Search Results Page

Search Results

91 - 100 of 13251 (2.02 seconds)
Documents citing Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998

Unnati Inorganics Private Limited vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 22 October, 2020

697. It is submitted that the Apex Court in para 33 while describing the width of principle, on the question of maintainability of the writ petition on account of the arbitration clause included in the agreement between the parties, held that there is not an absolute bar to the invocation of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court or the Supreme Court. The Apex Court has observed that injustice whenever and wherever it takes place, has to be struck down as an anathema to the rule of law and the provisions of the Constitution. The Apex Court while allowing the appeal in para 7, reiterated the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (supra), wherein it has been held that in spite of availability of alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its jurisdiction in at least three contingencies viz. where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any fundamental rights or where there is a violation of principles of natural Page 23 of 45 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:31:52 IST 2020 C/SCA/10779/2020 CAV JUDGMENT justice or where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or a vires of an act is challenged.
Gujarat High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 3 - S K Vishen - Full Document

M/S M M P Water Sports Pvt. Ltd vs Chhattisgarh Tourism Board on 12 May, 2022

67. It is well settled that availability of an alternative remedy does not prohibit the High Court from entertaining a writ petition in an appropriate case. The High Court may entertain a writ petition, notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy, particularly (1) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of a fundamental right; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or (iii) where the impugned orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or (iv) the vires of an Act is under challenge. Reference may be made to Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors. reported in AIR 1999 SC 22 and Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and Ors. V. Gayatri Construction Company and Ors, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 172, cited on behalf of Respondent No.1.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A K Goswami - Full Document

Bhargav Manubhai Gadhai vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 2 March, 2015

In this set of circumstances, therefore, none of the ingredients as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others (supra) exists in the present case which requires this Court to intervene and exercise its extra jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when admittedly alternative remedy/remedies is/are available and, therefore, reliance placed by Mr. Purohit, learned advocate, on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others (supra), would not be with respect, applicable to the present case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R M Chhaya - Full Document

M/S Mmp Water Sports Pvt. Ltd vs Chhattisgarh Tourism Board on 12 May, 2022

67. It is well settled that availability of an alternative remedy does not prohibit the High Court from entertaining a writ petition in an appropriate case. The High Court may entertain a writ petition, notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy, particularly (1) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of a fundamental right; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or (iii) where the impugned orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or (iv) the vires of an Act is under challenge. Reference may be made to Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors. reported in AIR 1999 SC 22 and Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and Ors. V. Gayatri Construction Company and Ors, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 172, cited on behalf of Respondent No.1.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A K Goswami - Full Document
Previous   6 7 8 9 10   11 12 13 14 15 Next