2020 (12) TMI 480

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ED AND OTHER [ 1984 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT ] has succinctly explained the legal position relating to the exercise of discretionary powers under writ jurisdiction where it was held that It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article226 of the Constitution. Petition dismissed.
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. D. AUDIKESAVALU For the Petitioner : Mrs. L. Maithili For the Respondent : Mr. S. Rajasekar ORDER ( through video co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to bypass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. We can also take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Crores, (which is about 20 times the predeposit amount) for the purpose of entertaining the appeal." 5. This Court, without expressing any view on the correctness or otherwise on contentions of the Petitioner in that regard, makes it clear that the Petitioner is not precluded from making an application before the CESTAT to treat the amount said to have been recovered under the bond for ₹ 40,00,00,000/- in satisfaction of the requirement of the pre-deposit, and the CESTAT after hearing the concerned parties shall pass orders thereon on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn granting such liberty with the aforesaid clarifications. No costs.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X