Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.69 seconds)
Pacs vs Union on 6 September, 2010 cites

General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini ... vs Satrughan Nishad And Others on 8 October, 2003

11. In the instant case the High Court has itself observed that disputed questions of fact were involved and yet went on to give directions as if it was adjudicating the money claim in a suit. The course is clearly impermissible. (See: General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur U.P. v. Satrughan Nishad and others (2003 (8) SCC 639), Rourkela Shramik Sangh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Another (2003(4) SCC 317).
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 222 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Rourkela Shramik Sangh vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Anr on 29 January, 2003

11. In the instant case the High Court has itself observed that disputed questions of fact were involved and yet went on to give directions as if it was adjudicating the money claim in a suit. The course is clearly impermissible. (See: General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur U.P. v. Satrughan Nishad and others (2003 (8) SCC 639), Rourkela Shramik Sangh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Another (2003(4) SCC 317).
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 81 - S B Sinha - 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
1