Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.78 seconds)
Ramesh Chand Batham vs General Manager on 10 April, 2026 cites

The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammad Nooh on 30 September, 1957

12. The Constitution Benches of this Court in K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission [AIR 1954 SC 207], Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal [AIR 1955 SC 425], Union of India v. T.R. Varma [AIR 1957 SC 882], State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh [AIR 1958 SC 86] and K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Madras [AIR 1966 SC 1089] have held that though Article 226 confers very wide powers in the matter of issuing writs on the High Court, the remedy of writ is absolutely discretionary in character. If the High Court is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere, it can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of the principles of natural justice or the procedure required for decision has not been adopted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 1128 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal on 8 August, 2013

"The discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not absolute but has to be exercised judiciously in the given facts of a case and in accordance with law. The normal rule is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:53:24 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11925 8 WP-8648-2016 Constitution ought not to be entertained if alternate statutory remedies are available, except in cases falling within the well-defined exceptions as observed in CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603]..."
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 957 - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Anr vs U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam S.S. & Ors on 2 May, 2008

"38. With respect to the learned Judge, it is neither the legal position nor such a proposition has been laid down in Suresh Chandra Tewari [AIR 1992 All 331] that once a petition is admitted, it cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. It is no doubt correct that in the headnote of All India Reporter (p. 331), it is stated that "petition cannot be rejected on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of filing appeal". But it has not been so held in the actual decision of the Court.The relevant para 2 of the decision reads thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 249 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Municipal Council, Khurai And Another vs Kamal Kumar & Another on 18 December, 1964

[See N.T. Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja Nainar [AIR 1959 SC 422], Municipal Council, Khurai v. Kamal Kumar [AIR 1965 SC 1321 : (1965) 2 SCR 653], Siliguri Municipality v. Amalendu Das [(1984) 2 SCC 436 : 1984 SCC (Tax) 133], S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan [(1988) 1 SCC 572], Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant [(1995) 5 SCC 75 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1207 : (1955) 31 ATC 110], Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil [(2000) 6 SCC 293], A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan [(2000) 7 SCC 695], L.L. Sudhakar Reddy v. State of A.P. [(2001) 6 SCC 634], Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:53:24 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11925 7 WP-8648-2016 Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra [(2001) 8 SCC 509], Pratap Singh v. State of Haryana [(2002) 7 SCC 484 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 1207 : (1995) 31 ATC 110] and GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO21 [(2003) 1 SCC 72]] ...
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 211 - J R Mudholkar - Full Document

Siliguri Municipality & Others vs Amalendu Das & Others on 6 January, 1984

[See N.T. Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja Nainar [AIR 1959 SC 422], Municipal Council, Khurai v. Kamal Kumar [AIR 1965 SC 1321 : (1965) 2 SCR 653], Siliguri Municipality v. Amalendu Das [(1984) 2 SCC 436 : 1984 SCC (Tax) 133], S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan [(1988) 1 SCC 572], Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant [(1995) 5 SCC 75 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1207 : (1955) 31 ATC 110], Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil [(2000) 6 SCC 293], A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan [(2000) 7 SCC 695], L.L. Sudhakar Reddy v. State of A.P. [(2001) 6 SCC 634], Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:53:24 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11925 7 WP-8648-2016 Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra [(2001) 8 SCC 509], Pratap Singh v. State of Haryana [(2002) 7 SCC 484 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 1207 : (1995) 31 ATC 110] and GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO21 [(2003) 1 SCC 72]] ...
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 303 - A P Sen - Full Document

S.T. Muthusami vs K. Natarajan & Ors on 20 January, 1988

[See N.T. Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja Nainar [AIR 1959 SC 422], Municipal Council, Khurai v. Kamal Kumar [AIR 1965 SC 1321 : (1965) 2 SCR 653], Siliguri Municipality v. Amalendu Das [(1984) 2 SCC 436 : 1984 SCC (Tax) 133], S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan [(1988) 1 SCC 572], Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant [(1995) 5 SCC 75 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1207 : (1955) 31 ATC 110], Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil [(2000) 6 SCC 293], A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan [(2000) 7 SCC 695], L.L. Sudhakar Reddy v. State of A.P. [(2001) 6 SCC 634], Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:53:24 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11925 7 WP-8648-2016 Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra [(2001) 8 SCC 509], Pratap Singh v. State of Haryana [(2002) 7 SCC 484 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 1207 : (1995) 31 ATC 110] and GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO21 [(2003) 1 SCC 72]] ...
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 314 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document
1   2 3 Next