Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.38 seconds)Section 9 in The Payment And Settlement Systems Act, 2007 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Payment And Settlement Systems Act, 2007 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Payment And Settlement Systems Act, 2007 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Payment And Settlement Systems Act, 2007 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Payment And Settlement Systems Act, 2007 [Entire Act]
State Of H.P. And Ors vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. And Anr on 18 July, 2005
"12....There is no gainsaying that in a given case, the High Court may not
entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of
availability of an alternative remedy, but the said rule cannot be said to be of
universal application. The rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction due to
availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of
compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of the availability of an
alternative remedy, a writ court may still exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction of judicial review, in at least three contingencies, namely, (i)
where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii)
where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the
orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is
challenged. In these circumstances, an alternative remedy does not operate as a
bar. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks3, Harbanslal Sahnia v.
Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.4, State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd.5 and
Sanjana M. Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.6)"
Mrs. Sanjana M. Wig vs Hindustan Petro Corporation Ltd on 15 September, 2005
"12....There is no gainsaying that in a given case, the High Court may not
entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of
availability of an alternative remedy, but the said rule cannot be said to be of
universal application. The rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction due to
availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of
compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of the availability of an
alternative remedy, a writ court may still exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction of judicial review, in at least three contingencies, namely, (i)
where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii)
where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the
orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is
challenged. In these circumstances, an alternative remedy does not operate as a
bar. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks3, Harbanslal Sahnia v.
Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.4, State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd.5 and
Sanjana M. Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.6)"
Union Of India & Ors vs Adani Exports Ltd. & Anr on 31 October, 2001
20.In this context, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan referred
to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Adani
Exports Ltd. and another reported in 2002 (1) SCC 567 and contended that the
petitioner is indulging in forum shopping. Since no part of the cause of action
arose, the court should not entertain the writ petition before this Bench. It is
necessary to refer to the following passages found in paragraphs 17 and 18 from
the said judgment, which reads as follows:
Alchemist Limited And Another vs State Bank Of Sikkim And Others on 16 March, 2007
"37.From the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the ratio laid down in a
catena of decisions by this Court, it is clear that for the purpose of deciding
whether facts averred by the appellant-petitioner would or would not constitute
a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitutes a
material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. It is no doubt
true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the
jurisiction of the court, the court would have territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the suit/petition. Nevertheless it must be a "part of cause of
action", nothing less than that.