Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.21 seconds)
Dr. Smt. Abha Sharma, Associate ... vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 27 January, 2020
cites
Section 68 in The Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammad Nooh on 30 September, 1957
24. The principle that the writ jurisdiction of a High Court can be exercised where no adequate alternative remedies exist can be traced even further back to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh 1958 SCR 595 where Justice Vivian Bose observed:
Smt. Asha Sharma And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 November, 2019
11. The writ petition, being Writ - A No.-19882 of 2019 (Dr. Smt. Abha Sharma vs. State of U.P. and 5 others) shall be heard finally upon exchange of affidavits.
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 13 April, 1983
Harbanslal Sahnia And Anr. vs Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And Ors. on 20 December, 2002
State Of H.P. And Ors vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. And Anr on 18 July, 2005
K.S. Rashid And Son vs The Income-Tax Investigation ... on 22 January, 1954
12. The Constitution Benches of this Court in K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission AIR 1954 SC 207, Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal AIR 1955 SC 425, Union of India v. T.R. Varma AIR 1957 SC 882, State of U.P. v. Mohd.
K.S. Venkataraman And Co. (P.), Ltd. vs State Of Madras on 22 March, 1966
Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86 and K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Madras AIR 1966 SC 1089 have held that though Article 226 confers very wide powers in the matter of issuing writs on the High Court, the remedy of writ is absolutely discretionary in character. If the High Court is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere, it can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction.
N. T. Veluswami Thevar vs G. Raja Nainar And Others on 24 November, 1958
The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of the principles of natural justice or the procedure required for decision has not been adopted.(See N.T. Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja Nainar AIR 1959 SC 422, Municipal Council, Khurai v. Kamal Kumar AIR 1965 SC 1321, Siliguri Municipality v. Amalendu Das (1984) 2 SCC 436, S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan (1988) 1 SCC 572, Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant (1995) 5 SCC 75, Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil (2000) 6 SCC 293, A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan (2000) 7 SCC 695, L.L. Sudhakar Reddy v. State of A.P. (2001) 6 SCC 634, Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 8 SCC 509, Pratap Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 7 SCC 484 and GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (2003) 1 SCC 72)."