Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.28 seconds)Trident Television Private Limited vs Collector Of Customs on 16 December, 1988
In 1990 (45) ELT 24 Trident Television Private Limited v. Collector of Customs, the learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court has observed
"Alternative remedy not a complete bar to maintainability of writ application--Circumstances in which the High Court may interfere--Petition admissible when adjudication, order illegal, manifestly, arbitrary, unreasonable, and delay would cause irreparable loss and prejudice to the petitioner."
Jain Exports (P) Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 May, 1988
In the next case i.e. (1968) 3 SCC 579 (M/s. Jain Exports (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.) considering the concept of administrative law-guasi judicial decisions lower authorities bound by decisions of higher authorities, it was held that in a tier system, decisions of higher authorities are binding on lower authorities and quasi-judicial tribunals are also bound by this discipline. But that is not relevant for the Court when it is concerned not with disciplining the Collector in his quasi-judicial conduct but to ascertain what the correct position in the matter was. The relevant proposition has been elaborately dealt with in paras-9 and 11 of the said decision.
Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh,Agra vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 15 November, 1991
14. The decision reported in AIR 1992 SC 377 (M/s. Radhasoami Satsang Saomi Bagh v. Commissioner of Income-tax) has been referred. There the Supreme Court considered that the principles of res judicata did not apply to income-tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a Unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year.
Union Of India And Others vs Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. on 24 September, 1991
15. There is also reference to the decision reported in the self-same report at page 711 (Union of India and Ors. v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.). There the Supreme Court held the powers of Assistant Collector, Central Excise vis-a-vis matters disposed of by Assistant Collector by by-passing two appellate orders in regard to the same issue. It was held that High Court criticising such conduct of Assistant Collector causing harassment to assessee was Justified. Emphasis has been made that there is need to follow judicial discipline and to give effect to orders of higher appellate authorities.
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh Etc on 17 January, 1989
18. Mr. Misra in his usual manner of fairplay and wisdom, has. drawn the attention of the Court that it is not for the writ Court to assume the role of the appellate authority relating to the orders passed by the statutory authorities. His main thrust of submission is that true it is if the orders challenged are patently without jurisdiction and arbitrary, a party aggrieved may certainly come to writ Court and the writ Court will not hesitate to interfere. But it is the paramount duty of the writ Court to examine the decision-making process as found by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1989 SC 997 (3tate of U. P. and Ors. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh, etc.). It has been held in the said decision :