Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 157 (2.34 seconds)
Documents citing Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998

Molson Coors India Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Bihar on 24 November, 2023

75. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General relied on Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 (Para 14 and 15) and Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. vs. Chhabbil Das Agarwal reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 (Para 15) to overcome the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioners to the extent that the petitioners have to exhaust the statutory remedy before invoking Article 226 in filing writ petition.
Patna High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

Carlsberg India Private Limited vs The State Of Bihar on 24 November, 2023

75. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General relied on Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 (Para 14 and 15) and Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. vs. Chhabbil Das Agarwal reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 (Para 15) to overcome the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioners to the extent that the petitioners have to exhaust the statutory remedy before invoking Article 226 in filing writ petition.
Patna High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

Pernod Ricard India (P) Limited vs The State Of Bihar on 24 November, 2023

75. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General relied on Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 (Para 14 and 15) and Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. vs. Chhabbil Das Agarwal reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 (Para 15) to overcome the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioners to the extent that the petitioners have to exhaust the statutory remedy before invoking Article 226 in filing writ petition.
Patna High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

Colona Blenders And Bottlers (India) ... vs The State Of Bihar on 24 November, 2023

75. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General relied on Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 (Para 14 and 15) and Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. vs. Chhabbil Das Agarwal reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 (Para 15) to overcome the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioners to the extent that the petitioners have to exhaust the statutory remedy before invoking Article 226 in filing writ petition.
Patna High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

United Spirits Limited vs The State Of Bihar on 24 November, 2023

75. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General relied on Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 (Para 14 and 15) and Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. vs. Chhabbil Das Agarwal reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 (Para 15) to overcome the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioners to the extent that the petitioners have to exhaust the statutory remedy before invoking Article 226 in filing writ petition.
Patna High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

Bacardi India Private Limited vs The State Of Bihar on 24 November, 2023

75. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General relied on Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 (Para 14 and 15) and Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. vs. Chhabbil Das Agarwal reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 (Para 15) to overcome the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioners to the extent that the petitioners have to exhaust the statutory remedy before invoking Article 226 in filing writ petition.
Patna High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

Molson Coors Cobra India Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Bihar on 24 November, 2023

75. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General relied on Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 (Para 14 and 15) and Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. vs. Chhabbil Das Agarwal reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 (Para 15) to overcome the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioners to the extent that the petitioners have to exhaust the statutory remedy before invoking Article 226 in filing writ petition.
Patna High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

Bjcl Srinath (Jv) vs The State Of Bihar on 9 July, 2021

11. Nonetheless, this Court further finds that in case the action of the respondent is illegal and without jurisdiction, if the principles of natural justice have been violated and if the fundamental rights of the petitioner has been violated, a writ petition would definitely be maintainable, even in a contractual matter. Reference in this regard be had to judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs The Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai & Ors., reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1, the one rendered in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107, the one rendered in the case of Sanjana M. Wig vs. Hindustan Petro Corporation Limited, reported in Patna High Court CWJC No.14700 of 2019 dt.09-07-2021 16/18 (2005) 8 SCC 242 and the one rendered in the case of Joshi Technologies International Inc. vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 728. Admittedly in the present case the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as firstly proper show cause notice, setting out the reasons/grounds on which the respondents propose to rescind the agreement of the petitioner have not been furnished and the show cause notice dated 27.06.2019 is absolutely silent on this aspect and secondly the Executive Engineer, Western Embankment Division, Birpur, who is the competent authority under the agreement to rescind the agreement has not applied his mind and has instead rescinded the agreement in question by the impugned order dated 04.07.2019 on the dictate of the Joint Secretary, (Engineering), Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. Thus, in such a case as the present one, the alternative remedy being harped upon by the learned counsel for the respondents for the purposes of settlement of disputes shall not be a bar to the maintainability of the present writ petition, hence the said contention of the respondents that the present writ petition is not maintainable, is not tenable in the eyes of law, hence is rejected. In fact, even an arbitration clause in an agreement is not a bar to Patna High Court CWJC No.14700 of 2019 dt.09-07-2021 17/18 invocation of writ jurisdiction in case injustice has been caused inasmuch as the same has to be struck down as an anathema to the rule of law and the provisions of the Constitution. Moreover, the constitutional powers vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be fettered by any alternative remedy available to the parties.
Patna High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - M K Shah - Full Document

Satyendra Kumar Construction Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 14 August, 2018

After hearing the parties and the rival submissions, I am in agreement with the counsel for the petitioner as the work order given to the petitioner was abandoned midway due to faulty design for which the enquiry report dated 29.08.2017 which is part of the show Patna High Court CWJC No.13668 of 2018 dt. 14-08-2018 11/ 12 cause dated 08.05.2018 (Annexure-6) has in express terms opined that the earlier original design was defective as it did not take into consideration the level of the depth of the river link channel and deviation which has to be re-designed as per actual site verification and the Regional Officers were responsible for such faulty designs, hence action be taken against those Regional Officers. Nowhere has the petitioner been found at fault, none of the clauses of Rule 11 of the Contractors Rule, 2007 could have been attracted for blacklisting the petitioner as held in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors. (supra).
Patna High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - N Agrawal - Full Document

Reliance Communications Limited vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 11 April, 2017

In an appropriate case in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or, (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act and is challenged (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks). The present case attracts applicability of first two contingencies. Moreover, as noted, the petitioners' dealership, which is their bread and butter came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. In such circumstances, we feel that Patna High Court CWJC No.14884 of 2016 dt. 11-04 -2017 41/67 the appellants should have been allowed relief by the High Court itself instead of driving them to the need of initiating arbitration proceedings."
Patna High Court Cites 88 - Cited by 2 - S Pandey - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next