Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 57 (0.36 seconds)
M/S. Seashell vs The Lt. Governor And Others on 10 February, 2026 cites

Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998

In Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumabi and others, (1998) 8 SCC 1, The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an alternative remedy will not operate as a 49 bar to the maintainability of a writ petition in at least four contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or where the order or proceedings challenged are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. This view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a plethora of subsequent cases and indeed in earlier cases also.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 1316 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammad Nooh on 30 September, 1957

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. 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 42 satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or 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 the principles of natural justice or the procedure required for decision has not been adopted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 1128 - Full Document

M/S Tata Teleservices Limited vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 March, 2022

54. The decision in M/s Tata Teleservices Limited vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and others rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1993 of 2022 were on different facts. The assessee in that case had straightway challenged the assessment order by way of a writ petition, which is not the case here. In the present case, as noted above, the writ petitioner chose to pursue the statutory avenue of filing objection to the assessment notice under Section 74 of the Regulation, thereby inviting a decision on all the concerned issues from the Commissioner. Having failed before the Commissioner the 72 petitioner cannot now invoke the writ jurisdiction to challenge the selfsame notice.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next