Search Results Page

Search Results

21 - 30 of 47 (0.18 seconds)
Pacs vs Union on 6 September, 2010 cites

Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 13 April, 1983

34. Again in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and another vs. State of Orissa and another [AIR 1983 SC 603] in the background of taxation laws, a three judge Bench of this Court apart from reiterating the principle of exercise of writ jurisdiction with the time-honoured self imposed limitations, focused on another legal principle on right and remedies. In paragraph 11, at page 607 of the report, this Court laid down:
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 897 - A P Sen - Full Document

The Secretary Of State vs Mask And Co. on 15 March, 1940

"There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon statute.... But there is a third class, viz., where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it...the remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to." The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspaper Ltd. [1919] AC 368 and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant and Co. [1935] 532 and Secretary of State v. Mask and Co. AIR 1940 PC 105. It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine".
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 464 - Full Document

Seth Chand Ratan vs Pandit Durga Prasad (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 28 March, 2003

In the instant case none of the aforesaid situations are present. Therefore, principle laid down in the Ratan's case (supra) applies in the facts and circumstances of this case. If the appellant in this case is allowed to file a writ petition despite the existence of an efficacious remedy by way of appeal under Section 35 of FEMA this will enable him to defeat the provisions of the Statute which may provide for certain conditions for filing the appeal, like limitation, payment of court fees or deposit of some amount of penalty or fulfillment of some other conditions for entertaining the appeal. (See para 13 at page 408 of the report). It is obvious that a writ court should not encourage the aforesaid trend of by-passing a statutory provision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 85 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural ... vs Sahngoo Ram Arya And Anr. on 7 May, 2002

41. Learned Advocate Mr. Tolia has vehemently emphasized by relying upon section 95 of the Act that immediate interim relief is not available because appellate board must have to hear other side after supplying copy of appeal and interim relief application to other side and, therefore, it is very difficult for petitioner to get immediate interim order ex parte from appellate board. For that, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi has emphasized negligence on the part of petitioner or lapse or deliberate delay or conduct on the part of petitioner as such which otherwise also disentitle petitioner from interim relief immediately either from this Court or from appellate board under section 95 of the Act. Order in question has been passed by Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks on 17.5.2010. This order has not been received by petitioner as per his contention, therefore, on 24.6.2010, documents and copy of order were demanded by petitioner from Registrar of Trade Marks after making payments. So, application was made on 24.6.2010 and documents including order in question were supplied to petitioner on 21.7.2010 and thereafter affidavit has been affirmed on 25.7.2010 and matter was filed in Registry of this Court on 16.8.2010 and thereafter, it came to be circulated before this Court for admission on 30.8.2010 and, therefore, considering these factual aspects of delay, which are not in dispute between the parties, mere ex parte order is not to be passed by Appellate Board as per conditions incorporated in section 95 of the Act, that cannot give right to petitioner to directly approach this Court by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India. This aspect has been examined by apex court in case of Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services, UP and others versus Sahngoo Ram Arya and another, 2002 SCC (L&S) 775. Relevant observations made in para 11 and 12 are quoted as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 269 - Full Document
Previous   1 2 3   4 5 Next