Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)
M/S Binni Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd.Thru ... vs State Of U.P. Through Prin.Secy. ... on 6 February, 2020 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal on 8 August, 2013

"11. Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice the principle of law as laid down by this Court. It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 957 - Full Document

Maharashtra Chess Association vs Union Of India on 29 July, 2019

In Maharashtra Chess Association (supra), a Division Bench of the Supreme Court has observed after considering binding precedent with regard to exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that powers of the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot be circumscribed by strict legal principles so as to hobble the High Court in fulfilling its mandate to uphold the rule of law. In the case of writ seeking certiorari for quashing of orders, the power exercised are purely discretionary and though there are no limits upon the discretion, that must be exercised along recognized lines and not arbitrarily; and one of the limitations imposed by the courts on themselves is that they will not exercise jurisdiction in this class of case unless substantial injustice has ensued, or is likely to ensue. They will not allow themselves to be turned into courts of appeal or revision to set right mere errors of law which do not occasion injustice in a broad and general sense. The intention behind this self-imposed rule is clear. If the High Courts were to exercise their writ jurisdiction so widely as to regularly override statutory appellate procedures, they would themselves become inundated with a vast number of cases to the detriment of the litigants in those cases. This would also defeat the legislature's intention in enacting statutory appeal mechanisms to ensure the speedy disposal of cases. Although, the Supreme Court held that the existence of an alternate remedy, whether adequate or not, does not alter the fundamentally discretionary nature of the High Court's writ jurisdiction and therefore, does not create an absolute legal bar on the exercise of the writ jurisdiction by a High Court, the decision whether or not to entertain an action under its writ jurisdiction remains a decision to be taken by the High Court on an examination of the facts and circumstances of a particular case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 124 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Awadhesh Rai & Others vs Additional Commissioner (Food) ... on 3 August, 2010

7. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 has placed reliance upon the two judgments rendered by this Court in Awadhesh Singh Vs. Additional Commissioner and others, 2017 (9) ADJ 378, and a judgment rendered on 7.2.2019 in Writ Petition No.347 (MS) of 2012 (Abdul Hameed and another vs. Nagar Palika Parishad, Bela, Pratapgarh and others) to say that this Court has considered all the law on the subject of entertaining writ petitions in cases arising out of mutation proceedings and has held that the Writ Court should not interfere with the orders passed in summary proceedings of mutation of names by Revenue Courts unless the order impugned is completely without jurisdiction or creates rights in favour of a person or liability against such person against the very provisions of the Statute. The Court can also entertain writ petitions in cases arising out of mutation proceedings where the order impugned has been obtained by fraud. None of the three conditions are satisfied and, therefore, this Court should not interfere in the order impugned.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 15 - S Misra - Full Document

Abdul Hameed And Another vs Nagar Palika Parishad Bela Pratapgarh ... on 7 February, 2019

7. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 has placed reliance upon the two judgments rendered by this Court in Awadhesh Singh Vs. Additional Commissioner and others, 2017 (9) ADJ 378, and a judgment rendered on 7.2.2019 in Writ Petition No.347 (MS) of 2012 (Abdul Hameed and another vs. Nagar Palika Parishad, Bela, Pratapgarh and others) to say that this Court has considered all the law on the subject of entertaining writ petitions in cases arising out of mutation proceedings and has held that the Writ Court should not interfere with the orders passed in summary proceedings of mutation of names by Revenue Courts unless the order impugned is completely without jurisdiction or creates rights in favour of a person or liability against such person against the very provisions of the Statute. The Court can also entertain writ petitions in cases arising out of mutation proceedings where the order impugned has been obtained by fraud. None of the three conditions are satisfied and, therefore, this Court should not interfere in the order impugned.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 4 - S Chandra - Full Document
1