Reseach Note Jurisdiction

Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan and Ors.
, AIR 2001 SCW 2993
In this case the Supreme Court while considering the issue of alternative remedy observed as
under :-
"The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts
due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is hierarchy of appeal provided in the
Act, namely, filing of an appeal under Section 20 and this fast tract procedure cannot be
allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit, which is expressly barred. Even though a
provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless when there is an alternative remedy available
judicial prudence demands that the Court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the
said constitutional provisions. This was a case where the High Court should not have
entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and should have directed the
respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act."
Chanan Singh and Sons v. Collector, Central Excise and Ors., (1999) 9 SCC 17
In this case Supreme Court has held that instead of challenging the order of the Tribunal by
filing the statutory alternative remedy of reference the writ petition was filed and the Apex
Court has held as follows :-
"The High Court simply said that the appellant had a statutory alternative remedy and the
appellant had to avail that statutory remedy instead of filing writ petition. Accordingly, the
High Court dismissed the writ petition. The appellant instead of challenging the order of the
Tribunal by availing the statutory alternative remedy has filed this appeal by special leave
challenging, the order of the High Court. We are of the view that the High Court right in
dismissing the writ petition directing the appellant to avail the statutory alternative remedy."
M/s. Titagarh Paper Mills v. State of Orissa, AIR 1983 SC 603
In this case the Supreme Court observed that where a right or liability is created by a statute,
which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute must only
be availed of.
"If the petitioners arc dissatisfied with the decision in appeal they can prefer a further appeal
to the Tribunal under sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Act, and then ask for a case to be
stated upon a question of law for the opinion of the High Court under Section 24 of the
Act...............Act provides for a complete measure to challenge an order of
assessment ..........by mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution."
K.S. Rashid and Sons v. Income tax Investigation Commission and Ors., AIR 1954 SC
207
A constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that Article 226 of the Constitution confers on
all the High Courts a very wide power in the matter of issuing writs. The Said power is
limited. However, the remedy of writ is an absolutely discretionary remedy and the High
Court has always the discretion to refuse to grant any writ if it is satisfied that the aggrieved
party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere. Similar view has been reiterated by
the Supreme Court in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kota, AIR 1955 SC 425,
holding that the power of issuing writs are purely discretionary and no limit can be placed
upon that discretion. However, the power can be exercised alone with recognised line and not
arbitrarily and the Court must keep in mind that the power shall not be exercised unless
substantial injustice has ensured or is likely to ensure and in other cases the parties must be
relegated to the Courts of Appeal or revision to set right mere errors of law which do not
occasion injustice in a broad and general sense.
Union of India and Ors. v. T.R. Verma, AIR 1957 SC 882
In this case it was held that it is well settled that when an alternative and equally efficacious
remedy is open to a litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the
special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ. The Supreme Court held
that existence of an another remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to issue a
writ; but the existence of an adequate legal remedy is a thing to be taken into consideration in
the matter of granting writs and where such remedy is exhausted, it will be a sound exercise
of discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution unless
there arc good grounds therefor.
State of U.P. and Ors. v. Mohammed Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86
"......save in exceptional cases, the Courts will not interfere under article 226 until all
normal remedies available to a petitioner have been exhausted. The normal remedies in a
case of this kind are appeal or revision. It is true that on a matter of jurisdiction or on a
question that goes to the root of the case, the High Courts can entertain a petition at an early
stage but they are not bound to do so and a petition would not be thrown out because the
petitioner had done that which the Courts usually ask him to do, namely, to exhaust his
normal remedies before invoking an extraordinary jurisdiction.........The petitioner would
have been expected to pursue the remedies of appeal or revision and could not have come to
the High Court in the ordinary way until he had exhausted them."
G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd., AIR 1952 SC 192
In this case it was held that as the Motor Vehicles Act is a self contained code and itself
provides for appcalable/revisable forum, the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked in
matters relating to its provision.

Reseach Note Jurisdiction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reseach Note Jurisdiction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan and Ors.

, AIR 2001 SCW 2993

M/s. Titagarh Paper Mills v. State of Orissa, AIR 1983 SC 603

Union of India and Ors. v. T.R. Verma, AIR 1957 SC 882

State of U.P. and Ors. v. Mohammed Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86

You might also like