Jurisdictional Error if the Court interferes with a contract and does not consider the rights and obligations of the parties

Soma Isolux NH One Tollway (P) Ltd. v. Harish Kumar Puri, (2014) 6 SCC 75

Writ Petition against a judgment

Mohd. Aslam v. Union of India [(1996) 2 SCC 749] a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed seeking reconsideration of the judgment rendered by this Court on the ground that the said judgment is incorrect. Rejecting the prayer, this Court held that Article 32 of the Constitution is not available to assail the correctness of the decision on merit or to claim its reconsideration.

Issue of Maintainablity to be decided first

AIR 1958 SC 687 In Re: K. Kamraja Nadar Vs. Kunju Thevar and others; (2002) 10 SCC 101; In Re: Arun Agarwal Vs. Nagarika Export (P) Ltd. and another; (2004) 13 SCC 575 In Re: Ceylon Biscuits Ltd. Vs. Bakemens Industries (P) Ltd. and others; (2006) 11 SCC 696 In Re: Union of India and Others Vs. Ranbir Singh Rathaur and others.

 

Administrative Order cannot ordinarily impose penalty

Karnataka Rare Earth & Anr v. Senior Geologist (2004) 2 SCC 783

Option of Appeal is not a bar to Section 482 proceedings

Warehousing Corpn. v. Shree Durga Ji Traders, (2011) 14 SCC 615 at page 620

12. We are convinced that in the instant case, rejection of the appellant's petition under Section 482 of the Code has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Availability of an alternative remedy of filing an appeal is not an absolute bar in entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the Code. As aforesaid, one of the circumstances envisaged in the said section, for exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court is to secure the ends of justice. Undoubtedly, the trial court had dismissed the complaint on a technical ground and therefore, interests of justice required the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction to set aside such an order so that the trial court could proceed with the trial on merits.

 

No anticipatory bail to proclaimed offender

State of M.P. v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171

Article 226 can be resorted in apt cases when Section 438 is not available (UP)

Hema Mishra v. State of U.P., (2014) 4 SCC 453 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 363 : 2014 SCC OnLine SC 40 at page 472

36. Thus, such a power has to be exercised very cautiously keeping in view, at the same time, that the provisions of Article 226 are a device to advance justice and not to frustrate it. The powers are, therefore, to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law by the authorities indiscriminately making pre-arrest of the accused persons. In entertaining such a petition under Article 226, the High Court is supposed to balance the two interests. On the one hand, the Court is to ensure that such a power under Article 226 is not to be exercised liberally so as to convert it into Section 438 CrPC proceedings, keeping in mind that when this provision is specifically omitted in the State of Uttar Pradesh, it cannot be resorted to as back door entry via Article 226. On the other hand, wherever the High Court finds that in a given case if the protection against pre-arrest is not given, it would amount to gross miscarriage of justice and no case, at all, is made for arrest pending trial, the High Court would be free to grant the relief in the nature of anticipatory bail in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is again clarified that this power has to be exercised sparingly in those cases where it is absolutely warranted and justified