Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 161 (1.10 seconds)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 April, 2009

8. The principal contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant is that the case of Ambica Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (supra) dealt with a statutory appeal under Section 35 (g) of the Excise Act and the law as laid down therein could not be applied to the facts of the present case where the jurisdiction of the court had been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - N K Kaul - Full Document

M/S. Shekhar Champalal Pagaria Thru. ... vs Cfm Assets Reconstruction Pvt Ltd And ... on 6 March, 2026

In other words, the judgement in the case of Ambika Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (supra), in no manner, dilutes the position of law clarified by the Supreme Court in the earlier judgements in the cases of Nasrudin Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal (supra) and M/s. Kusum Ignots & Alloys Limited Vs. Union of India (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd vs M/S. Shyam Metallics & Energy Ltd. & Ors on 26 September, 2011

It, however, appears that the judgment reported in 2007 (6) SCC 769 (Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise) was not considered. In this case, the primary reliefs are claimed against the respondents who are 49 having their offices outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Moreover, from a reading of Paragraph 86 of the writ petition, along with the other paragraphs, it is quite clear that facts constituting a cause of action are overwhelmingly at Orissa and even if a prayer relating to bank guarantee could form a part of the cause of action, the same is not primary relief and such bank guarantee was not formed by the writ petitioner.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - S Sen - Full Document

Samriddhi Rice Mill Private Limited vs The Controller General Of Patents on 30 April, 2025

Since the appellant as well as the respondent no.6 both are doing the business in the State of Jharkhand and their offices are also situated in the State of Jharkhand and it cannot be said that the Jharkhand High Court is not having the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and this aspect of the matter has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Gujarati Education Society and Another v. Regional provident Fund Commissioner and Others(supra) and that case was considered under Article 226 as well as 227 of the Constitution of India and in that case the case of Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise was also 10 Misc. Appeal No. 316 of 2024 considered upon which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.6. Further under section 6 of the Copy Rights Act, 1957 the certain disputes to be decided by the Commercial Courts and in that section further it is not restricted that it will be entertained by the Commercial Courts, meaning thereby, that it can be before any Commercial Court having the jurisdiction and that will be in the facts and the cause of action shown by the aggrieved party before the Commercial Court and that will depend upon the circumstances of each case.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S K Dwivedi - Full Document

Santosh Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors on 2 April, 2025

8. The relevant paras 13 and 17 read as follows : (Ambica Industries case [Ambica Industries v. CCE, (2007) 6 SCC 769] , SCC pp. 775-76) "13. The Tribunal, as noticed hereinbefore, exercises jurisdiction over all the three States. In all the three States there are High Courts. In the event, the aggrieved person is treated to be the dominuslitis, as a result whereof, he elects to file the appeal before one or the other High Court, the decision of the High Court shall be binding only on the authorities which are within its jurisdiction. It will only be of persuasive value on the authorities functioning under a different jurisdiction. If the binding authority of a High Court does not extend beyond its territorial jurisdiction and the decision of one High Court would not be a binding precedent for other High Courts or courts or tribunals outside its territorial jurisdiction, some sort of judicial anarchy shall come into play. An assessee, affected by an order of assessment made at Bombay, may invoke the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court to take advantage of the law laid down by it and which might suit him and thus he would be able to successfully evade the law laid down by the High Court at Bombay.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Muthumeenal on 16 March, 2016

Furthermore in determining as to whether a part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the court vis--vis an Appellate Court a large number of factors may have to be taken into consideration. [See Ambica Industries v. CCE, 2007 (6) SCC 769] We cannot also lose sight of the fact that the appellant herein was a labourer. The justness or otherwise of the amount of compensation has not been disputed before us. If the High Court?s judgment is to be complied with, the appellant would again have to initiate another proceeding either at Bareilly or Gurgaon or at Delhi or at Jabalpur. The same evidence would have to be rendered once again. The question of fact which was required to be determined in the proceeding before the Tribunal, namely, whether the driver of the truck or the driver of the bus had been driving their respective vehicles rashly and negligently would have to be determined afresh. The factual finding recorded in this case is that the driver of the truck was driving the truck rashly and negligently. In our opinion, in a case of this nature, we may even exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next