Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.62 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 27 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998
67. 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 vires of an Act is under challenge. Reference may be made to Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors. reported in AIR 1999 SC 22 and Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and Ors Vs. Gayatri Construction Company and Ors, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 172, cited on behalf of Respondent No.1.
I.J. Rao, Assistant Collector Of ... vs Bibhuti Bhushan Bagh & Anr on 12 May, 1989
In case of Assistant Collector Customs v. Vibhuti Bhushan reported in (1989) 3 SCC 202, the Apex Court held (at page 208) "the right to notice, flows not from the mere circumstance that there is a proceeding of a judicial in nature, but indeed it goes beyond to the basic reason which gives to the proceedings, its character, and that reason is that a right of a person may be affected and there may be prejudice to that right if he is not affording an opportunity to put forward his case in the proceedings."
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
31. Thus, in view of law laid down by Apex Court referred above, I am of the view that the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that Section 26 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 does not contemplate issuance of notice or hearing before passing an order under Section 26 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is not tenable as the principles of natural justice are implicit in proceeding under Section 26 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Canara Bank And Ors vs Shri Debasis Das And Ors on 12 March, 2003
Paragraph no. 15 of the Canara Bank (Supra) is quoted as under:
Kishore Hegde vs Sebi on 5 November, 2019
In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works (1963) 143 ER 414, the principle was thus stated: