Explained| Is there an absolute bar on judicial review of State’s ‘arbitrary’ action in matters arising from non-statutory contracts?
Supreme Court: On the issue of the scope of judicial review of action by the State in a matter arising from a
Supreme Court: On the issue of the scope of judicial review of action by the State in a matter arising from a
Supreme Court: While adjudicating an appeal relating to arbitration, the Division Bench of M. R. Shah* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., held that
Karnataka High Court: S G Pandit, J. declared the present writ petition filed by XIAOMI India under Article 226 of
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Sujoy Paul and Prakash Chandra Gupta, JJ., disposed of a petition reserving liberty to
Delhi High Court: Chandra Dhari Singh, J., expressed that it is settled law that the power to issue writ has its own
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of R. Subhash Reddy* and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., held that once the fresh notification is issued by
Whether the State had the legislative competence to levy duty on the sale of electricity to an intermediary distributor is a question of law.
“The availability of an alternative remedy does not prohibit the High Court from entertaining a writ petition in an appropriate case.”
“An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law;.”
The RERA Act does not bar the initiation of proceedings by allottees against the builders under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Delhi High Court: J.R. Midha, J., while addressing the present petition observed the principle laid down by the Supreme Court of India with
Punjab and Haryana High Court: The Division Bench of Dr S. Muralidhar and Avneesh Jhingan, JJ., dismissed the instant petition upon discovery
Kerala High Court: Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J., disposed of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
Allahabad High Court: A Division Bench of Pankaj Naqvi and Suresh Kumar Gupta, JJ., while disposing of this petition directed the complainant
Supreme Court: In an appeal against the order where the Madras High Court had after giving detailed findings on merits, relegated to
Madhya Pradesh High Court: An application filed before a Bench of Sheel Nagu, J., by petitioner for grant of permit for the
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Petitioner had filed this petition before a Bench of Subodh Abhyankar, J., under Article 226 of the Constitution
Madhya Pradesh High Court: This petition was filed before a Bench of Subodh Abhyankar, J., under Article 226 of the Constitution of
Sikkim High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of CJ Vijai Kumar Bist, disposed of a writ petition on carefully observing that
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. rejected a petition filed a father against the order