Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)
Shobhit Sah And 3 Others vs M/S Induranta Realtors And 3 Others on 4 July, 2022 cites

Mohd. Shahid And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 August, 2016

In the case of Mohd. Shahid and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2003 AWC 65249, a landlord filed suit under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 for eviction of the tenant. The application of the landlord was allowed and the matter travelled up to High Court where the order passed by the court below for eviction was affirmed and no special leave petition was preferred against the order passed by the High Court, yet the tenant, who was District Election Officer, instituted a suit against the landlord in which temporary injunction application was rejected, but in the appeal, the injunction was granted. In such view of the fact, the writ petition was filed praying for quashing of the order of the appellate court granting the temporary injunction and quashing the plaint.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - V Lakshmi - Full Document

M/S S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 17 March, 2004

In the case of S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and Others 2004 (7) SCC 166, the Apex has held that the suppression of the material fact disentitles the litigant to any relief, but suppression must be of a material fact which has bearing on the outcome of the decision of the case. Relevant paragraph 13 of the judgment is reproduced herein below:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 326 - R Pal - Full Document

Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma ... vs Tuticorin Educational Society on 3 October, 2019

Indeed, the alternative remedy is not always a bar in entertaining a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, but the Apex Court in paragraphs 11 to 13 of the judgement in the case of Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and Others Vs. Tuticorin Educational Society and Others 2019 (9) SCC 538 has held that the Court should refrain from interfering under Article 227 of Constitution of India where there is an alternate remedy provided under the scheme of the act. Paragraphs 11 to 13 of the said judgement are being reproduced herein below:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 517 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document

A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs S. Chellappan And Ors on 19 September, 2000

In A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs. S. Chellappan 2000 (7) SCC 695, this Court held that "though no hurdle can be put against the exercise of the constitutional powers of the High Court, it is a well-recognised principle which gained judicial recognition that the High Court should direct the party to avail himself of such remedies before he resorts to a Constitutional remedy"
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 451 - Full Document

Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003

12. But courts should always bear in mind a distinction between (i) cases where such alternative remedy is available before civil courts in terms of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, and (ii) cases where such alternative remedy is available under special enactments and/or statutory rules and the fora provided therein happen to be quasi-judicial authorities and tribunals. In respect of cases falling under the first category, which may involve suits and other proceedings before civil courts, the availability of an appellate remedy in terms of the provisions of CPC, may have to be construed as a near total bar. Otherwise, there is a danger that someone may challenge in a revision under Article 227, even a decree passed in a suit, on the same grounds on which the Respondents 1 and 2 invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court. This is why, a 3-member Bench of this Court, while overruling the decision in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai 2003 (6) SCC 675, pointed out in Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath 2015 (5) SCC 423 that "orders of civil court stand on different footing from the orders of authorities or tribunals or courts other than judicial/civil courts".
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 3621 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Radhey Shyam & Anr vs Chhabi Nath & Ors on 26 February, 2015

12. But courts should always bear in mind a distinction between (i) cases where such alternative remedy is available before civil courts in terms of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, and (ii) cases where such alternative remedy is available under special enactments and/or statutory rules and the fora provided therein happen to be quasi-judicial authorities and tribunals. In respect of cases falling under the first category, which may involve suits and other proceedings before civil courts, the availability of an appellate remedy in terms of the provisions of CPC, may have to be construed as a near total bar. Otherwise, there is a danger that someone may challenge in a revision under Article 227, even a decree passed in a suit, on the same grounds on which the Respondents 1 and 2 invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court. This is why, a 3-member Bench of this Court, while overruling the decision in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai 2003 (6) SCC 675, pointed out in Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath 2015 (5) SCC 423 that "orders of civil court stand on different footing from the orders of authorities or tribunals or courts other than judicial/civil courts".
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 616 - A K Goel - Full Document

Shrawan Kumar @ Pappu vs Nirmala on 4 December, 2012

In the case of Shrawan Kumar @ Pappu Vs. Nirmala passed in Writ-C No.62174 of 2012, this Court quashed the plaint as the prayer in the suit was to restrain the respondent from marrying any other person except the petitioner. This Court found that the prayer in the suit was against public policy and as such, it is impliedly barred by Section 9 of C.P.C. In returning the said finding, this Court noticed Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which provides that an agreement to restrain a marriage of any person is void. It was in such peculiar facts, that this Court quashed the plaint suo moto.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - P Mithal - Full Document
1