Glr Real Estate Pvt. Ltd Thr vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 17 January, 2019
The Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corpn. v.
Registrar of Trade Marks reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 has
held as under :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13249 (1.77 seconds)Documents citing
Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998
Sheetal Barnwal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 June, 2021
68. 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 rives of an Act is under
challenge. Reference may be made to Whirpool Corporation Vs.
Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1
:AIR 1999 SC 22 and Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation V.
Gayatri Construction Company, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 172,
cited on behalf of Respondent No.1.
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.
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.
Rajendra Prasad Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 2 November, 2021
68. 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 rives of an Act is under
challenge. Reference may be made to Whirpool Corporation Vs.
Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1
:AIR 1999 SC 22 and Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation V.
Gayatri Construction Company, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 172,
cited on behalf of Respondent No.1.
Thirukayilaya Parambarai vs The Commissioner on 9 November, 2023
“13. Even otherwise, in our opinion, the question as to
whether the said notification could have a retrospective effect or
retroactive operation being a jurisdictional fact, should have been
determined by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it is well known that
when an order of a statutory authority is questioned on the ground
that the same suffers from lack of jurisdiction, alternative remedy
may not be a bar. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar Trade Marks
and Mumtaz Post Graduate Degree College v. Vice-Chancellor.”
7 (v) In T.E.Vijayaraghavan vs. The Joint Commissioner, HR
& CE Administration Department reported in 2010 (1) CTC 551, almost in
a similar situation the order passed by the Joint Commissioner modifying
scheme settled under the HR and CE Act has been questioned in a writ
petition. The writ petition was opposed on the ground of availability of
alternative remedy of appeal under Section 69 (1) of HR and CE Act and
further remedy of statutory suit under Section 70 of HR and CE Act, this
Court repelled the objection of the respondent and entertained the writ
43/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15841 of 2022
petition on the ground that the points raised in the writ petition were purely
legal issues and hence, it was not necessary to drive the party to avail
alternative remedy after long time.
Kurshed Sharfudeen vs Ibp Company Limited on 24 April, 2009
(emphasis supplied)
In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied upon the earlier judgment in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, [1998] 8 SCC 1, wherein the Supreme Court has held that alternate remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. But, in the present case, the order of termination has nothing to do with the either the principles of natural justice, as termination without notice is permissible under the contract, or with the principles of equality guaranteed under the Constitution of India, and therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Dilip Babubhai Shah And Ors vs Additioal Resident Deputy Collector ... on 24 February, 2023
The said judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar
of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors. (supra) would not apply to the facts
of the case of the petitioners.
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.
M/S. Iti Limited vs The Union Of India on 28 March, 2023
The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of
Trade Marks, Mumbai and others (2 supra) has also held 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. and the availability of alternative remedy does not operate as a
bar 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 vires of an Act is
challenged. In the case before this Court, the objection of respondent
No.4 is that the petitioner should have raised the issue of jurisdiction as
advised in the notice itself before the MSEF Council, but the petitioner
ought not to have filed this Writ Petition. This Court is of the opinion
that since the Council apparently lacks jurisdiction to entertain the
application, the Writ Petition can be entertained. The petitioner is not
challenging the validity of the proceedings before the Council, but is
challenging the entertainment of the claim petition itself and therefore,
the Writ of Mandamus is maintainable. A Writ of Certiorari is
W.P.No.5431 of 2023
11
maintainable only when an order is passed and correctness of the said
order is challenged before the High Court.