Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.87 seconds)
A. Ramalingam vs V.V. Mahalinga Nadar on 15 February, 1965 cites

Bukhtiarpur Bihar Light Rly. Co. Ltd. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 8 September, 1950

(5) In a very similar situation, on the facts, in Bukhtiarpur Bihar Light Rly Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, a Bench of that Court declined to exercise jurisdiction by the issue of a writ of mandamus under Art. 226, where a flagrant and wilful disobedience of an agreement was alleged. The Bench pointed out that the alternative legal remedy available to the aggrieved party was no less convenient beneficial and effectual; the writ power was discretionary in character, and the party must ordinarily resort to the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, for necessary reliefs. The principle of this decision applies here and on a stronger ground, because contempt jurisdiction should be reserved for what essentially brings the administration of justice into contempt on unduly weakens it, as distinguished from a wrong that might be inflicted on a private party, by infringing a decretal order of Court. The application is dismissed with these observations. The petitioner may pursue such alternative remedies as are available to him in law, as we have pointed out, subject, of course, to all valid defence that may be raised thereto (6) Petition dismissed.
Patna High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1