Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.25 seconds)
M/S Interglobe Aviation Ltd vs State Of Raj And Ors on 28 February, 2013 cites

State Of H.P. And Ors vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. And Anr on 18 July, 2005

In H.P. and Others Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited and Another, supra, the Supreme Court while considering the objection of alternative remedy to filing of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, held that despite existence of alternative remedy, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. But normally, the High Court should not interfere if there is efficacious alternative remedy is available. If somebody approaches the High Court without availing alternative remedy provided, the High Court should ensure that he has made out a strong case that there exists good ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction. Following observations of the Supreme Court are reproduced herein for the facility of reference:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 52 - Cited by 583 - A Pasayat - Full Document

United Bank Of India vs Satyawati Tondon & Ors on 26 July, 2010

In United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others, supra, it was held by the Supreme court that in the matters arising out of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, where alternative remedy by filing application under Section 17(1) before Debts Recovery Tribunal is available to the writ petitioner, the High Court should not under Article 226 of the Constitution entertain writ petitions and grant stay in such matters except where writ petitioner is able to show that the case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in the judgments of the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 3973 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next