Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing Nagendra Nath Bora & Another vs The Commissioner Of Hills Divisionand ... on 7 February, 1958

K. Dasarath vs Labour Court-I And Anr. on 27 March, 2002

Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law-which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Katnath v. Syed Ahmed Ishaque , Nagendra Nath Bora v. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam (1958 SCR 1240), and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh ."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 34 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Veerabhadraswara Rice And Oil Mill, 1-4 ... vs Collector, Central Excise, Andhra ... on 4 August, 1960

But assuming that these two expressions viz., "the date of hearing" and "the appeal shall be heard" are indicative of a possibility of an oral hearing, the question still remains whether such oral hearing is obligatory by the appellate authority. The expression "shall be heard" has been construed by Courts of highest authority as not necessarily implying an oral hearing. (Vide Local Government Board v. Arjidge, 1915 A. C. 120, New Prakash Transport Co. Ltd.. v. New Suwarna Transport Co. Ltd., and Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division, .
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Vishwanatha Ravi Kumar vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 27 November, 2001

"It is too well settled to require elaboration that the trade in alcoholic beverages or intoxicants is not protected under Article 19 of the Constitution of India; and having regard to the fact that this trade or business are res extra commercium, no person involved in the trade or business in intoxicants or alcoholic berverages can claim to have a fundamental right to such trade or business. What, however, follows is that wherever the State farms out its exclusive privilege in such trade in alcoholic beverages in favour of a citizen, such citizen has within a narrow spectrum, a right to be considered fairly qua other similarly circumstanced class of citizen viz., other dealers or traders in alcoholic beverages. The State may not under the rubric of uncanalised power, claim any prerogative to discriminate between different groups of citizens, who form one class qua the trade orbusiness in alcoholic beverages vide Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner, Ajmer and Ors., , Assam State v. Sristikar, , RMD Chamarbaugwalla and Anr. v. Union of India, , Nagendra Nath Bora and Anr. v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and others, , Nashirwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, , Har Shanker v. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, , State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandlal Jaiswal, , Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Anabeshahi Wine and Distilleries Private Limited, , Coongaji and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., , Sana Liquors (P) Limited and others v. Union of India and Ors., 1993 ALT Supp (1)21, Khoday Distilleries Limited v. Slate of Karnataka, , Khoday Distilleries and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., , and State of Andhra Pradesh and others v Mc dowell and Company and others, ."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 45 - Cited by 1 - G Raghuram - Full Document

Basanthilal Aggarwal And Anr. vs P.S. Bhamdari And Ors. on 21 December, 2006

Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised vide Hah Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque ; Nagendra Nath v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh .
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - G Chandraiah - Full Document

B. Subba Reddy vs Appellate Authority For Industrial And ... on 6 November, 2007

5. No appeal lies from an order of the Authority under Section 20. But the High Court is vested with the power of judicial superintendence over the tribunal under Article 227 of the Constitution. This power is not greater than the power under Article 226 and is limited to seeing that the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority, see Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam . The High Court will not review the discretion of the Authority judicially exercised, but it may interfere if the exercise of the discretion is capricious or perverse or ultra vires.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 55 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Hyderabad ... vs Philomena Education Foundation Of ... on 15 November, 2007

12. The power of superintendence under Article 227, intended to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority, Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee ; Waryam Singh v. Amarnath AIR 195 SC 215; Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division , may be exercised in cases such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction, though available, is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction. Surya Dev Rai (2003) 6 SCC 657 : 2003 (5) ALT 35.1 (DN SC).
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 58 - Cited by 5 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

M. Shiva Kumar And Ors. vs A. Bal Reddy And Ors. on 28 September, 2006

Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque ; Nagendra Nath v. Commr. of Hills Division and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Sing .
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - G Chandraiah - Full Document

Challa Swaroopa vs The District Collector (District ... on 2 June, 2014

It is also true that a writ of certiorari can be issued only for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals i.e., in cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction; an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be; the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point, and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding, are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a Writ Court; and it is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised. (Syed Yakob7; Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque ; Nagandra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals Assam and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh ). Even a prima facie finding of fact may not justify interference in Certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, save a finding based on no evidence or one which suffers from perversity.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 32 - Cited by 3 - R Ranganathan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next