Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)M.P. State Agro Industries Development ... vs Jahan Khan on 5 September, 2007
7. While the above decisions do deal with the subject matter in question, a more recent decision of the Apex Court, vide M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Jahan Khan,(2007) 10 SCC 88 is more appropriate for our guidance. The Apex court has clearly stated as under:-
Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998
12. Before parting with the case, we may also deal with the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that a remedy by way of an appeal being available to the respondent, the High Court ought not to have entertained his petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. There is no gainsaying that in a given case, the High Court may not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, but the said rule cannot be said to be of universal application. The rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction due to availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of the availability of an alternative remedy, a writ court may still exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review, in at least three contingencies, namely, (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. In these circumstances, an alternative remedy does not operate as a bar. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1 Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107 State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., 5 (2005) 6 SCC 499 and Sanjana M. Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., 6 (2005) 8 SCC 242)
Mrs. Sanjana M. Wig vs Hindustan Petro Corporation Ltd on 15 September, 2005
12. Before parting with the case, we may also deal with the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that a remedy by way of an appeal being available to the respondent, the High Court ought not to have entertained his petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. There is no gainsaying that in a given case, the High Court may not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, but the said rule cannot be said to be of universal application. The rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction due to availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of the availability of an alternative remedy, a writ court may still exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review, in at least three contingencies, namely, (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. In these circumstances, an alternative remedy does not operate as a bar. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1 Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107 State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., 5 (2005) 6 SCC 499 and Sanjana M. Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., 6 (2005) 8 SCC 242)
Brahmdeo Ojha, Kashi Nath Sen, Girija ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 September, 2003
(e) Judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench dated 4th July, 2003 in OA No.1375 of 2002 M.Rama Prasad Rao Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Hasmukhbhai P. Raijada on 7 February, 2004
(f) Union of India Vs. Hashmukhbhai P. Raijada. (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 541
Section 20 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Harbanslal Sahnia And Anr. vs Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And Ors. on 20 December, 2002
12. Before parting with the case, we may also deal with the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that a remedy by way of an appeal being available to the respondent, the High Court ought not to have entertained his petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. There is no gainsaying that in a given case, the High Court may not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, but the said rule cannot be said to be of universal application. The rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction due to availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of the availability of an alternative remedy, a writ court may still exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review, in at least three contingencies, namely, (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. In these circumstances, an alternative remedy does not operate as a bar. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1 Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107 State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., 5 (2005) 6 SCC 499 and Sanjana M. Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., 6 (2005) 8 SCC 242)
State Of H.P. And Ors vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. And Anr on 18 July, 2005
12. Before parting with the case, we may also deal with the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that a remedy by way of an appeal being available to the respondent, the High Court ought not to have entertained his petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. There is no gainsaying that in a given case, the High Court may not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, but the said rule cannot be said to be of universal application. The rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction due to availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of the availability of an alternative remedy, a writ court may still exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review, in at least three contingencies, namely, (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. In these circumstances, an alternative remedy does not operate as a bar. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1 Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107 State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., 5 (2005) 6 SCC 499 and Sanjana M. Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., 6 (2005) 8 SCC 242)
1