Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 210 (1.06 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Magadh Sugar And Energy Ltd. vs The State Of Bihar on 24 September, 2021

K.C.U.Raja vs The Commissioner on 20 May, 2022

In Magadh Sugar and Energy Limited v. State of Bihar [2021 (5) KLT 667 (SC)], a decision relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court reiterated that, while the High Court would normally not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective and efficacious alternate remedy is available, the existence of an alternate remedy does not by itself bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction in certain contingencies.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - A Narendran - Full Document

M/S. Atc Telecom Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs Regional Provident Commissioner I on 30 July, 2024

(i) (2021) 6 SCC 771 in M/s. Radhakrishnan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, which referred to Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 and the said view had been reiterated in a recent full bench judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 801 in "Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others",
Telangana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S Nanda - Full Document

M/S Chaitanya Energy Private Limited vs Indian Bank on 3 June, 2024

(b) The observations and the view of the Apex Court in the various judgements i.e., (1) (2016) 10 SCC 46 in "Gujarat Maritime Board Vs. Larsen and Toubro Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd., and another, (2) (1999) 8 SC 436 in Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., Vs. State of Bihar & others, (3) (2000) 6 SCC 293 in Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Kurien Ekalathil, (4) (2021) 10 SCC 690 in Union of India Vs. Puna Hinda, (5) (2004) 3 SCC 553 in ABL International Ltd., Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (6) (2002) 1 37 WP_28781_2023 SN,J SCC 216 in State of Bihar Vs. Jain Plastics & Chemicals Ltd., (7) (2015) 7 SCC 728 in Joshi Technologies International Inc., Vs. Union of India, (8) (2021) 6 SCC 771 in M/s. Radhakrishnan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (9) (1998) 8 SCC 1 in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, (10) 2021 SCC Online SC 801 in "Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd., Vs. State of Bihar and others, (referred to and extracted above),
Telangana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - S Nanda - Full Document

M/S Shroff Enterprises vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 October, 2021

13.In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and considering the aforesaid judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 801 (Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. versus State of Bihar and others) para 25 to 27 , the present writ petitions need not be dismissed on the grounds of alternative remedy, as pure question of jurisdiction is involved in these cases. Para 25 to 27 of the aforesaid judgement are quoted for ready reference:-
Jharkhand High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A K Singh - Full Document

Major General K S Kali Prasad (R) vs The Assistant Commissioner on 15 June, 2023

17. Therefore, in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case MAGADH SUGAR AND ENERGY LIMITED VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS (cited supra), I am of the view that this Court can exercise jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition as the order passed by respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner is found to be wholly without jurisdiction and in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court on this point.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 September, 2022

9. I have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the judgement rendered in M/s Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Others (Supra) where the appellant had invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the imposition of Electricity Duty and penalty on the electricity that it was supplying to Bihar State Electricity Board. The appellant being a Sugar Mill Company was producing electricity out of waste of sugarcane, which it was supplying to Bihar State Electricity Board since March, 2008, under the Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948 as amended in 2002, which also provided that the State of Bihar could levy tax on the basis of value of units of energy consumed or sold at the rate specified by it in its notification. The appellant had challenged the notifications issued regarding rates notified by the State Government before the High Court. The High Court struck down the notifications on the ground that there were no guideline in the Statute for the notifications for construing the expression "value of energy". The State of Bihar being aggrieved filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court where the matter is pending. The State of Bihar amended the Bihar Electricity Act and defined the term "value of energy". Such amendment was challenged by the Bihar Sugar Mills Association in writ jurisdiction before the Patna High Court and the Writ Petition was pending. In the meanwhile, the fourth respondent issued notice to the appellant for failure to file returns with regard to levy of taxes and duties. The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax rejected the arguments raised by the appellant that it was supplying energy to the State of Bihar. In the mean while, the National Thermal Power Corporation Limited had also filed a Writ Petition challenging the imposition of Electricity Duty on its supply of Electricity to various Electricity Boards including the Bihar State Electricity Board. The High Court held that Electricity Duty cannot be included under Section 3 (1) of the Bihar Electricity Act on a power generation company supplying Electricity to a Licensee Electricity Board. The Respondents filed Special Leave Petitions which were dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S Chandra - Full Document

Janki Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 March, 2022

6. On the basis of the facts as present and mentioned hereinabove, it is a clear case of violation of principles of natural justice by respondent No.3. Hence, the present case has to be deemed as a case of exception to the rule of alternative remedy as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia and another Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and others (supra) and also in the case of Magadh Sagar & Energy Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others (supra). Therefore, I am of this view that the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is quashed. Respondent No.3 shall be however at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law and by following the principles of natural justice on the basis of complaint present against the petitioner. With these observations the petition is disposed off.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R C Samant - Full Document

M/S Thirumala Cabs Orange Tours And ... vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 15 March, 2024

8. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions of both the learned counsel on record, and duly considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment dated 20.04.2021 reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771 in M/s. Radhakrishnan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, which referred to Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks (reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1), and further the said view being reiterated by a Full Bench of the Apex Court (Three Judges) in a judgment reported in (2021) SCC online SC page 801 in Magadh Sugar and Energy Limited v State of Bihar and others dated 24.09.2021 (referred to and extracted above) the writ petition is allowed and the order impugned, dated 11.01.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner is set aside duly considering petitioner's specific plea that petitioner had sent an e-mail dated 01.11.2023 to the 2nd respondent office stating that due to ill health, petitioner could not attend the personal hearing on 27.10.2023 and requested for another opportunity of personal hearing but however the order impugned had been passed in violation of principles of natural justice denying reasonable opportunity due to the 7 petitioner without considering the said request of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 11.01.2024 passed under Section 45-A of the ESI Act and determined the contribution payable by the petitioner for the period from June 2022 to September 2022, and November 2022 to December 2022 amounting to Rs.1,11,57,136 unilaterally, unreasonably, therefore, the matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent to give a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law in conformity with the principles of natural justice, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Telangana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S Nanda - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next