A.T.K. Venkata Thathacharulu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 19 July, 1985
The decisiori in Rajah of Venkatagiri v. State (AIR 1958 Andh Pra 522) (supra) is affirmed and approved.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.96 seconds)Documents citing
Unde Rajah Raja Sri Raja Velugoti Sri ... vs The Secretary Of State For India In ... on 19 October, 1914
Adhikesavareddy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 February, 2023
6. Considering the limited scope of the prayer now sought for by the
petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the
second respondent is directed to consider the Petitioner's objection dated
24.11.2022, before taking a final decision in relation to allotment of house site
to Scheduled Caste people in the land in Survey No.146/3 in Latchivakkam
Village, afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and others
concerned and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law,
in the light of the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 02.02.2022
made in W.P.No.19286 of 2021 (Raja Vs. The Secretary and others).
Cholan Roadways Limited vs G. Thirugnanasambandam on 17 December, 2004
Errors of fact can also be a subject-matter of judicial review. (See E.
vs Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004 Vol.2 Weekly Law
Report page 1351). Reference in this connection may also be made to an
interesting article by Paul P. Craig Q.C. titled 'Judicial Review, Appeal and
Factual Error' published in 2004 Public Law Page 788.
The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained and, thus,
must be set aside.
M/S Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 February, 2005
Yet recently in E. Vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department
(2004) 2 W.L.R. 1351, the Court of Appeal held that judicial review in
certain circumstances is maintainable even on facts. (See also Judicial
Review, Appeal and Factual Error by Paul Craig Q.C., Public Law, Winter
2004, page 788)
HUMAN RIGHT:
Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 February, 2005
Yet recently in E. Vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department
(2004) 2 W.L.R. 1351, the Court of Appeal held that judicial review in
certain circumstances is maintainable even on facts. (See also Judicial
Review, Appeal and Factual Error by Paul Craig Q.C., Public Law, Winter
2004, page 788)
HUMAN RIGHT:
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors on 20 September, 2005
35. Errors of fact can also be a subject-matter of
judicial review. (See E. v. Secy. of State for the Home
Deptt.) Reference in this connection may also be made to
an interesting article by Paul P. Craig, Q.C. titled
"Judicial Review, Appeal and Factual Error" published in
2004 Public Law, p. 788."
S.N. Chandrashekar And Anr vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 2 February, 2006
35. Errors of fact can also be a subject-matter of
judicial review. (See E. v. Secy. of State for the
Home Deptt.14) Reference in this connection may
also be made to an interesting article by Paul P.
Craig, Q.C. titled 'Judicial Review, Appeal and
Factual Error' published in 2004 Public Law,
p. 788."
Mathura Prasad vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 November, 2006
35. Errors of fact can also be a subject-matter of
judicial review. (See E. v. Secy. of State for the
Home Deptt).
Indian Airlines Ltd vs Prabha D. Kanan on 10 November, 2006
35. Errors of fact can also be a subject-matter of
judicial review. (See E. v. Secy. of State for the
Home Deptt.) Reference in this connection may
also be made to an interesting article by Paul P.
Craig, Q.C. titled "Judicial Review, Appeal and
Factual Error" published in 2004 Public Law,
p.788."
S. Sethuraman vs R. Venkataraman & Ors on 15 May, 2007
35. Errors of fact can also be a subject matter of
judicial review. (See E. v. Secy. of State for the
Home Deptt.)