

No absolute bar existed for exercising writ jurisdiction regarding matters arising out of contracts or involving contractual liabilities or obligations

Contracts were also a creation of the law and were enforceable, and in some cases, violation of a condition of contract amounted to violation of law as envisaged under S.37 of the Contract Act, 1872

Extraordinary writ jurisdiction conferred upon High Court was of paramount importance in system of administration of justice for redressal of grievance(s) if there was no other adequate remedy available under law

Determination of such adequacy of remedy depended on facts and nature of a case and High Court was the sole authority to decide whether in view of peculiar facts of a case, the exercise of writ jurisdiction was justified or not

Mere availability of alternate remedy should not be a hurdle in the exercise of power of judicial review under S.44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 when the matter was of an urgent nature

Aggrieved party if directed to seek redressal through an alternate remedy available under the law, and where the very remedy would get frustrated then it could be proper for the High Court to exercise writ jurisdiction

Remedy of writ was not available against a private person and writ jurisdiction could only be exercised when the person against whom the same was sought was performing functions in connection with the affairs of Azad Jammu and Kashmir or a local authority

Even contractual rights and obligations may be enforced in situation where such rights were based on statutes or rules framed thereunder or when an obligation or duty was vested in a public functionary or a statutory body performing functions in connections with affairs of Azad Jammu and Kashmir or local authority

Ordinarily exercise of writ jurisdiction in propositions requiring detailed inquiry or recording of evidence and intricate and complicated questions of facts was avoided and on such touchstone, the High Court may decline exercise of writ jurisdiction in matters for enforcement of contractual obligations and liabilities requiring detailed inquiry of recording of evidence.

High Court and Supreme Court cannot entertain any question on a finding of fact given by the Income Tax (Appellate) Tribunal.

High Court and Supreme Court cannot entertain any question on a finding of fact given by the Income Tax (Appellate) Tribunal.