Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (2.01 seconds)
Documents citing Dilavarsinh Khodubha vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 19 August, 1994

Ishwarbhai Narottambhai Patel vs K.H. Trivedi And Ors. on 24 June, 2003

Having regard to the said decision, all the previous decisions of the Apex Court and also the decisions of this Court including the judgment of the Full Bench in Dilavarsinh Khodubha (supra) and the Division Bench judgment in Mohanbhai Ramjibhai (supra) will have to be read in light of the said decision of the Supreme Court in Kanhaiyalal Agrawal's case, (supra).
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - M S Shah - Full Document

Taluka Development Officer vs Rameshchandra M. Bhatt on 3 July, 2003

In Dilavarsinh's case (supra), the Full Bench of this Court was called upon to answer the question referred by the Division Bench whether a writ petition challenging the legality of an order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 is in substance a writ petition filed under Article 227 or only under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - A M Kapadia - Full Document

Gsrtc vs Pravin Joshi on 1 August, 2003

In Dilavarsinh Khodubha v. State of Gujarat and Ors., 1995 (1) GLR 110, a Full Bench of this Court was called upon to answer the question referred by the Division Bench whether a writ petition challenging the legality of an order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 is in substance a writ petition filed under Article 227 or only under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - A M Kapadia - Full Document

Patel Ambaram Kuberbhai vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 20 August, 1998

A Full Bench of this Court in Dilavarsinh Khodubha v. State of Gujarat (1995) 1 GLH 110 : AIR 1995 Guj 54 held that whenever a writ is sought, such a relief can be granted only under Article 226 of the Constitution as Article 227 does not contemplate issuance of any writ by a High Court. In view of this fact, in our opinion, the preliminary contention raised by Mr. Bukhari has no substance and cannot be upheld. The LPA is clearly maintainable.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 11 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Mohanbhai Ramjibhai vs Dy. Executive Engineer, Dharangadhra on 23 March, 1998

11. Relying upon a decision of Full Bench of this Court in Dilavarsinh Khodubha v. State of Gujarat, 1995 (1) GLR 110, Ms. Shah contended that after considering leading decisions on the point, the Full Bench observed that, if a prayer is made for issuance of any writ, direction or order, such prayer can only be granted in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution and not under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Full Bench, in paras 12 and 13 observed that a writ of certiorari might have been prayed by a petitioner against an order of a Tribunal or any other adjudicatory body. Such a power could be exercised by the High Court only under Article 226 of the Constitution. Article 227 of the Constitution does not talk of any writ in the nature of writ of habeas corpus, mandamus, etc. It only speaks of power of superintendence over subordinate Courts and inferior Tribunals. In the instant case, a writ was sought which could only be issued in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Gustadji vs Nevil on 5 May, 2011

In the said judgment it is furhter held that the Urban Land Tribunal under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 is the legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of the parties and has the duty to act judicially. The Full Bench held that against the orders as made by such Tribunal a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In other words, the aggrieved party would be justified in invoking the provisions of Article 226 for a writ of certiorari against the order made by the Urban Land Tribunal in exercise of the judicial functions conferred upon it by Section 33 of the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - S J Mukhopadhaya - Full Document

Jogendrasinhgji Vikaysinhji vs State Of Gujarat &Amp Ors on 6 July, 2015

2. As the factual matrix would unveil, the Division Bench that referred the matter to a larger Bench, noticed conflict in Revaben Wd/o. Ambalal Motibhai and others v. Vinubhai Purshottambhai Patel and others1 and Dilavarsinhsinh Khodubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat and others 2 and at that juncture framed two questions. The Special Bench adverted to the facts necessitating the reference in detail and took note of the preliminary objections of the learned counsel for the State as regards the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal on many a score and thereafter thought it appropriate to frame the questions afresh and accordingly it formulated questions.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - D Misra - Full Document

Jogendrasinhgji Vikaysinhji vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 6 July, 2015

2. As the factual matrix would unveil, the Division Bench that referred the matter to a larger Bench, noticed conflict in Revaben Wd/o. Ambalal Motibhai and others v. Vinubhai Purshottambhai Patel and others[1] and Dilavarsinhsinh Khodubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat and others[2] and at that juncture framed two questions. The Special Bench adverted to the facts necessitating the reference in detail and took note of the preliminary objections of the learned counsel for the State as regards the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal on many a score and thereafter thought it appropriate to frame the questions afresh and accordingly it formulated questions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 2 - D Misra - Full Document
1   2 3 Next