Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.48 seconds)
Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998 cites

Rashid Ahmed vs The Municipal Board, Kairana.The Union ... on 19 May, 1950

This was followed by another Rashid case, namely, K.S.Rashid & Son Vs. The Income Tax Investigation Commissioner AIR 1954 SC 207 which reiterated the above proposition and held that where alternative remedy esisted, it would be a sound exercise of discreation to refuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226. This proposition was, however, qualified by the significant words, "unless there are good grounds therefor", which indicated that alternative remedy would not operate as an absolute bar and that Writ Petition under Article 226 could still be entertained in exceptional circumstances.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 242 - Full Document

K.S. Rashid And Son vs The Income-Tax Investigation ... on 22 January, 1954

This was followed by another Rashid case, namely, K.S.Rashid & Son Vs. The Income Tax Investigation Commissioner AIR 1954 SC 207 which reiterated the above proposition and held that where alternative remedy esisted, it would be a sound exercise of discreation to refuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226. This proposition was, however, qualified by the significant words, "unless there are good grounds therefor", which indicated that alternative remedy would not operate as an absolute bar and that Writ Petition under Article 226 could still be entertained in exceptional circumstances.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 555 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

A. V. Venkateswaran, Collector Of ... vs Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani And Another on 4 April, 1961

This proposition was considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in A.V.Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs. Bombay vs Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani & Anr. AIR 1961 SC 1506 and was affirmed and followed in the following words "The passages in the judgments of this Court we have extracted would indicate (1) that the two exceptions which the learned solicitor General formulated to the normal rule as to the effect of the existence of an adequate alternative remedy were by no means exhaustive and (2) that even beyond them a discretion vested in the High Court to have entertained the petition and granted the petitioner relief notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy. We need only add that the broad lines of the general principles on which the Court should act having been clearly laid down, their application to the facts of each particular case must necessarily be dependent on a variety of individual facts which must govern the proper exercise of the discretion of the Court, and that in a matter which is thus per-eminently one of discretion, it is not possible or even if it were, it would not be desirable to lay down inflexible rules which should be applied with rigidity in every case which comes up before the Court".
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 357 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

Associated Cement Companies Ltd vs P. N. Sharma And Another on 9 December, 1964

In this connection, reliance may be placed on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. V. P.N. Sharma and another, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1965 at page 1999 where the Supreme Court observed "If a statutory body has power to do any act which will prejudicially affect the subject then although there are not two parties apart from the authority and the contest is between the authority proposing to do the act and the subject opposing it, the final determination of the authority will yet be a quasi judicial act provided that the authority is required by the statute to act judicially. In such case the statutory body which adjudicates such a dispute would, in my opinion be a tribunal in terms of Section 2(1)(x) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks act, 1958. In this case, after the proceeding which was pending by the initiation of the notice dated the 9th May, 1968, the Registrar in deciding this controversy in my opinion, was acting as a tribunal and therefore, was competent to take action as a tribunal contemplated under section 56(4) of the Act."
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 235 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1