Pooja Gogia’s Post

The maintainability of the writ under article 226 vis a vis availability of the alternative remedy goes hand to hand and there are many jurisprudence by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the guidelines has been issued in this regard . The maintainability of the writ is the first hurdle that we advocate has to cross before the notices are issued to respondent . The latest in this series is the case of PHR Invent educational society Vs UCO Bank , ( SLP No 8867 /2022) wherein the Hon'ble Court has laid down the circumstances where the Hon'ble High Court should entertain the writ under article 226 even though the alternative remedy is available . Although the issue in hand was the maintainability of writ against the DRT order under the SARFAESI Act 2002 , the Hon'ble court was pleased to highlight the case of CIT Vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal and laid down the grounds on which the writ should be maintainable . Some of the grounds are as under - (i) Where the statuary authority has not acted in accordance with the statute in question . (ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure; (iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and (iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore having the alternative remedy is not a absolute bar on the High Court to entertain the writ petitions where we can demonstrate in our pleadings the grounds as mentioned above .

The maintainability of the writ under article 226 vis a vis availability of the alternative remedy goes hand to hand and there are many jurisprudence by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the guidelines has been issued in this regard . The maintainability of the writ is the first hurdle that we advocate has to cross before the notices are issued to respondent . The latest in this series is the case of PHR Invent educational society Vs UCO Bank , ( SLP No 8867 /2022) wherein the Hon'ble Court has laid down the circumstances where the Hon'ble High Court should entertain the writ under article 226 even though the alternative remedy is available . Although the issue in hand was the maintainability of writ against the DRT order under the SARFAESI Act 2002 , the Hon'ble court was pleased to highlight the case of CIT Vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal and laid down the grounds on which the writ should be maintainable . Some of the grounds are as under - (i) Where the statuary authority has not acted in accordance with the statute in question . (ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure; (iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and (iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore having the alternative remedy is not a absolute bar on the High Court to entertain the writ petitions where we can demonstrate in our pleadings the grounds as mentioned above .

SC judgment dated 21/03/2024: On the effect of the change in methodology on the chargeable distance- G. CONCLUSION 137. Thus, we are of the considered opinion, that the chargeable distance of 444 km was illegal, for the following reasons: - (i) That, the effect of the change in methodology on the chargeable distance would not have resulted in a huge difference of 110 km, (ii) That, there had been neither any change in the route by way of addition of new station nor change in the physical track length of the said route, (iii) The letter dated 05.07.2005 itself indicates that the change in the chargeable distance of 444 km was due to an error, and has no bearing with the Ministry of Railway’s letter dated 07.04.2004 introducing the new methodology. (iv) The factum of the appellants themselves granting refund without explaining the reason for the same, despite their stance that the respondent is not entitled to any refund. Civil Appeal No(s). 1891-1966 of 2024 Page 94 of 95 (v) The failure of the appellant in establishing that the chargeable distance of 444 km was the correct chargeable distance as per the law. (vi) Concurrent findings of both, the Railway Claims Tribunal and the High Court on the limited aspect of the actual distance being 333.18 km. 138. Thus, for all the foregoing reasons, we have reached to the conclusion that the said chargeable distance of 444 km was illegal. We find no infirmity with the impugned judgement and order passed by the High Court.

With collective proceedings coming thick and fast it can be hard to keep track of all the developments in the CAT. Eleanore Di Claudio and I are regularly updating our collective proceedings tracker to help with that - our updated tracker (link below) outlines the current stage of each set of ongoing collective proceedings in the CAT. #collectiveproceedings https://lnkd.in/ew9mwpyr

