Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 954 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing Jai Singh & Ors vs M.C.D. & Anr on 23 September, 2010

Steel Authority Of India Limited vs Indian Council Of Arbitration & Anr. on 16 November, 2015

In Jai Singh v. MCD (supra), the Supreme Court considered a challenge to the W.P.(C) 3013/2013 Page 22 of 32 exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court in upsetting concurrent findings of the Additional Rent Controller and the Additional Rent Control Tribunal. In the facts of that case the Supreme Court held that the High Court's exercise was not proper. Clearly, the ratio decidendi of the said case has no application in the facts of the present case.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 20 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Inder Chaudhary vs Narendra on 11 October, 2022

Even otherwise , it is settled law that jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to correct all errors of subordinate Courts within its limitation. It can be exercised where the order is passed in grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of the fundamental principle of law and justice. [See. Jai Singh and another vs. MCD, (2010) 9 SCC 385 and Shalini Shetty vs. Rajendra S. Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329].
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - V K Shukla - Full Document

Bhanu vs Vijay Garg on 9 September, 2025

Generally, it can not substitute its own conclusions for the conclusions reached by the courts below or the statutory/quasi judicial tribunals. The power to re-appreciate evidence would only be justified in rare and exceptional situations where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. The exercise of such discretionary power would depend on the peculiar facts of each case, with the sole objective of ensuring that there is no miscarriage of justice. [Jai Singh and Others vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another (2010) 9 SCC 385)] On perusal of impugned order passed by first appellate Court and documents available on record, it was found that defendant no.3- petitioner herein has failed to produce any photograph or document regarding his right or title in relation to operation of garage on the disputed land bearing survey No.1616. Apart from this, from the documents produced by the State Government, it was not clearly found that the land in dispute is a Government land. Therefore, in order to maintain balance of convenience, a temporary injunction has been granted only as there was no possibility of any inconvenience or difficulty to either petitioner- defendant No.3 or other defendants. Accordingly, no interference is warranted in the impugned order passed by the first appellate Court reversing the order passed by the Trial Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 12-Sep-25 10:36:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21108 7 MP-3930-2025 Court.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Hirdesh - Full Document

Cobra Cipl Jv vs Chief Project Manager on 7 April, 2021

12. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jai Singh and others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another reported in 2010(9) SCC 385 while considering the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, has held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised to correct all errors of judgment of a court, or tribunal acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. Correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - P Shrivastava - Full Document

Mahendra Kumar Jain Son Of Shri Suresh ... vs Appellate Rent Tribunal on 27 July, 2021

Relying upon a decision of Supreme Court in Jai Singh & Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.: (2010) 9 SCC 385, learned counsel submitted that the powers of superintendence and judicial revision of the High Court under Article 227 is wider than the power under Article 226 of Constitution. Learned counsel relied upon various decisions of the Supreme Court, which have already been noticed by us. Learned counsel has also relied upon various Bench decisions of this Court (Downloaded on 27/07/2021 at 09:32:57 PM) (15 of 70) [CREF-1/2020] where the intra-Court appeals were entertained by the Division Bench of this Court against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in writ petitions preferred against the order passed by the various tribunals including Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 109 - Cited by 2 - S R Lodha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next