9911796707
|
Home
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 Remedy The 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.
|
