Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
Md. Siraj Ahamed vs The State Election Commission And Ors. on 3 February, 1999 cites

The Secretary Of State vs Mask And Co. on 15 March, 1940

" There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon statute. One is, where there was a liability existing at common law, and that liability is affirmed by a statute which gives a special and peculiar form of remedy different from the remedy which existed at common law ; there, unless the statute contains words which expressly or by necessary implication exclude the common law remedy, the party suing has his election to pursue either that or the statutory remedy. The second class of cases is, where the statute gives the right to sue merely, but provides no particular form of remedy there, the party can only proceed by action at common law. But there is a third class, viz., where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it .......... The remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to." The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Nevile v. London Express Newspaper Ltd; (1919) A. C. 368 and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tabago v. Gordon Grant & Co. (1935) A. C. 532 and Secretary of State v. Mask & Co. (1940) 44 Cal.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 464 - Full Document

N.P. Ponnuswami vs Returning Officer, Namakkal ... on 21 January, 1952

In this regard, a reference can be made to a decision of the Apex Court rendered in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal reported in AIR 1952 SC 64 wherein the Apex Court held thus, (at p. 69 of AIR) "It is now well recognized that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. This rule was stated with great clarity by Willes J. in Wolver-hampton New Water Works Co. v. Hawkesford, (1859) 6 C. B. (N.S.) 336, at p. 356 in the following passage :
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 830 - Full Document
1