Court refuses intervention under Article 226, emphasizes statutory remedy. Petition dismissed, stay order within Appellate Tribunal's discretion. The High Court declined to interfere in the case due to the availability of a second appeal against the order. It was held that when a statutory remedy is ...
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.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Court refuses intervention under Article 226, emphasizes statutory remedy. Petition dismissed, stay order within Appellate Tribunal's discretion.
The High Court declined to interfere in the case due to the availability of a second appeal against the order. It was held that when a statutory remedy is available, the court should not intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner's plea to quash the order was dismissed, emphasizing that obtaining a stay order is within the Appellate Tribunal's discretion. The writ petition was summarily rejected.
The High Court declined to interfere in the case as a second appeal lies against the order. It was stated that if a statutory remedy exists, the court should not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner's request to quash the order was rejected as obtaining a stay order is at the discretion of the Appellate Tribunal. The writ petition was rejected summarily.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
