#Statutory Remedies

The Himachal Pradesh High Court mandates that industries which paid higher electricity duty under a now-amended notification are entitled to automatic adjustment of the excess amount against future duty liabilities. This ruling ensures compliance with the state’s industrial policy and prevents unjust enrichment by the revenue department, directly benefiting eligible industrial units under the 2019 Investment Policy.

Bombay HC affirms co-operative society members' statutory right to inspect documents at Rs.2/page under Section 32 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. However, writ petitions cannot bypass statutory remedies for FIR registration, Section 88 enquiries, or removal of office-bearers, reinforcing the exhaustion doctrine for co-operative disputes.

Karnataka High Court dismisses writ petition challenging externment orders under Section 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, ruling that aggrieved parties must first exhaust the statutory appeal remedy under Section 59 unless gross procedural violations are demonstrated. The decision reinforces the principle that constitutional courts should not bypass statutory remedies in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

Allahabad High Court dismisses writ petition for title deed release, ruling that aggrieved parties must first exhaust remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the SARFAESI Act. The Court held that disputed factual issues cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 when efficacious alternative remedies exist, reinforcing the bar on bypassing statutory forums.

Gauhati High Court reinforces that voters challenging electoral roll deletions must first pursue remedies under Sections 23 and 24 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 before approaching constitutional courts. The ruling underscores the primacy of statutory mechanisms in electoral disputes, impacting voters, election officers, and legal practitioners handling similar cases.

Bombay High Court rules that the Competent Authority under MOFA can grant deemed conveyance to flat purchasers even if a civil suit challenging the developer's title is pending. The judgment reinforces statutory protection for flat owners, ensuring their rights are not stalled by prolonged litigation over property ownership.

Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC must be awarded from date of application, not date of order, aligning with Rajnesh v. Neha precedent.

Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that repeated Section 14 SARFAESI Act applications are lawful if justified, but remedies lie only before DRT under Section 17.

Bombay High Court holds that a wife may pursue maintenance under both Section 125 CrPC and the DV Act simultaneously, provided prior proceedings are disclosed.