Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 135 (1.20 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Maharashtra vs Greatship (India) Ltd. on 20 September, 2022

Neha Enterprise vs State Of Gujarat on 19 January, 2023

9. With regard to the question of alternative remedy, the Apex Court in case of the State of Maharashtra and others vs. Greatship (India) Limited (supra) has held that the entertainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by bypassing the statutory remedy is not desirable. The Court has in extenso referred to various decisions to hold that the question is not about the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but the question is about entertainability against the order of assessment by bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal. There is no valid reason that had been shown by the assessee to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal.
Gujarat High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Foundever Crm India Pvt. Ltd. vs Employee State Insurance Corporation on 19 September, 2025

76. The Respondents have relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Greatship (India) Ltd. (supra) in support of their contention that the High Court should not entertain a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution wherein effective and efficacious remedy is available. There are other judgments relied upon by the Respondents in support of this contention passed by both the Supreme Court and as well as this Court. However, the reliance placed by the Respondents on these judgments is wholly misplaced and inapplicable to the present case. In the present case, the Petitioners have been denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing, which is a mandatory procedural safeguards under proviso to Section 45A of the ESI Act. The impugned action in the present case was undertaken prior to the passing of any lawful or reasoned order. Thus, rendering 44 ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2025 23:47:52 ::: WPL-36012-24-Jt.doc the action wholly without jurisdiction and clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioners are not merely bypassing an appellate forum, but are challenging the very legality and procedural fairness of the primary action itself, making these judgments which are on effective and efficacious statutory remedy being available, inapplicable.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - R I Chagla - Full Document

Unknown vs Greatship (India) Limited on 28 October, 2022

____________ Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)SR.No.7387 of 2023 Even in State of Maharashtra vs. Greatship(India) Limited reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1262, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the discretion of the Court, particularly, a Constitutional Court to exercise jurisdiction in cases where an alternative remedy is projected as a bar. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that Constitutional Courts will be slow in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where there is an alternative remedy available.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

S C Tripathi vs D/O Post on 4 September, 2025

9. From perusal of the records, it appears admittedly, the applicant had alternative remedy available before Appellate Authority, but the applicant directly rushed to this Tribunal without availing the same. Rule 23 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 provides for filing an appeal to the next higher Authority. Right of appeal is a substantive right and without availing the same, the applicant approached this Tribunal, challenging the orders dated 12.11.2013, 13.11.2013 & 26.12.2013, 28.11.2013, 10.12.2013, 27.12.2013 & 28.01.2014 passed by the Respondent No.3. It is settled law that when an alternative remedy is available, without availing the same, the Court would be slow in entertaining the applications Page 8 of 13 OA No. 330/188 of 2014 directly. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Apex Court in case of The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Greatship (India) Limited), reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 948, wherein it has been held as under:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Pennar Industries Limited, vs State Of Telangana, on 7 November, 2025

6. At this stage, a recent decision of this Court in the case of The State of Maharashtra v. Greatship (India) Limited (Civil Appeal No. 4956 of 2022, decided on 20.09.2022) is required to be referred to. After taking into consideration the earlier decision of this Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110, it is observed and held that in a tax matter when a statutory remedy of appeal is available, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Assessment Order by-passing the statutory remedy of appeal.
Telangana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - P S Koshy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next