Mani Subrat Jain 38 v. State of Haryana

Principal Commnr. of Income Tax, Sambalpur vs. Binay Kumar Jindal, HUF

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

More Retail Ltd vs. The Excise Commissioner

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.10639/2021 (Excise) C/W Writ Petition Nos.10013/2021, 10640/2021, 10642/2021, 10644/2021, 10645/2021, 27607/2019, 27608/2019, 27609/2019, 27610/2019, 27611/2019 & 27606/2019 (Excise) In W.P.No.10639/2021 Between: M/S. More Retail Private Limited (Formerly Known As More Retail Ltd) A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, Having Its Registered Office At Skyline Icon, 86/92, 5Th & 6Th Floors, Near Mittal Industrial Estate, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400 059 Represented By Its Authorized Signatory Vivek. S., Aged About 37 Years, S/O Mahilnath Shetty

…their rights enforced by the administrative bodies. 24. Writ Court cannot issue writ of mandamus in the absence of statutory right read with duties of the pubic authorities. Supreme Court in Mani Subrat Jain 38 V. State of Haryana reported in (1977 )1 SCC 486 held as under: "9. The High Court rightly dismissed the petitions. It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be sai…

M/S More Retail Private Limited vs. The State of Karnataka

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.10639/2021 (Excise) C/W Writ Petition Nos.10013/2021, 10640/2021, 10642/2021, 10644/2021, 10645/2021, 27607/2019, 27608/2019, 27609/2019, 27610/2019, 27611/2019 & 27606/2019 (Excise) In W.P.No.10639/2021 Between: M/S. More Retail Private Limited (Formerly Known As More Retail Ltd) A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, Having Its Registered Office At Skyline Icon, 86/92, 5Th & 6Th Floors, Near Mittal Industrial Estate, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400 059 Represented By Its Authorized Signatory Vivek. S., Aged About 37 Years, S/O Mahilnath Shetty

…their rights enforced by the administrative bodies. 24. Writ Court cannot issue writ of mandamus in the absence of statutory right read with duties of the pubic authorities. Supreme Court in Mani Subrat Jain 38 V. State of Haryana reported in (1977 )1 SCC 486 held as under: "9. The High Court rightly dismissed the petitions. It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be sai…

M/S. Salora International Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed with

…aid decision would be applicable to this case also. Page 9 JUDGMENT 9 12. In the written submissions submitted on behalf of the appellant, it was stated that keeping in mind the law laid down by this Court in Union of India vs. Tara Chand Gupta [(1971) 1 SCC 486], the goods manufactured by the appellant ought to have been classified under Tariff Entry 8529.00 and an effort was made to compare the facts of the said case with the present one by submitting that in the case referred to hereinabove, parts of scooter, in completely knocked down condition, were treated as parts of the scooter and not scooter…