Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.42 seconds)

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

23. It is well settled law that an alternative statutory remedy does not operate as a bar to maintainability of a writ petition in at least three W.P. (C) 3258/2020 Page 8 of 18 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 notice or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. [See Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others, (1998)8 SCC 1].
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 1316 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri.M.Hemanathan on 23 March, 2016

In Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII, Chennai Vs. Shri M. Hemanathan, 2016 (4) TMI 258 - Madras High Court it has been held "In the case on hand, the assessee was dead. It was the assessee's son, who appeared and perhaps cooperated. Therefore, the primary condition for the invocation of Section 292BB is absent in the case on hand. Section 292BB is in place to take care of contingencies where an assessee is put on notice of the initiation of W.P. (C) 3258/2020 Page 16 of 18 proceedings, but who takes advantage of defective notices or defective service of notice on him. It is trite to point out that the purpose of issue of notice is to make the noticee aware of the nature of the proceedings. Once the nature of the proceedings is made known and understood by the assessee, he should not be allowed to take advantage of certain procedural defects. That was the purpose behind the enactment of Section 292BB. It cannot be invoked in cases where the very initiation of proceedings is against a dead person. Hence, the second contention cannot also be upheld."
1   2 Next