TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Article 226 Relief: Alternative Remedy Not Barred When Liability Admitted</h1> <h3>RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.</h3> The Supreme Court held that the availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for relief under Article 226 when the respondent admits ... - Issues involved: The judgment deals with the issue of whether the availability of an alternative remedy is an absolute bar for granting relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.Details of the Judgment:Issue 1: Availability of Alternative RemedyThe appellant had booked rakes for carrying coal, and a sum of &8377; 3,56,69,671/- was collected from the appellant by mistake. The respondent admitted the mistake, but the High Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the appellant to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal for alternative remedy under Section 13 of The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in rejecting the claim solely on the ground of the availability of an alternative remedy. Since the respondent had admitted liability, the High Court should not have directed the appellant to resort to the alternative remedy. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the respondents to pay the admitted liability with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 6th January, 1993, within three months from the date of the judgment.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for granting relief under Article 226 of the Constitution when the respondent has admitted liability.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
