Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (2.69 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Orissa And Others vs Bhagaban Sarangi And Others on 1 October, 1994

S.K. Sharma And Ors. And Mrs. Radha G. ... vs Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan Through ... on 28 October, 2005

In another decision rendered by the Supreme Court pertaining to Orissa State Administrative Tribunal reported as State of Orissa and Ors. v. Bhagaban Sarangi and Ors., , the Supreme Court in unambiguous terms held that the Tribunal is a Tribunal and is bound by the decision of the High Court of the State. The short judgment of the Supreme Court read :
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 41 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Court On Its Own Motion vs Re: Mehmood Pracha Advocate on 30 May, 2019

In State of Orissa v. Bhagaban Sarangi [(1995) 1 SCC 399 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 320 : (1995) 29 ATC 119] it was held that the Administrative Tribunal is Cont.Cas.(Crl.) 4/2019 Page 9 of 12 nonetheless a Tribunal and so it is bound by the decision of the High Court of the State and cannot sidetrack or bypass it. Certain observations made in the case of T.N. Seshan, Chief Election Commr. of India v. Union of India [(1995) 4 SCC 611] may usefully be referred to. It was held that merely because some of the service conditions of the Chief Election Commissioner are akin to those of the Supreme Court Judges, that does not confer the status of a Supreme Court Judge on the CEC. This Court observed: (SCC Headnote) "Of late it is found that even personnel belonging to other fora claim equation with High Court and Supreme Court Judges merely because certain jurisdictions earlier exercised by those Courts are transferred to them not realising the distinction between constitutional and statutory functionaries."
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Manmohan - Full Document

Shailendra Singh vs Nisha Malpani & Anr on 22 November, 2021

In State of Orissa Vs. Bhagaban Sarangi, (1995) 1 SCC 399, it was held that administrative tribunal is nonetheless a tribunal and so it is bound by the decision of the High Court of the state and cannot side-track or bypass it. Certain observations made in the case of T.N. Seshan, Chief Election Commr. of India Vs. Union of India, (1995) 4 SCC 611, may usefully be referred to. It was held that merely because some of the service conditions of the Chief Election Commissioner are akin to those of the Supreme Court judges, that does not confer the status of a Supreme Court judge on the C.E.C.. This court observed "Of late it is found that even personnel belonging to other fora claim equation as High Court or Supreme Court Judges merely because certain jurisdictions earlier exercised by those Courts are transferred to them not realising the distinction between constitutional and statutory functionaries." We are therefore clearly of the opinion that there is no anathema in the tribunal exercising jurisdiction of High Court and in that sense being supplemental or additional to the High Court but at the same time not enjoying status equivalent to High Court and also being subject to judicial review and judicial superintendence of the High Court."
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dlf Ltd. vs Il&Fs Engineering And Construction ... on 21 December, 2022

68. Mr. Nayar has submitted that NCLAT being subordinate to this Court, this Court is not bound by the order dated October 15, 2018. The plea is unmerited for the reason that the order passed by the NCLAT has certain consequences. The said order is not under challenge in this petition. It is pending consideration before the Supreme Court. The relief as sought for by Mr. Nayar, if granted, shall make the order of the NCLAT otiose, defeating the very purpose for which such an order was passed. Mr. Nayar in support of his submission has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru (supra), Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra), L. Chandra Kumar (supra) and Bhagaban Sarangi (supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - V K Rao - Full Document

Pankaj Dhar Dubey vs Union Of India And 4 Others on 25 May, 2022

23. Administrative Tribunals are alternative institutional mechanisms designed to be no less effective than the High Court, but, at the same time, not to negate the judicial review jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts. The Administrative Tribunals are not assigned a status equivalent to that of the High Court and, for the purpose of judicial review or judicial superintendence, they are subordinate to the High Court. High Courts are creatures of the Constitution, and their Judges hold constitutional office having been appointed under the Constitution. The Tribunals are creatures of statute and their members are statutorily appointed and hold a statutory office. [T. Sudhakar Prasad6; State of Orissa vs. Bhagaban Sarangi[12]]. There is no anathema in the Tribunal exercising jurisdiction of the High Court and in that sense being supplemental or additional to the High Court, but at the same time not enjoying a status equivalent to the High Court, and also being subject to judicial review and judicial superintendence of the High Court. (T. Sudhakar Prasad6).
Allahabad High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - V K Birla - Full Document
1   2 3 Next