Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Decided
7 May 2008
Judges listed
H.K. SEMA, MARKANDEY KATJU (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Case Allowed

Citations

Official
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 1025 · 2008 INSC 601
Also cited as
  • (2008) 5 SCC 632 (12 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 3 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 02/03/2001 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.1123 of 1997 whereby the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition of the appellant solely on the ground that alternative remedy being available the appellant must resort to the alternative remedy.

pp. 1025–1026, margin G

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

p. 1026, margin A

By now it is a well settled principle of law that availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for granting relief in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

p. 1026, margin B

In the present case between 4th March, 1992 and 31st December, 1992 the appellant had booked rakes for carrying coal to Gurla. A sum of Rs.3,56,69,671/- which had been collected from the appellant over a period of time by mistake. That the mistake has been committed is admitted by the respondent herein and it has duly been noted by the High Court.

p. 1026, margin B

However, the High Court, in our view, erroneously rejected the claim on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. On the aforesaid premises the High Court dismissed the writ petition with the direction to the appellant to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal for alternative remedy provided under Section 13 of The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter the 'Act').

p. 1026, margin C

We are clearly of the view that as the respondent-Union of India has clearly admitted the liability, the High court ought not to have relegated the appellant to his alternative remedy and should not have dismissed the writ petition on that count. There is no disputed question of fact in this case. As already noted, in the present case the respondent had admitted its liability and, therefore, the question raised before the High Court being an admitted fact the High Court ought not to have directed the appellant to resort to its alternative remedy under the Act.

p. 1026, margin E

In the aforesaid premises, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court. This appeal is allowed. No costs. The respondents are directed to pay the admitted liability along with intere$t at the rate of 6% p.a. with effect from 5th January, 1993 till payment is made within three months from today. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 1026, margin F