Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (2.00 seconds)
Pollachi Sarvodaya Sangh vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Labour on 14 October, 2019 cites

Authorized Officer, State Bank Of ... vs Mathew K.C. on 30 January, 2018

4. Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Ors. vs. Mathew K.C. 17 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.34556 of 2003 and W.M.P.No. 41973 of 2003 (30.01.2018 - SC) : MANU/SC/0054/2018 The petitioner argued that the SARFAESI Act is a complete code by itself, providing for expeditious recovery of dues arising out of loans granted by financial institutions, the remedy of appeal by the aggrieved under Section 17 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, followed by a right to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18. The High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition in view of the adequate alternate statutory remedies available to the Respondent. The interim order was passed on the very first date, without an opportunity to the Appellant to file a reply.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 1748 - N Sinha - Full Document

United Bank Of India vs Satyawati Tondon & Ors on 26 July, 2010

Reliance was placed on United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010 (8) SCC 110, and General Manager, Sri Siddeshwara Cooperative Bank Limited and another vs. Ikbal and others, 2013 (10) SCC 83. The writ petition ought to have been dismissed at the threshold on the ground of maintainability. The Division Bench erred in declining to interfere with the same. The Supreme Court agreed to the arguments and held the same also noted 18 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.34556 of 2003 and W.M.P.No. 41973 of 2003 that the writ petition ought not to have been entertained and the interim order granted for the mere asking without assigning special reasons, and that too without even granting opportunity to the Appellant to contest the maintainability of the writ petition and failure to notice the subsequent developments in the interregnum.
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 3973 - Full Document

Gm, Sri Siddeshwara Co-Op.Bank Ltd.& ... vs Sri Ikbal & Ors on 22 August, 2013

Reliance was placed on United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010 (8) SCC 110, and General Manager, Sri Siddeshwara Cooperative Bank Limited and another vs. Ikbal and others, 2013 (10) SCC 83. The writ petition ought to have been dismissed at the threshold on the ground of maintainability. The Division Bench erred in declining to interfere with the same. The Supreme Court agreed to the arguments and held the same also noted 18 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.34556 of 2003 and W.M.P.No. 41973 of 2003 that the writ petition ought not to have been entertained and the interim order granted for the mere asking without assigning special reasons, and that too without even granting opportunity to the Appellant to contest the maintainability of the writ petition and failure to notice the subsequent developments in the interregnum.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 361 - R M Lodha - Full Document

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

5. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. reported at AIR 2005 SC 3856, the Supreme Court explained the rule of 'alternate remedy' in the following terms Considering the plea regarding alternative remedy as raised by the appellant-State. Except for a period when Article 226 was amended by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, the power relating to alternative remedy has been considered to be a rule of self imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and never a rule of law. Despite the existence of an alternative remedy it is within the jurisdiction of discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the same time, it cannot be lost 19 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.34556 of 2003 and W.M.P.No. 41973 of 2003 sight of that though the matter relating to an alternative remedy has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the case, normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy. If somebody approaches the High Court without availing the alternative remedy provided the High Court should ensure that he has made out a strong case or that there exist good grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 52 - Cited by 583 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 3 Next