Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 817 (3.20 seconds)
Documents citing State Of H.P. And Ors vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. And Anr on 18 July, 2005

M/S Singh Steels vs The East Central Railway &Ors on 25 August, 2009

22. He further states that it appears that counsel appearing for the parties had not brought the aforesaid judgment of State of U.P. Vs Gujarat Ambhuja Cement Ltd (supra) to the notice of learned Judges in the case of Harbans Lal Sahnia. He further submits that the judgment in both the cases rendered by a Coordinate Bench of equal number of Judges would 16 not take away the effect of the earlier judgment.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S P Singh - Full Document

Rajpath Motors vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner ... on 12 July, 2007

20. Keeping in view the paragraphs 10,13, 15 and 17 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of H.P. and Ors. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and Anr. (supra) as well as the decision of this Court in the case of Payal Engineers, as discussed in the paragraphs above, I am of the considered view that once an application for review is disposed of with the observation that "'the application for review under Section 7-B of the Act is not admissible as there is no new fact brought to the notice of the competent authority", the order passed in the proceeding under Section 7-A of the Act remains in full force and effect and since there is an appeal provision against the order passed in the 7-A proceeding, even though the present order passed in the Review application under Section 7-B of the Act indicates that it was not entertained as "not admissible", the petitioner was always at liberty to challenge the earlier order passed in the proceeding under Section 7-A of the Act, by way of filing an appeal instead of challenging the said order in this writ petition as a second prayer. Furthermore, a plea has been taken by the petitioner is that certain documents were not within his reach when the authority concerned was in seisin of the matter in 7-A proceeding and subsequently those materials, which have some bearing so far as the subject matter of the 7-A proceeding, came to his hand and in that view of the matter he had no other option except filing an application for review of the order. But as it appears, the petitioner had stated nothing with regard to existence of those documents nor in any manner referred to those documents in his show cause filed in the 7-A proceeding or during the course of the hearing of 7-A proceeding not filed the same along with his application for review. The petitioner has also taken a plea that certain documents were not before him and the same came to his hand after disposal of the 7-A proceeding and also after filing of the review application. Therefore, he has filed another application on the last date of hearing of the Review Application, i.e. on August 29, 2006 for taking into consideration of some documents, without enclosing copies of those documents along with the application or producing the same at the time of hearing. As such the action of the petitioner clearly indicates that as if he was doing all these things with some ulterior motive and may be with the sole purpose of delaying the proceeding and not to comply the final order passed in 7-A proceeding. The appellant in an appeal is also at liberty to file an application for bringing certain additional evidence and once that application is filed, the appellate authority ought to have considered and disposed of the said application on its, merit. The scope for interference in appeal is also much wider than in a petition for review. Petitioner in this case instead of-approaching the appellate authority in a regular appeal along with an application for additional evidence, if any, enclosing supporting documents, has filed, the application for review of the order basing on certain new documents,; without enclosing copies of those documents or' filing the same by the date of hearing of the review application for the reasons best known to him. As such all these actions of the petitioner may be only with the purpose of frustrating the; order passed in 7-A proceeding. Furthermore it may not be out of place to mention here that a copy of the application for review has also not been filed along with the writ petition for reference.
Orissa High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - N Prusty - Full Document

M/S Dilkhusa Tea Co. Ltd. Registered ... vs The State Of Tripura on 14 August, 2024

12. Before parting with the case, we may also deal with the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that a remedy by way of an appeal being available to the respondent, the High Court ought not to have entertained his petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. There is no gainsaying that in a given case, the High Court may not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the Page 15 of 21 ground of availability of an alternative remedy, but the said rule cannot be said to be of universal application. The rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction due to availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of the availability of an alternative remedy, a writ court may still exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review, in at least three contingencies, namely, (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (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 is challenged. In these circumstances, an alternative remedy does not operate as a bar. (See: Whirpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks , Harbanslal Sahnia & Anr. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. , State of H.P. Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and Sanjana M. Wig Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.).
Tripura High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - T A Goud - Full Document

M/S.Mount Metal Engineers vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 1 November, 2007

25. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on analysing the cases cited and in view of the facts and circumstances in which the present writ petition has arisen, it is seen that the petitioner has an alternate appellate remedy, under the available provisions of law, for the reliefs sought for by them. Once it is accepted that the petitioner has an appellate remedy, it is not open to them to come before this Court by way of filing a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless it is clearly shown that the impugned orders have been passed by the respondent by following a law which is ultra vires or that they have been made in violation of the principles of natural justice as held by the Supreme Court in State of H.P. V. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., (2005) 142 STC 1 (SC). In the present writ petition before this Court, the petitioner has not shown sufficient reason or cause for this Court to set aside the impugned order of the respondent, while a statutory appeal remedy is available to the aggrieved party.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M Jaichandren - Full Document

M/S East Coast Bearings vs Commercial Tax Officer Ii on 5 March, 2018

Accepting the contention that the first Appellate Authority has powers to receive such documents and following the decisions in State of Tamil Nadu v. Arul Murugan reported in 51 STC 381 and State of H.P., and others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., and another reported in 142 STC 1 (SC), a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, at Paragraphs 12 and 13, held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - S Manikumar - Full Document

M/S.Sharda Industries vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 1 November, 2007

26. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on analysing the cases cited and in view of the facts and circumstances in which the present writ petitions have arisen, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have an alternate appellate remedy in accordance with law to seek for the reliefs sought for by them. Once it is accepted that the petitioners have the appellate remedy, it is not open to them to come before this Court by way of filing the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless it is clearly shown that the impugned orders have been passed by the respondent by following the law, which is ultra vires or in violation of the principles of natural justice as held by the Supreme Court in State of H.P. V. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., (2005) 142 STC 1 (SC).
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - M Jaichandren - Full Document

Sri. C. R. Ram Mohan Raju vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 27 October, 2025

(b) In State of H.P. and others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited and Another, [(2005) 6SCC 499], (Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited), a detailed discussion on the plea regarding alternative remedy was made. It was held that the principle of alternative remedy is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and never a rule of law. Despite the existence of an alternative remedy, it is within the jurisdiction of discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that though the matter relating to an alternative remedy has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the case, normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate, efficacious, alternative remedy. If somebody approaches the High Court without availing the alternative remedy, the High Court should ensure that he has made out a strong case or that there exist good grounds to invoke the
Karnataka High Court Cites 120 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next