Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)
Sheetal Barnwal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 June, 2021 cites

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

68. It is well settled that availability of an alternative remedy does not prohibit the High Court from entertaining a writ petition in an appropriate case. The High Court may entertain a writ petition, notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy, particularly (1) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of a fundamental right, (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or (iii) where the impugned orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or (iv) the rives of an Act is under challenge. Reference may be made to Whirpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 :AIR 1999 SC 22 and Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation V. Gayatri Construction Company, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 172, cited on behalf of Respondent No.1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 2032 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Harbanslal Sahnia And Anr. vs Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And Ors. on 20 December, 2002

In Harbanslal Sahnia V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107, this Court allowed the appeal from an order of the High Court dismissing a writ petition and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as also the impugned order of the Indian Oil Corporation terminating the dealership of the appellants, notwithstanding the fact that the dealership agreement contained in arbitration clause.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 1488 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Central Inland Water ... vs Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr on 6 April, 1986

18. Ld. Counsel for respondent has contended that services of petitioner was terminated in view of unanimous decision taken by competent authority, by giving three months prior notice or paying a sum equivalent to three months salary for violation of terms and conditions stipulated in para 9 and 10 of the "contract of the service and such no prejudice has been committed to the petitioner. However, this Court is of the view that any statute conferring unfettered right to employer to terminate the services of a permanent employee by giving three months prior notice or paying a sum equivalent to three months salary is bad in eyes of law. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly (supra), it has been held that "112. In the result, both these Appeals fail and are dismissed but the order passed by the Calcutta High Court is modified by substituting for the declaration given by it a declaration that clause (i) of Rule 9 of the "Service, Discipline & Appeal Rules - 1979" of the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited is void under section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as being opposed to public policy and is also ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution to the extent that it confers upon the Corporation the right to terminate the employment of a permanent employee by giving him three months' notice in writing or by paying him the equivalent of three months' basic pay and dearness allowance in lieu of such notice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 111 - Cited by 1191 - D P Madon - Full Document

Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corp.& Ors vs M/S Gayatri Construction Company & Anr on 6 August, 2008

68. It is well settled that availability of an alternative remedy does not prohibit the High Court from entertaining a writ petition in an appropriate case. The High Court may entertain a writ petition, notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy, particularly (1) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of a fundamental right, (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or (iii) where the impugned orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or (iv) the rives of an Act is under challenge. Reference may be made to Whirpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 :AIR 1999 SC 22 and Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation V. Gayatri Construction Company, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 172, cited on behalf of Respondent No.1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 94 - Full Document

Joshi Technologies International Inc vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 May, 2015

as contained in Appendix-I of Rules, 2011 clearly stipulates that any dispute including any disciplinary action leading to dismissal or removal from services shall be referred for arbitration to any person to be nominated by the Adhyaksha of the Society and as such, the petitioner without exhausting alternative remedy available to her has approached this Court and on this score itself instant writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine. The petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands as the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the fact that she had earlier filed a case bearing Case No. 49/2017 (ET) before the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi which has stood dismissed as withdrawn. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Joshi Technologies International INC. Vs. Union of India4.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 393 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1   2 Next