Membership-consent thresholds for oppression petitions are satisfied by unchallenged voter-list consents, while unsupported forgery claims require pro...
Juridical seat versus arbitral venue determines supervisory court jurisdiction, while timely award challenges remain within the prescribed limitation ...
The HC held that despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable due to violation of natural justice and non-application of mind in the impugned assessment order. The court found that the order ignored the petitioner's detailed reply and merely reiterated the show cause notice without proper consideration. Consequently, the impugned order and the related detailed order were set aside for being vitiated by procedural infirmities and lack of jurisdictional exercise. The petition was accordingly disposed of, affirming that exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy apply where there is an apparent error on the face of the record or a breach of natural justice.
The HC held that despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable due to violation of natural justice and non-application of mind in the impugned assessment order. The court found that the order ignored the petitioner's detailed reply and merely reiterated the show cause notice without proper consideration. Consequently, the impugned order and the related detailed order were set aside for being vitiated by procedural infirmities and lack of jurisdictional exercise. The petition was accordingly disposed of, affirming that exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy apply where there is an apparent error on the face of the record or a breach of natural justice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.