Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.25 seconds)
L & T Finance Limited vs Anup Kumar Bera & Anr on 20 January, 2014 cites

L. Chandra Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 18 March, 1997

" We have considered the respective arguments/submissions. There cannot be any dispute that the power of the High Courts to issue directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto and prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed by parliamentary legislation- L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261. However, it is one thing to say that in exercise of the power vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court can entertain a writ petition against any order passed by or action taken by the State and/or its agency/instrumentality or any public authority or order passed by a quasi-judicial body/authority, and it is an altogether different thing to say that each and every petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution must be entertained by the High Court as a matter of course ignoring the fact that the aggrieved person has an effective alternative remedy. Rather, it is settled law that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 86 - Cited by 2564 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

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 a statute....But there is a third class, via., 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 Neville v. London Express Newspapers Ltd. 1919 AC 368: (1918-19) All ER Rep. 61 (HL) and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant and Co. Ltd 1935 AC 532 and Secy of State v. Mask and Co. (1939-
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 464 - Full Document
1   2 Next