Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.45 seconds)
Karnal Singh Gurudas Singh Saini vs The Secretary To The Govt. Of India, ... on 31 March, 2023 cites

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

In Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [(1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131] a three-Judge Bench considered the question whether a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should be entertained in a matter involving challenge to the order of the assessment passed by the competent authority under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and corresponding law enacted by the State Legislature and answered the same in the negative by making the following observations: (SCC pp. 440-41, para 11) "11. Under the scheme of the Act, there is a hierarchy of authorities before which the petitioners can get adequate redress against the wrongful acts complained of. The petitioners have the right to prefer an appeal before the prescribed authority under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act. If the petitioners are dissatisfied with the decision in the appeal, they can prefer a further appeal to the Tribunal under sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Act, and then ask for a case to be stated upon a question of law for the opinion of the High Court under Section 24 of the Act. The Act provides for a complete machinery to challenge an order of assessment, and the impugned orders of assessment can only be challenged by the mode prescribed by ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2023 15:56:15 ::: W.P 6850 of 2022 + 7.odt 25 the Act and not by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 897 - A P Sen - Full Document

The Project Director National Highways ... vs M. Hakeem on 20 July, 2021

(e) of the A & C Act, within the time permitted. This is asserted from the fact that the award by the Arbitrator is dated 06/09/2013, whereas the judgment in M. Hakeem (supra) was delivered on 20/07/2021 [which was from judgment in NHAI / M. Vijayalakshmi by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 1119)] and therefore the view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M. Hakeem (supra) could never have been an impediment for the petitioners to assail the award by the Arbitrator by taking recourse to Section 34 of the A & C Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 72 - Cited by 299 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1   2 3 Next