Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.22 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 34 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Pilani Investment Corporation Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer, "A" Ward, ... on 4 March, 1966
19. Another Constitution Bench decision in Calcutta
Discount co. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer Companies
Distt. laid down :
Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998
82. It is argued and to some extent correctly that
the High Court should not decline to exercise its
jurisdiction merely for the reason that there is a
statutory alternative remedy available even when the
case falls in the above-stated class of cases. It is a
settled principle that the Courts/Tribunal will not
exercise jurisdiction in futility. The law will not itself
attempt to do an act which would be vain, lex nil
frustra facit, nor to enforce one which would be
frivolous-lex neminem cogit ad vana seu inutilia-the
law will not force any one to do a thing vain and
fruitless. In other words, if exercise of jurisdiction by
the Tribunal ex facie appears to be an exercise of
jurisdiction in futility for any of the stated reasons,
then it will be permissible for the High Court to
interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction. This issue is no
longer res integra and has been settled by a catena
of judgments of this Court, which we find entirely
unnecessary to refer to in detail. Suffices it to make a
reference to the judgment of this Court in the case of
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks,
Mumbai [(1998) 8 SCC 1] where this Court was
concerned with the powers of the Registrar of Trade
Page 10 of 19
C/SCA/16134/2018 CAV JUDGMENT
Marks and the Tribunal under the Trade and
Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and exercise of
jurisdiction by the High Court in face of availability of
a remedy under the Act.
Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 1 November, 1960
19. Another Constitution Bench decision in
Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO laid down :
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 13 April, 1983
"21. The views expressed in Titaghur Paper Mills Co.
Ltd. v. State of Orissa (supra) were echoed in Assistant
Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West
Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. and others
MANU/SC/0169/1984 : (1985) 1 SCC 260 in the
following words:
Assistant Collector Of Central Excise ... vs Dunlop India Ltd. And Ors on 30 November, 1984
6.03. The view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are
not applicable to the facts of the case on hand in view of
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union Bank of
India (supra).
Punjab National Bank vs O.C. Krishnan And Ors on 13 August, 2001
In Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan and
others MANU/SC/0452/2001: (2001) 6 SCC 569, this
Court considered the question whether a petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution was maintainable
against an order passed by the Tribunal under Section
19 of the DRT Act and observed: