Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)M/S. Magadh Sugar And Energy Ltd. vs The State Of Bihar on 24 September, 2021
13.In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and considering the
aforesaid judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the
case reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 801 (Magadh Sugar &
Energy Ltd. versus State of Bihar and others) para 25 to 27 , the
present writ petitions need not be dismissed on the grounds of
alternative remedy, as pure question of jurisdiction is involved in
these cases. Para 25 to 27 of the aforesaid judgement are quoted
for ready reference:-
M/S Radha Krishan Industries vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 20 April, 2021
25. While a High Court would normally not exercise its writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective and
efficacious alternate remedy is available, the existence of an
alternate remedy does not by itself bar the High Court from
exercising its jurisdiction in certain contingencies. This Principle has
been crystallized by this court in Whirpool Corporation v. Registrate
of Trademarks, Mumbai and Harbanslal Sahni v. Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd.. Recently, in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of
Himachal Pradesh & Ors a two judge Bench of this Court of which
one of us was a part of (Justice DY Chandrachud) has summarized
the principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High
Court in the presence of an alternate remedy. This Court has
observed:
State Of H.P. And Ors vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. And Anr on 18 July, 2005
In State of HP v. Gujarat
23
Ambuja Cement Ltd this Court has held that a writ petition is
maintainable before the High Court if the taxing authorities have
acted beyond the scope of their jurisdiction. This Court observed:
Hirday Narain vs Income-Tax Officer, Bareilly on 21 July, 1970
"23. Where under a statute there is an allegation of infringement of
fundamental rights or when on the undisputed facts the taxing
authorities are shown to have assumed jurisdiction which they do not
possess can be the grounds on which the writ petitions can be
entertained. But normally, the High Court should not entertain writ
petitions unless it is shown that there is something more in a case,
something going to the root of the jurisdiction of the officer,
something which would show that it would be a case of palpable
injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies
provided by the statute. It was noted by this Court in L. Hirday
Narain v. ITO [(1970) 2 SCC 355: AIR 1971 SC 33] that if the High
Court had entertained a petition despite availability of alternative
remedy and heard the parties on merits it would be ordinarily
unjustifiable for the High Court to dismiss the same on the ground of
non-exhaustion of statutory remedies; unless the High Court finds
that factual disputes are involved and it would not be desirable to
deal with them in a writ petition."
Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs M/S Shubhalaxmi Rice Mill, M.I.D.C. ... on 27 April, 2020
27. The above principle was reiterated by a three-judge Bench of
24
this Court in Executive Engineer v. Seetaram Rice Mill . In that
case, a show cause notice/provisional assessment order was issued to
the assessee on the ground of an unauthorized use of electricity under
Section 126 (1) of the Electricity Act 2003 and a demand for payment
of electricity charges was raised. The assessee contended that
Section 126 was not applicable to it and challenged the jurisdiction
of the taxing authorities to issue such a notice, before the High Court
in its writ jurisdiction. The High Court entertained the writ petition.
The Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948
Punjab Electricity (Duty) Act, 2005
Harbanslal Sahnia And Anr. vs Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And Ors. on 20 December, 2002
25. While a High Court would normally not exercise its writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective and
efficacious alternate remedy is available, the existence of an
alternate remedy does not by itself bar the High Court from
exercising its jurisdiction in certain contingencies. This Principle has
been crystallized by this court in Whirpool Corporation v. Registrate
of Trademarks, Mumbai and Harbanslal Sahni v. Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd.. Recently, in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of
Himachal Pradesh & Ors a two judge Bench of this Court of which
one of us was a part of (Justice DY Chandrachud) has summarized
the principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High
Court in the presence of an alternate remedy. This Court has
observed:
1