Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.51 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal on 8 August, 2013
When in a fiscal statute, hierarchy of remedy of
appeals are provided, the party has to exhaust them instead
of seeking relief by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as held
in Commissioner of Income Tax and others Vs. Chhabil
Dass Agarwal, ((2014) 1 SCC 603), the Court will have to
take into consideration of the legislative intent enunciated
in the enactment in such cases. It is not as if the alternative
remedy is neither efficacious nor effective. In the above
said judgment, the Supreme Court held as under:
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 Sons vs. Income Tax Investigation
Commission, (AIR 1954 SC 207); Sangram Singh vs.
Election Tribunal, Kotah, (AIR 1955 SC 425); Union of
India vs. T.R. Varma, (AIR 1957 SC 882); State of U.P.
vs. Mohd. Nooh, (AIR 1958 SC 86) and K.S.
Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. vs. State of Madras, (AIR
1966 SC 1089) have held that though Article 226 confers
a 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
Page 12 of 18
http://www.judis.nic.in
WA.No.2104 of 2018
suitable relief elsewhere, it can refuse to exercise its
jurisdiction. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances,
may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that
there has been a breach of principles of natural justice
or the procedure required for decision has not been
adopted."
Sangram Singh vs Election Tribunal, Kotah,Bhurey Lal ... on 22 March, 1955
“12. The Constitution Benches of this Court in
K.S. Rashid and Sons vs. Income Tax Investigation
Commission, (AIR 1954 SC 207); Sangram Singh vs.
Election Tribunal, Kotah, (AIR 1955 SC 425); Union of
India vs. T.R. Varma, (AIR 1957 SC 882); State of U.P.
vs. Mohd. Nooh, (AIR 1958 SC 86) and K.S.
Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. vs. State of Madras, (AIR
1966 SC 1089) have held that though Article 226 confers
a 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
Page 12 of 18
http://www.judis.nic.in
WA.No.2104 of 2018
suitable relief elsewhere, it can refuse to exercise its
jurisdiction. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances,
may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that
there has been a breach of principles of natural justice
or the procedure required for decision has not been
adopted."
Union Of India vs T. R. Varma on 18 September, 1957
“12. The Constitution Benches of this Court in
K.S. Rashid and Sons vs. Income Tax Investigation
Commission, (AIR 1954 SC 207); Sangram Singh vs.
Election Tribunal, Kotah, (AIR 1955 SC 425); Union of
India vs. T.R. Varma, (AIR 1957 SC 882); State of U.P.
vs. Mohd. Nooh, (AIR 1958 SC 86) and K.S.
Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. vs. State of Madras, (AIR
1966 SC 1089) have held that though Article 226 confers
a 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
Page 12 of 18
http://www.judis.nic.in
WA.No.2104 of 2018
suitable relief elsewhere, it can refuse to exercise its
jurisdiction. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances,
may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that
there has been a breach of principles of natural justice
or the procedure required for decision has not been
adopted."
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammad Nooh on 30 September, 1957
“12. The Constitution Benches of this Court in
K.S. Rashid and Sons vs. Income Tax Investigation
Commission, (AIR 1954 SC 207); Sangram Singh vs.
Election Tribunal, Kotah, (AIR 1955 SC 425); Union of
India vs. T.R. Varma, (AIR 1957 SC 882); State of U.P.
vs. Mohd. Nooh, (AIR 1958 SC 86) and K.S.
Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. vs. State of Madras, (AIR
1966 SC 1089) have held that though Article 226 confers
a 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
Page 12 of 18
http://www.judis.nic.in
WA.No.2104 of 2018
suitable relief elsewhere, it can refuse to exercise its
jurisdiction. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances,
may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that
there has been a breach of principles of natural justice
or the procedure required for decision has not been
adopted."
K.S. Venkataraman And Co. (P.), Ltd. vs State Of Madras on 22 March, 1966
“12. The Constitution Benches of this Court in
K.S. Rashid and Sons vs. Income Tax Investigation
Commission, (AIR 1954 SC 207); Sangram Singh vs.
Election Tribunal, Kotah, (AIR 1955 SC 425); Union of
India vs. T.R. Varma, (AIR 1957 SC 882); State of U.P.
vs. Mohd. Nooh, (AIR 1958 SC 86) and K.S.
Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. vs. State of Madras, (AIR
1966 SC 1089) have held that though Article 226 confers
a 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
Page 12 of 18
http://www.judis.nic.in
WA.No.2104 of 2018
suitable relief elsewhere, it can refuse to exercise its
jurisdiction. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances,
may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that
there has been a breach of principles of natural justice
or the procedure required for decision has not been
adopted."
Thansingh Nathmal And Ors vs A. Mazid, Superintendent Of Taxes on 3 February, 1964
In Thansingh Nathmal v. Supdt. of Taxes,
(AIR 1964 SC 1419), this Court adverted to the rule of
self-imposed restraint that the writ petition will not be
entertained if an effective remedy is available to the
aggrieved person and observed:
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 13 April, 1983
In Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of
Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 this Court observed: (SCC
pp. 440-41, para 11)
“11.
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1996
In Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India,
(1997) 5 SCC 536 B.P.Jeevan Reddy, J. (speaking for the
majority of the larger Bench) observed: