Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (2.10 seconds)
Documents citing Carlsbad Mineral Water Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs H.M. Jagtiani on 19 June, 1950

West Bengal Board Of Primary Education ... vs Ramesh Malik And Others on 2 September, 2022

Both the Calcutta High Court in Carlsbad Manufacturing Company vs. Jagtiani, AIR 1952 Calcutta 315 and The Allahabad High Court in Union Construction Company vs. C.E. AIR 1960 Allahabad Page 74 expressed pari materia views to the effect that the expression for any other purpose must mean for any other purpose for which any of the writs mentioned would, according to well-established principles, issue.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - H Tandon - Full Document

Union Construction Co. (Private Ltd.) vs Chief Engineer, Eastern Command, ... on 14 July, 1959

25. Mr. Kunzru has in this connection submitted that whatever may be the law on the subject in England, in India we have to go by the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the phraseology of Article 226 is very wide and a High Count under that Article has the power to issue to any person directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus etc., for any purpose and therefore this Court can in a suitable case issue a writ of mandamus without having regard to the English or American practice with regard to such a writ. It is true that the language of Article 226 is very wide and no limitations have been imposed on these powers but "once the origin and history of the High Prerogative Writs are remembered, it is clear that the powers given to a High Court under Article 226 are to be exercised in accordance with the principles which governed the said writs. The power of the High Court to issue such a writ (to 'any person' can only mean the power to issue such a writ to any person to whom, according to well-established principles, a writ lay. That a writ may issue to an appropriate person for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III is clear enough from the language used. But the words 'and for any other purpose' must mean 'for any other purpose for which any of the writs mentioned would, according to well-established principles, issue," (see Carlsbad Mineral Water Manufacturing Company v, H. M. Jagtiani" AIR 1952 Cal 315).
Allahabad High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Army School vs Smt. Shilpi Paul on 16 August, 2004

"The language of Article 226 is no doubt very wide. It states that a writ can be issued 'to any person or authority' and 'for enforcement of rights, conferred by Part III and for any other purpose'. However, the aforesaid language in Article 226 cannot be interpreted and understood literally. If we take the language literally it will follow that a writ can be issued to any private person or to settle even private disputes. If we interpret the words 'for any other purpose' literally it will mean that a writ can be issued for any purpose whatsoever, e.g. for deciding private disputes, for grant of divorce, succession certificate etc. Similarly, if we interpret the words, "to any person" literally it will mean that a writ can even be issued to private persons. However, this would not be the correct meaning in view of various decisions of the Supreme Court and of other Courts [vide Smt. Biran Devi v. Sechu Lal, 2001 (4) AWC 2659 ; Gajendra Kumar Sharma v. General Manager, 1999 (3) UPLBEC 2452 ; Carisbad Co. v. Jagtiani, AIR 1952 Cal 315 etc.].
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 10 - M Katju - Full Document

Madan Mohan Sen Gupta And Anr. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 30 March, 1965

In the case of Carlsbad Minerals (supra) the application was also under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act. In paragraphs 11 and 12 thereof, the principles of the application of high prerogative writs in Article 226 were discussed. Bose, J., (as his Lordship then was) in the case of Mon-matha, 62 Cal WN 384 referring to the above decision of Carlsbad Minerals held that no writ lay against a private body unless the said body holds office of a public nature.
Calcutta High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Pritam Singh Gill vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 26 August, 1981

33. That the aforesaid stand is patently erroneous, is now so well settled that it would be wasteful to examine this issue on principle. It seems at the dawn of the promulgation of the Constitution an argument of this nature based on the overly literal construction of Art. 226 of the Constitution was sought to be raised but was scotched at its very inception by authoritative precedent, which has not been departed from. Reference in this connection may be made to Re : Gadea Nagabhushana Reddi, AIR 1951 Mad 249 ; Carisbad Mineral Water Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. H. M. Jagtiani, AIR 1952 Cal 315 ; Indian Tobacco Corporation v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 Mad 549; National Traders v. Hindustan Soap Works, AIR 1959 Mad 112; re. V. S. Hariharan, AIR 1960 Andh Pra 518; S. P. Manocha v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1973 Madh Pra 84 and Sudarshan Kumar Kalra v. Union of India, AIR 1974 Delhi 119. Perhaps it would suffice to quote what is now a living authority which after a conspectus of all the precedent on the point has concluded as follows in the Constitutional Law of India by H. M. Seervai (Vol. II) at page 816 :--
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 51 - Full Document

Suresh Chandra Sharma vs Delhi Library Board on 7 November, 1969

(10) As regards the meaning of the words "to any person" used in Article 226, it was held by J. P. Mitter, J. in Carlsbad Vs. Jagtiani, that the said words mean "to any person to whom, according to well established principles, a writ lay". According to S. 3(39) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, "person" includes any company, or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not.
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vatakkeveedu Chami Gopalkrishna vs The Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 17 March, 1969

10. Reliance is then placed on Carlsbad M. W. Mfg. Co. v. II. M. Jagtiani . The question there was whether a writ of mandamus should issue to the General Manager of the East Indian Railway. The Railway is owned by a department of the Government and the Railway Manager is a Government servant, It was held that writ could be issued to the Manager and the only point was whether it could be issued for the purpose asked. This case has no application.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next