Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.81 seconds)Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
Jai Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 November, 1976
"18. There is another doctrine which cannot also be lost sight of.
The court would not ordinarily permit a party to pursue two
parallel remedies in respect of the same subject-matter. (See Jai
Singh v. Union of India [(1977) 1 SCC 1]. But, where one proceeding
has been terminated without determination of the lis, can it be said
that the disputant shall be without a remedy?
K.D.Sharma vs Steel Authorities Of India Ltd.& Ors on 9 July, 2008
33.1 It would be relevant to reproduce paragraphs 34 to 39
K.D.Sharma (supra), which read thus:
Section 8 in The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
All India State Bank Officers' ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 13 September, 1996
33.3 In All India State Bank Officers Federation v. Union of
India , the facts are similar. Federation filed WP in this Court, before
High Court at Bangalore and in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of
the Constitution on the issue of promotion policy and granting
promotions to some officers. In the petition filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution, declaration was filed stating that no other writ petition was
filed in the Supreme Court or in any High Court on the same issue.
Supreme Court frowned at such conduct of Federation. Supreme Court
observed,
"11. Apart from misstatements in the affidavits filed before this
Court, the petitioner federation has clearly resorted to tactics which
can only be described as abuse of the process of court. The
simultaneous filing of writ petitions in various High Courts on
the same issue though purportedly on behalf of different
associations of the officers of the Bank, is a practice which has
to be discouraged."
M/S S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 17 March, 2004
In S.J.S. Business Enterprises (supra), the appellant filed
suit on 04.04.2002 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Patna challenging the
action of BICICO. An application for grant of interim relief to restrain
BICICO from selling the hotel was also filed. The Sub-Judge refused the
prayer in the interim injunction application by his order dated
08.04.2002. On 09.04.2002, the appellant filed writ petition before the
High Court at Patna for the same relief as sought in the suit. High Court
granted interim order on 09.04.2002. When the writ petition was heard
finally, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the appellant
suppressed the fact that he had filed the suit prior to institution of the
writ proceedings and such conduct verged on fraud and the appellant
was disentitled to any relief in the extraordinary prerogative writ
jurisdiction. The Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the said
decision of the learned single Judge.
Arunima Baruah vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 April, 2007
In Arunima Baruah (supra) also,
the appellant filed suit in the District Court on 28.03.2001. On the
application for grant of injunction, only notice was ordered and no
ad interim injunction was passed. The appellant filed writ petition
before the High Court on 10.04.2001. In the said writ petition, the
pending suit was not disclosed. An application for withdrawal of the
suit was moved on 12.04.2001, much before the writ petition was taken
up for consideration. Due to lawyers proceeding on strike, the said
application was not taken up by the District Court before the writ
petition came up for preliminary hearing on 18.04.2001. The District
Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the suit by order dated
30.04.2001. The Delhi High court dismissed the writ petition by order
dated 29.11.2002 primarily on the ground that the appellant suppressed
the factum of institution of the suit before the District Court and the
same amounts to gross concealment of fact by the petitioner and
petitioner was doing nothing more than forum-hunting and having failed
to obtain interim injunction in the civil suit, the petitioner has resorted
to filing the said writ petition. In intra-court appeal the said decision of
the learned single Judge was confirmed.
1