Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.86 seconds)
Documents citing L & T Finance Limited vs Anup Kumar Bera & Anr on 20 January, 2014

Pijush Sarkar & Ors vs Asesh Karmakar & Ors on 18 May, 2017

Therefore, to weigh the point of maintainability of the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India said case of Kamlesh Aggarwal (supra) is not applicable since without complying the terms of decree the petitioners in the case still have been attempting to frustrate it. Interference is available only when the parameters as discussed above, as also held in the case of L & T Finance Limited Vs. Anup Kr. Bera & Another (supra) are available before this Court.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - M D Sheko - Full Document

Sanjay Kumar Sinha vs Sri Thakur Singh & Ors on 10 March, 2022

1-Tej Bahadur Thapa vs. Branch Manager of District Central Co-Operative Bank & Anr., reported in (2017) 1 Cal LT Page 437 2- Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 3- The Operation Manager, Auto Loan Consumer Service Dept vs Praveen Khaitan., reported in 2012 SCC Online Cal 2482 4 4- L&T Finance Ltd vs Anup Kumar Bera and Anr., reported in 2014 SCC Online Cal 1447.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Hindustan Ispat Private Limited vs The Commercial Tax Officer, Jubilee ... on 16 November, 2015

Superintendent of Taxes ; L&T Finance Limited v. Anup Kumar Bera ). Where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. Where a liability, not existing in common law, is created by a statute, which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by the statute must be followed.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 59 - Cited by 2 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Mukesh Kumar And Others vs The Debts Recovery Tribunal Rep., By Its ... on 16 November, 2015

It is not in dispute that, against the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, in S.A. No.97 of 2009 dated 20.09.2013, the petitioners herein have the remedy of a statutory appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. It is no doubt true that existence of an alternative statutory remedy of an appeal would not bar exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The power of the High Court, under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution, has not been taken away because of the alternative efficacious remedy provided under the statute. The power of judicial review and/or superintendence are the basic features of the Constitution which cannot be taken away absolutely but should be exercised in exceptional cases. (State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Society ; L&T Finance Limited v. Anup Kumar Bera ). While the powers conferred upon the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide, and there is no express limitation on the exercise of that power, at the same time every High Court is bound to keep in view the rule of self-imposed restraint evolved by Courts while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Satyawati Tondon34). While Courts have recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, ordinarily the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute, under which the action complained of has been taken, itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 74 - Cited by 0 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Mukesh Kumar And Others vs The Debts Recovery Tribunal Rep., By Its ... on 16 November, 2015

It is not in dispute that, against the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, in S.A. No.97 of 2009 dated 20.09.2013, the petitioners herein have the remedy of a statutory appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. It is no doubt true that existence of an alternative statutory remedy of an appeal would not bar exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The power of the High Court, under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution, has not been taken away because of the alternative efficacious remedy provided under the statute. The power of judicial review and/or superintendence are the basic features of the Constitution which cannot be taken away absolutely but should be exercised in exceptional cases. (State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Society ; L&T Finance Limited v. Anup Kumar Bera ). While the powers conferred upon the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide, and there is no express limitation on the exercise of that power, at the same time every High Court is bound to keep in view the rule of self-imposed restraint evolved by Courts while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Satyawati Tondon34). While Courts have recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, ordinarily the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute, under which the action complained of has been taken, itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 74 - Cited by 0 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Sri Ramesh Paul vs Manoj Kumar Singh And Another on 30 August, 2023

(1) Arifur Rahman Khan Vs. D.L.F southern Home Ltd. And other, (2020) 16 SCC 512 (2) Black Diamond Track Parts Pvt. Ltd. And others Vs. Black Diamond Motors Pvt Ltd, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 545 (3) Ganesh Lal Vs. Shyam, (2014) 14 SCC 773 (4) L&T finance Limited Vs. Anup Kumar Bera and Other III (2014) CPJ 124 (Cal) (5) Sri Ranjit Kumar Chakraborty and other Vs. Smt. Sandha Modak and others.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Somnath Chakraborty vs Sri Prabir Ranjan Sen on 12 July, 2016

Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka's case (Supra), the Calcutta High Court in L& T Finance Ltd.'s case (Supra) has observed that pendency of a Civil Suit does not create a bar to a Consumer Fora to entertain a petition of complaint as an additional remedy if it is otherwise not barred.  The referred decisions have no manner of application in our case.  It is true that the Appellant being Plaintiff instituted a suit for eviction against the tenant inducted by him being T.S. No.81/2001 but the said suit was dismissed as the Appellant could not prove his ownership by producing the Deed of Conveyance.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next