Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 131 (5.41 seconds)
Documents citing Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998

Jayant Shantilal Sanghvi vs State Of Gujarat on 12 December, 2018

In this context, it is appropriate to refer to the observations made by this Court in Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Page 21 of 29 C/SCA/12015/2016 CAV JUDGMENT Marks: (SCC p.10, para 15) "15.....But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged."
Gujarat High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - V M Pancholi - Full Document

Jayant Shantilal Sanghvi vs State Of Gujarat on 12 December, 2018

In this context, it is appropriate to refer to the observations made by this Court in Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Page 21 of 29 C/SCA/12015/2016 CAV JUDGMENT Marks: (SCC p.10, para 15) "15.....But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged."
Gujarat High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 4 - V M Pancholi - 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

Avani Paridhi Energy & ... vs State Of Up Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 21 May, 2018

The Supreme Court further held that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition but the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least following contingencies, namely,-
Allahabad High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - D K Arora - Full Document

Smt. Chanda Begum & Others vs State Of U.P.Thr.Secy.Deptt.Of ... on 22 June, 2018

The Supreme Court further held that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition but the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least following contingencies, namely,-
Allahabad High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 2 - D K Arora - Full Document

Smti. Poly Dey vs The Union Of India on 13 March, 2018

10. The Apex Court in its judgment in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others reported in Page 6 of 7 (1998) 8 SCC 1, held that alternative remedy may not come as a bar in exercise of the writ jurisdiction at least in three contingencies: (i) where the writ petitioner 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 is challenged.
Tripura High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pushpatai Govindsinha Bais Alias ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 16 July, 2018

In Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar of Trade Marks (cited supra) Apex Court ruled that "In an appropriate case, in spite of availability of 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) ::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:35:03 ::: 16 wp1803.16 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 is challenged." As observed above, in the case at hand, there is violation of principles of natural justice. So also the petition is pending since the year 2016 and we have heard the matter on merits. Therefore, extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked, despite availability of alternate remedy before the Labour Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S V Gangapurwala - Full Document

M/S. Sabir Sew And Prasad vs State Of Ap on 5 June, 2018

28. However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. The High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercise of this power [See: Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors. :AIR1999SC22 . And this plenary right of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not normally be exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the court thinks it necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction.
Telangana High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Raja Service Station, Srikakulam ... vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., ... on 16 July, 2018

28. However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. The High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or nor to entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercise of this power. (See whirlpool Corpn. V. Registrar of Trade Marks). And this plenary right of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not normally be exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the Court thinks it necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction."
Telangana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next