Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for A. V. Venkateswaran, Collector Of Customs, Bombay VS Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani...
1961 0 Supreme(SC) 157 : The Supreme Court held that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy (an application to the Central Government under Section 191 of the Sea Customs Act) does not per se bar the High Court from entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the Court emphasized that the rule requiring exhaustion of remedies is a matter of discretion, not jurisdiction, and that courts may exercise their discretion to entertain writ petitions even when alternative remedies exist. The Court further clarified that while the petitioner should generally exhaust statutory remedies, this is not an absolute bar, and exceptions exist—such as when there is a lack of jurisdiction or a violation of natural justice. The Court also noted that a litigant cannot pursue two parallel remedies simultaneously for the same relief, as the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies prevents such concurrent proceedings. This principle ensures that courts do not become involved in matters where a proper administrative or statutory remedy remains unexhausted, unless exceptional circumstances justify intervention.Checking relevance for Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari. VS Antarim Zila Parishad...
1968 0 Supreme(SC) 187 : The legal document confirms that the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies is a rule of policy, convenience, and discretion rather than a rule of law. It establishes that while a statutory remedy may exist, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly in exceptional cases. The document explicitly states that a plaintiff cannot take two parallel remedies at the same time for the same relief, as the existence of an adequate statutory remedy is a factor to be considered in the exercise of discretion. However, this rule does not bar the High Court from issuing a writ if there are exceptional circumstances, such as when proceedings are ultra vires or violate principles of natural justice. The document cites precedents like Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh, which affirm that the doctrine is not absolute and does not prevent the High Court from issuing writs when necessary to prevent injustice or uphold constitutional rights.Checking relevance for Maharashtra Chess Association VS Union of India...
2019 7 Supreme 313 : The legal documents establish that the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies is not an absolute legal bar on the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The existence of an alternate remedy is considered a rule of policy, convenience, and discretion, not a rule of law. Courts have discretion to grant relief under Article 226 even when an alternative remedy exists. Furthermore, the documents affirm that a plaintiff cannot take two parallel remedies simultaneously for the same relief, as the principle of exhaustion of remedies requires that a party must first exhaust available statutory or legal remedies before approaching a High Court under Article 226. However, this principle is not a jurisdictional bar but a discretionary one, and the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction if the alternative remedy is not adequate or efficacious. The documents cite precedents such as Uttar Pradesh State Spinning Co Limited v R.S. Pandey (2005) 8 SCC 264 and State of Uttar Pradesh v Mohammad Nooh (1958 SCR 595), which confirm that the doctrine of exhaustion is discretionary and not mandatory, and that a writ of certiorari may be issued even in the presence of an alternative remedy, provided the requisite grounds exist.Checking relevance for KALPRAJ DHARAMSHI VS KOTAK INVESTMENT ADVISORS LTD. ...
2021 0 Supreme(SC) 141 : The legal document discusses the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory remedies, stating that it is a rule of self-restraint and discretion rather than a rule of law. It emphasizes that the High Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution even without exhausting statutory remedies in three exceptional cases: (1) when proceedings before a tribunal are ultra vires, (2) when there is a violation of principles of natural justice, and (3) when the writ petition is filed for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The document further clarifies that the existence of an alternative and efficacious remedy does not bar the High Court from issuing writs, particularly where the proceedings are without jurisdiction or in breach of natural justice. This supports the principle that a plaintiff cannot take two parallel remedies simultaneously for the same relief, as the doctrine of exhaustion requires pursuing the statutory remedy first unless one of the exceptions applies.Checking relevance for IREO GRACE REALTECH PVT. LTD VS ABHISHEK KHANNA...
2021 0 Supreme(SC) 12 : The doctrine of election, a branch of the rule of estoppel, precludes a party from asserting a right they otherwise would have had when two remedies are available for the same relief. The party must elect one remedy and cannot pursue both simultaneously. This principle is applied where the remedies are concurrent and for the same cause of action. However, the doctrine does not apply when the ambit and scope of the two remedies is essentially different. In cases where the remedies are distinct in nature, the party may choose one without being barred from the other. This was affirmed in A.P. State Financial Corporation v. M/s GAR Re-rolling Corporation, where the court held that the Corporation could initially pursue relief under Section 31 of an Act but withdraw and pursue relief under Section 29, even after obtaining an order under Section 31, because the remedies were not mutually exclusive. The court emphasized that the expression ''''without prejudice to the provisions of Section 29'''' in Section 31 renders the doctrine of election inapplicable in such cases. Similarly, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mastan & Ors., the court held that a claimant who chooses to proceed under the Workmen''''s Compensation Act cannot later resort to the Motor Vehicles Act for the same injury, as the legislature incorporated the doctrine of election through Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which prohibits maintaining claims under both Acts. Thus, a plaintiff cannot take two parallel remedies at the same time for the same relief when the remedies are for the same cause of action and the legislature has provided for an election.
