Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 148 (5.26 seconds)
Documents citing Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998

Mr Dyani Antony Paul vs Union Of India on 11 December, 2020

111. The Hon'ble Apex Court in WHIRLPOOL vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI AND OTHERS reported in (1998)8 SCC 1 has held, that issue of prerogative writs under Articles 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. It has also been held that having regard to the facts of the case, the High Court has 216 discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The availability of an alternate remedy would not operate as a bar to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction namely, where the writ petition has been filed to enforce the fundamental rights or where there has been violation of fundamental rights or where there has been violation of principles of natural justice or where the order or proceedings is wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is under challenge. It has been further held:
Karnataka High Court Cites 170 - Cited by 3 - A Kumar - Full Document

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

Senior Divisional Commercial Manager ... vs The Micro Small Enterprise ... on 20 January, 2020

17. So far as the judgement relied upon by the petitioners in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 is concerned, it has been clearly held in Para 15 that under Article 226 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, but the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions, one of which is that if an efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. In this background, it has been held that the alternative remedy would not be a bar at least in 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 validity of an Act is challenged. Thus, it is clear that while entertaining the writ petition also, the court has to exercise sound discretion based on the facts of the cases as well as the statutory scheme dealing with the matter and it cannot be said that merely because a point of jurisdiction is involved, the writ petition has to be necessarily involved. In the said judgement the Hon'ble Supreme court has referred to judgement passed in the case of Rashid Ahmed -versus- Municipal Board reported in AIR 1950 SC 163 and held in Para 16 as follows:-
Jharkhand High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - A R Choudhary - Full Document

M/S Gulf Oil Corporation New Gocl, vs The Andhra Pradesh Micro And Small ... on 20 January, 2020

MSM,J WP No.16331 of 2019 22 The main endeavour of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, though alternative remedy is available under the statute, still jurisdiction of the High Court under judicial review is not ousted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel mainly relied on the judgment of Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others (referred supra), where the Apex Court while deciding an identical issue was of the view that, when the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not barred when there is a serious procedural fallacy under the Trademarks Act by the competent authority, though an appeal is provided or when the Tribunal acted without any authority and questioned the order passed by the Registrar or Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 48 - Cited by 1 - M S Murthy - Full Document

Akhalak Ahmed Nizamali Bukhari vs Gujarat State Waqf Board on 7 September, 2020

They all relate to the same principles as have been laid down in the Whirlpool Corporation(supra) regarding the maintainability of a petition by passing the statutory remedy on three grounds namely, violation of principles of natural justice, the order suffering from lack of inherent jurisdiction and the order being malicious which in our opinion is to be applied only in the facts of the case and as already held above, the judgments do not help the appellants.
Gujarat High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - V Nath - Full Document

Deceased Makwana Shnabhai Bhikhabhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 21 December, 2020

2 SCC 312); Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks and ors. (AIR 1999 SC 22); Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (AIR 1999 SC 74); Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh (1999 (1) SCC 209) and Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan and Ors. (2001 (6) SCC 569), the Supreme Court held that where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction.
Gujarat High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - A C Rao - Full Document

Ritlal Rai @ Ritlal Yadav @ Ritlal Ray @ ... vs The U.O.I. Through B. Hazara, Asstt. ... on 18 August, 2020

(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 Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 11]. 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 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 72 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next