Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (1.36 seconds)The Punjab Municipal Act, 1999
Mumtaz Khambati vs Secunderabad Cantonment Board And ... on 6 August, 1999
(ii) In an unreported judgment of this Court in Tahir
N.Khambati and others v. Secunderabad Cantonment Board
1
2001 SCC OnLine AP 397: (2001) 3 ALD 600
2 MANU/AP/0985/2007
10 AAR, J
WP Nos.18251_2020&8282_2021
(W.P.No.11091 of 2016, dated 19.06.2006), wherein this Court
held as under:
Sana Radha, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 26 February, 2021
20) In Sana Radha v. State of Andhra Pradesh7, at para 9, it
has been held as under:
M/S Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. ... vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 18 August, 2011
21) In Mansarover Steel Industries (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P.,8,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the High court
comes to the conclusion that there are disputed question of fact, the
High Court should have then relegated the appellants to an
appropriate court, instead of dismissing the writ petition.
Union Of India And Another vs Mohammed Mohiuddin And Others on 11 August, 2000
23) In Union of India and another v. Mohammed Mohiuddin
and others10, a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, at para 62, held as under:
Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bombay vs Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. Bombay on 16 August, 1971
24) In Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad through its
Commissioner vs. State of Maharashtra11, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that the High Court erred in exercising its jurisdiction
9 1993 Supp (1) SCC 306
10 (2000) 6 ALT 551 (DB)
11 (2015) 16 SCC 689
18 AAR, J
WP Nos.18251_2020&8282_2021
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in deciding the
disputed questions of fact regarding title over disputed land raised
by the parties therein.
Hindustan Coco-Cola Beverage(P) Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 September, 2014
25) In Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Limited vs.
Union of India12, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that adjudication
on disputed questions of fact is outside the purview of Article 226
of the Constitution of India; the issue before the High Court was
violation of principles of natural justice as no notice was served on
the appellants before initiating recovery proceedings; Hence, High
Court ought not to have decided the matter by going to depth of
facts of case and hence, order passed by the High Court is
untenable.
M/S. Swati Ferro Alloys Pvt.Ltd vs Orissa Indl.Infr.Dev.Corpn.(Idco)& ... on 6 January, 2015
26) In Swati Ferro Alloys Private Limited vs. Orissa
Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (IDCO)13,
the Hon'ble Apex Court held that matter involving disputed
question of fact about the ownership of the land in question could
not be decided in a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and that the High Court was justified in
directing the parties to approach the civil Court for resolving such
dispute.