Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 389 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 27A in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Anr on 10 April, 2007
5. Concededly, filing an appeal is a statutory right of a
convict under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Right
to appeal from a judgment of conviction affecting the liberty of a
person keeping in view of expansive definition of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India is also a Fundamental Right (see. Dilip S.
Dahanukar .vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd.1) . The Court should not
dismiss the appeal as time-barred without examining the reasons for
the delay. More so because the right to appeal which concerns with
the liberty of an individual, is a Fundamental Right under Article 21
of the Constitution (see. Rajendra .v. State of Rajasthan2). The
application for condonation of delay in filing appeal should not be
dismissed on mere technicalities without a substantive assessment of
the appellant's reasons.
Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998
In Whirlpool Corporation .vs. Registrar of Trade Marks,
Mumbai and others3, relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made certain observations
with regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in spite of the
availability of alternate statutory remedies. It was observed that
where an authority against whom the writ is filed is shown to have
had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any
legal foundation, the High Court has discretion to entertain or not to
entertain a writ petition. But in case of an effective and efficacious
alternate remedy, the High Court has self imposed restrictions and
would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. In paragraph 15 of the
judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :
Bikramjit Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 12 October, 2020
11. A reference can also be made to the decision in Bikramjit
Singh .vs. State of Punjab4, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
expressed that in the matters concerned with personal liberty, the
Court should not be too technical and must lean in favour of personal
liberty.
M/S Radha Krishan Industries vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 20 April, 2021
17. As held in M/s Radha Krishan (supra), if the Statutory
Authority has acted in defiance of fundamental principles of judicial
procedure, the writ petition can be entertained by the High Court.
Therefore, a case is made out for entertaining the writ petition.
Assistant Commissioner (Ct) Ltu ... vs M/S Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health ... on 6 May, 2020
"24. The High Court has dealt with the maintainability
of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Relying on the decision of this Court in Assistant
Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others v Glaxo
Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited20, the High
Court noted that although it can entertain a petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution, it must not do so
when the aggrieved person has an effective alternate
4 (2020) 10 SCC 616
5 (2021) 6 SCC 771 (Civil Appeal No. 1155 of 2021)
9 CRIWP262.25 (J).odt
remedy available in law. However, certain exceptions
to this "rule of alternate remedy" include where, the
statutory authority has not acted in accordance with
the provisions of the law or acted in defiance of the
fundamental principles of judicial procedure; or has
resorted to invoke provisions, which are repealed; or
where an order has been passed in violation of the
principles of natural justice. Applying this formulation,
the High Court noted that the appellant has an
alternate remedy available under the GST Act and thus,
the petition was not maintainable.