CHANGING RULES OF THE GAME AFTER IT HAS BEGUN; SC REINSTATES SELECTION PROCESS CANCELLED BY MPPSC Our offices recently represented one of the aggrieved aspirants who participated in the selection examination conducted by MP Public Service Commission. The post of Associate Professor he had participated in was advertised originally in the advertisement, but however after the screening examination happened, a corrigendum advertisement came to be issued, through which the said post was deleted in the corrigendum. Our client challenged the same before the MPHC, which declined to grant any relief, dismissing both the WP as well as the RP preferred qua the same. In appeal, we argued: a. A post once advertised & selection process commenced on the same, cannot be abandoned mid way arbitrarily. There must be reasons germane & compelling to drop the whole selection process. b. Various Constitution Benches and through its various judgements, SC has made it clear that reasons for mid way abandonment of selection process must be existential, failing which resumption of the cancelled selection process may be directed.  c. The ex facie erroneous reasoning on which the MPHC dismissed the WP and RP was that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any right of having the selection process concluded, which was the sole prerogative of the examining authorities, MPPSC in the present case. d. The pretext on which the post was deleted in the corrigendum was that it was wrongly advertised and no such post was existing. We filed data and authentic website information to show that post was well in existence and vacant; the MPPSC in fact misled the MPHC successfully in believing that there was no post existing, for being filled through selection, even if carried forward. The SC initially asked the MPPSC to file an affidavit about the status of the advertised post pointed by us as being vacant. Thereafter on the admission of mistake by the MPPSC, SC directed that the post shall be filled through the very same selection process, which was abandoned mid way. SC directed the MPPSC to conclude the very same selection process within 8 weeks to its logical conclusion. A great victory for an ordinary citizen who had lost all hopes after dismissals from the High Court !!! SVS Attorneys Siddharth R. Gupta Mrigank Prabhakar Sanjay Singh Rathore Aman Agarwal Uddaish Palya Gauri Pathak Sakshi Pandey Aarya Kulshrestha Tarang Ajmera Saumya S. Mahak Jain Adarsh Shesha Riya Agrawal

Knowledge sharing on Pillar II: Q: What is "Reference Jurisdiction," which is important in determining of exclusion from the UTPR of MNE groups in the initial phase of their international activity? A: The Reference Jurisdiction of an MNE Group is the jurisdiction where the MNE Group has the highest total value of Tangible Assets, where the total value of Tangible Assets in a jurisdiction is the sum of the net book values of all tangible assets of all the constituent entities of the MNE Group that are located in that jurisdiction. Tangible assets are taken into account, provided they are held by entities of the MNE group over the relevant period. Reference Jurisdiction is identified in respect of the first fiscal year for which the MNE group originally comes within the scope of the GloBE rules and remains unchanged over the five year period during which the MNE benefits from the exclusion. Article 9.3.3

CLAT answer key 2025 to be released today at consortiumofnlus.ac.in; Know how to raise objections #CLAT2025

As a fellow taxpayer, I find it concerning to observe a notable reduction in corporate subscriptions to the National Business Review (NBR) by certain government agencies. This trend raises important questions about the flow of information and knowledge within critical public institutions. As Publisher, I am immensely proud of Tim Hunter and the dedicated NBR newsroom, who strive to keep stakeholders informed and engaged. As Grant Walker wisely noted, "Trust is earned”. Ruchir Goel #Transparency #Government #Trust #PublicEngagement #InformedCitizenship

What is the difference between a renewal application and an appeal? In the case of MWEENE PHIGEN VS MWENYI MUNGANDI ZMCA 142, the honourable court stated that,  "In a renewal, the matter is being heard afresh. We are not concerned with what transpired in the court below. In the same veiw, the parties cannot refer to what was or transpired in the court below. Therefore, it behoves me to state that whatever new aspects the 1st repondent has a grievance with in the matter before this court, they cannot at this stage be dismissed. This is so because the application is a renewed one, and therefore, new material does not offend  the Rules of Court. If it were an appeal, on the other hand, no new aspects can be introduced." The above case also guides Counsel on which rules one must use to raise preliminary issues. You must go by Order 33 Rule 3 read together with Order 14A of the Whitebook. Enjoy Your Weekend!

SC judgment dated 08/052024: Consumer - Setting aside of concurrent findings of State and District Forum in exercise of the limited revisional power under Section 21 (b) of the Act, by NCDRC, is without rhyme or reason and cannot be sustained. - observed at para 27. In the aforesaid circumstances, there was absolutely no reason or justification for NCDRC to upturn the concurrent orders and to order for the dismissal of the complaint and at the same time issuing a direction only to grant Rs.1 lakh as ex gratia merely because such an offer was made by the respondent-insurer in the C.A. No.270 of 2012 memorandum of the revision petition. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that in the absence of anything suggesting that the State Commission had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with materially irregularity, interference with an order of the State Commission confirming the order of the District Forum, in exercise of the limited revisional power under Section 21 (b) of the Act, by NCDRC, is without rhyme or reason and cannot be sustained.