Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.49 seconds)
C. Lakshmi Narayana vs The State Of Ap on 13 October, 2023 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal on 8 August, 2013

"Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice the principle of law as laid down by this Court. It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 957 - Full Document

The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammad Nooh on 30 September, 1957

(See State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh3, Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa4, Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil 2 (2014) 1 SCC 603 3 AIR 1958 SC 86 4 (1983) 2 SCC 433 13 VS,J wp_7845_2022 Corpn. Ltd5 and State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd6) In view of the law declared by the Apex Court, when a statutory remedy is available, the Court may not normally entertain petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is purely discretionary in nature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 1128 - Full Document

Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 13 April, 1983

(See State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh3, Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa4, Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil 2 (2014) 1 SCC 603 3 AIR 1958 SC 86 4 (1983) 2 SCC 433 13 VS,J wp_7845_2022 Corpn. Ltd5 and State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd6) In view of the law declared by the Apex Court, when a statutory remedy is available, the Court may not normally entertain petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is purely discretionary in nature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 897 - A P Sen - Full Document

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

(See State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh3, Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa4, Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil 2 (2014) 1 SCC 603 3 AIR 1958 SC 86 4 (1983) 2 SCC 433 13 VS,J wp_7845_2022 Corpn. Ltd5 and State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd6) In view of the law declared by the Apex Court, when a statutory remedy is available, the Court may not normally entertain petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is purely discretionary in nature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 1488 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

State Of H.P. And Ors vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. And Anr on 18 July, 2005

(See State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh3, Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa4, Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil 2 (2014) 1 SCC 603 3 AIR 1958 SC 86 4 (1983) 2 SCC 433 13 VS,J wp_7845_2022 Corpn. Ltd5 and State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd6) In view of the law declared by the Apex Court, when a statutory remedy is available, the Court may not normally entertain petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is purely discretionary in nature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 52 - Cited by 583 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Genpact India Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 November, 2019

In "Genpact India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another1" the Division Bench of the Apex Court held that, "when a statutory remedy is available under the statute, the Court would not normally entertain the writ petition against assessment order. The Apex Court finally concluded that, if the submission is accepted, every time the 1 (2019) 311 CTR (SC) 737 12 VS,J wp_7845_2022 dispute will be required to be taken up in proceedings such as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which normally would not be entertained in case of any disputed questions of fact or concerning factual aspects of the matter. The assessee may thus, not only lose a remedy of having the matter considered on factual facets of the matter but would also stand deprived of regular channels of challenges available to it under the hierarchy of fora available under the Act."
Supreme Court of India Cites 86 - Cited by 250 - U U Lalit - Full Document
1