REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

JITENDER SINGH Appellant

V/S

STATE OF H.P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

HOUSE OF LORDS IN NEVILLE V. LONDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS LTD. [REFERRED TO]
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO V. GORDON GRANT AND CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
RASHID AHMED VS. MUNICIPAL BOARD KAIRANA OPPOSITE PARTY; AND UNION OF INDIA AND STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
G VEERAPPA PILLAI PROPRIETOR SATHI VILASBUS SERVICE PORAYAR TANJORE DISTRICT MADRAS VS. RAMAN AND RAMAN LTD [REFERRED TO]
C A ABRAHAM VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER KOTTAYAM [REFERRED TO]
THANSINGH NATHMAL ONKARMAL JAWALAPRASAD INDRACHAND PREMSUCH RAMDEO SATYANARAYAN INDRACHAND PREMSUCH SHEWPRATAP TANTIA VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES DHUBRIIN ALL APPEALS :SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES DHUBRIIN ALL APPEALS :SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES DHUBRIIN ALL APPEALS :SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES DHUBRIIN [REFERRED TO]
MUNSHI RAM VS. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE GHHEHARTA [REFERRED TO]
MUNSHI RAM VS. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE CHHEHARTA [REFERRED TO]
TITAGHUR PAPER MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE CHANDAN NAGAR WEST BENGAL VS. DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
H B GANDHI EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER CUM ASSESSING AUTHORITY KARNAL VS. GOPINATH AND SONS [REFERRED TO]
MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SHEELA DEVI VS. JASPAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION VS. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS MUMBAI [REFERRED TO]
TIN PLATE CO OF INDIA LIMITED VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
RAMENDRA KISHORE BISWAS VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [REFERRED TO]
SHIVGONDA ANNA PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. O C KRISHNAN [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY OF STATE VS. MASK AND CO [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions, the petitioners have called in question the orders made by the competent authority, in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1972 read with the Revenue Recovery Act, 1980, whereby the District Collector -cum -Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, was asked to effect the recovery as land revenue.

(2.) WE deem it proper to dispose of all these writ petitions by this common judgment for the reason that similar questions are involved.

(3.) WE had an occasion to hear and decide a batch of writ petitions, the lead case of which was CWP No. 4779/2014, titled as M/s. Indian Technomac Company Ltd. versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 4th August, 2014, whereby it was held that the writ petitions were not maintainable and came to be dismissed by providing that the writ petitioners are at liberty to seek appropriate remedy for the reason that the writ petitioners had an alternative remedy available, i.e. the remedy of appeal.

Click here to view full judgment.

JITENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address