Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        1974 (9) TMI 119 - SC - Indian Laws

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Writ jurisdiction and no-confidence motions: disputed facts do not bar relief, and prescribed majority is enough without stated grounds. Article 226 allows the High Court to entertain a writ petition even where facts are disputed, if a civil suit would not provide an adequate or efficacious ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Writ jurisdiction and no-confidence motions: disputed facts do not bar relief, and prescribed majority is enough without stated grounds.

                          Article 226 allows the High Court to entertain a writ petition even where facts are disputed, if a civil suit would not provide an adequate or efficacious remedy and timely relief is needed. A no-confidence motion under the Gujarat Municipalities Act is valid when supported by the prescribed two-thirds majority of councillors; no specific ground, charge, or councillors' signatures are legally required once the motion is moved. The Collector's inquiry and order were vulnerable because interested persons were not heard, and that breach of natural justice was sufficient to invalidate the order. The combined position is that writ relief remained available, the motion stood validly carried, and the procedural defect in the Collector's process did not affect the result.




                          Issues: (i) whether the High Court could entertain a writ petition under Article 226 despite disputed questions of fact and availability of a civil suit; (ii) whether the no-confidence motion against the municipal president was validly carried and whether a specific ground or signatures of councillors were legally required; (iii) whether the Collector's inquiry and order were vitiated for want of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice.

                          Issue (i): whether the High Court could entertain a writ petition under Article 226 despite disputed questions of fact and availability of a civil suit

                          Analysis: Article 226 confers a wide and discretionary jurisdiction on the High Court to deal with questions of fact as well as law. The existence of disputed facts does not by itself bar writ relief. A suit may be declined where it would be neither adequate nor efficacious and would defeat timely relief. The High Court may, in appropriate cases, resolve factual controversy on affidavits and limited cross-examination where the controversy so requires.

                          Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the High Court was justified in not relegating the matter to a civil suit.

                          Issue (ii): whether the no-confidence motion against the municipal president was validly carried and whether a specific ground or signatures of councillors were legally required

                          Analysis: Section 36 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 requires a motion of no confidence to be carried by not less than two-thirds of the total number of councillors. The provision does not require the motion, once moved, to rest on any specific charge or ground. A no-confidence motion is distinct from a censure motion and depends on loss of confidence, not on proof of misconduct. The absence of signatures of councillors present at the meeting was not a statutory requirement. On the material considered by the High Court, the requisite majority had supported the motion.

                          Conclusion: The no-confidence motion was validly passed and the appellant had ceased to hold the office of President.

                          Issue (iii): whether the Collector's inquiry and order were vitiated for want of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice

                          Analysis: The Collector undertook an inquiry into the validity of the no-confidence motion and the alleged vacancy in office. The High Court held that the procedure adopted was contrary to the principles of natural justice, as the interested persons were not heard. That procedural infirmity was sufficient to invalidate the Collector's order, irrespective of whether jurisdiction otherwise existed.

                          Conclusion: The Collector's order was liable to be quashed.

                          Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's decision failed because the no-confidence motion was upheld on merits and the procedural objections to the writ remedy and the Collector's order did not alter that result.

                          Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition under Article 226 may be entertained even where facts are disputed if the remedy is otherwise inadequate, and a motion of no confidence under the municipal law is valid upon securing the prescribed majority without any legal requirement to state specific grounds.


                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found