Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Dahyabhai Somabhai And Anr. vs Ramaji Kesraji And Ors. on 21 July, 1970

Gobarbhai Ranchhodbhai Sardhara vs State Of Gujarat on 15 March, 2005

13. However, so far as the petitioners are concerned, there is no material on record available with this Court to come to the conclusion that the transaction is entered into in collusion or the petitioners were put to the notice that there is an order passed by the Charity Commissioner on 21.8.1997 and in spite of the same the sale deed is executed. Therefore, in absence of the aforesaid details, it is not possible for this Court to accept the contention of Mr. Patel that the petitioners are parties to the illegalities and, therefore, they should not be allowed to invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the said contention of Mr. Patel cannot be accepted. The reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in case of "Dahyabhai Somabhai and Anr. v. Ramaji Kesarji and Ors." (supra) even if it is considered, there can not be any dispute to the proposition laid down. However, the pertinent aspect is that when this Court in the present case has found that there is no material on record to come to the conclusion that the petitioners are parties to the illegalities or have openly defied the order passed by the Charity Commissioner, the decision upon which the reliance is placed cannot be made available to the facts of the present case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - J Patel - Full Document

Jashwantsinh Punjabhai Parmar vs Dolatsinh Somabhai Chauhan And Ors. on 21 August, 1980

Same type of observations are made by D.A. Desai, J. (as he then was) in Dahyabhai Somabhai v. Ramaji Kesarji 12 Gujarat Law Reporter 809. In para 7, it has been observed that issue of a writ of certiorari is a matter of discretion of the Court. It is true that the power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution must be exercised by the High Court to see that all the subordinate Courts and Tribunals function within the specified limits of their jurisdiction. If any subordinate Court or Tribunal exercises jurisdiction not vested in it, the order or action of the Court or Tribunal can be corrected by issuance of an appropriate writ. But the question which was considered by this Court in the above referred to decisions was, whether in every case where it is brought to the notice of the High Court that a Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction, the Court as a matter of right should issue a writ at the instance of the party whose conduct has disentitled him to a relief by way of certiorari. Certiorari is not a writ of right but it is a discretionary relief that can be granted by the Court.
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Anil Kumar Khurana vs Union Of India And Ors. on 9 February, 1996

Reference may also be made to decision in Dahyabhai Somabhai and Another v. Ramaji Kesarji and Others, ; holding that even if order is without jurisdiction Court can refuse to issue writ if justice of the case so demands. In M/s. Shiv Shanker Dal Mills etc. v. State of Haryana and Others, ; the Supreme Court speaking through Justice Krishna lyer, held that in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon the public interest.
Delhi High Court Cites 123 - Cited by 8 - Y K Sabharwal - Full Document

Heirs Of Bai Manchi W/O Gulabji Mohanji & ... vs State Of Gujarat & 13 on 5 May, 2017

6.10   In   support   of   the   submission   that   statutory  proceedings   are   required   to   be   conducted   before   a  person can be declared as a tenant by the competent  authority, reliance has been placed upon the case of  Dahyabhai   Somabhai   Vs.   Ramaji   Kesarji,  reported   in  1971 GLR 809, wherein this Court has held as below:
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - A Kumari - Full Document

Jay Atul Shah & 2 vs Arvindbhai Amrutbhai Patel & ... on 21 July, 2017

It has to be held therefore that the observations in Dahyabhai Somabhai (supra) do not lay down the proposition having any precedential value so as to accept the dictum on that basis that the authorities under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act are the courts subordinate to the High Court in the hierarchy for the purpose of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code, and therefore to view a revision being competent against the orders of such authorities.
Gujarat High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 25 - A S Dave - Full Document
1