Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1119 (2.09 seconds)
Documents citing Nagendra Nath Bora & Another vs The Commissioner Of Hills Divisionand ... on 7 February, 1958

Gullapalli Nageswara Rao And Others vs Andhra Pradesh State Road ... on 5 November, 1958

As my learned brothers aforesaid have stated the relevant facts in detail, it is not necessary for me to repeat them, but as I differ from my learned brother Subba Rao, with whom some of my colleagues on the Constitution Bench have agreed, and for whose opinions, I have the greatest respect, I should state my reasons for differing from them and for agreeing with our brother Wanchoo. It may be taken as the settled view of this Court that the question whether a certain decision envisaged in a statute, is judicial or quasijudicial or only administrative in character, must de- pend upon the terms of the statute law itself, apart from any pre-conceived notions about the functions of a court or other tribunals vested with the duty and jurisdiction to decide controversies as a judicial body, vide Province of Bombay v. Kusaldas S. Advani (1), Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division(2) and Express Newspapers Limited v. Union of India (3).
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 319 - Full Document

Rt.Rev.Timothy Ravinder Dev Pradeep vs Rev.Charles Samraj.N on 16 December, 2021

17. From a reading of the above judgments which have been cited in the bar, it is clear, to my mind, that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is far more wider than the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the power of superintendence for the High Court can be used even to correct the errors which are patent or manifest. A meaningful reading of the above judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including those of the constitution bench judgments in Waryam Singh and another Vs. Amarnath and another and Nagendra Nath Bora and another Vs. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and others, it is clear that a discretion to exercise a 12/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Sr.Nos.109971 and 111067 of 2021 constitutional power/ power of superintendence deposited in it under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is with a Court. It is one thing to say that the Court will not exercise such power under certain circumstances and another to say that a party cannot approach a Court espousing a grievance.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

A.M. Shamsudeen And Ors. vs The Dist. Judge And Ors. on 5 March, 1990

...Power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors...." This statement of law was quoted with approval in the subsequent decision of this Court in Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commr. of Hills Division and it was pointed out by Sinha J. as he then was speaking on behalf of the Court in that case: "It is thus, clear that the powers of judicial interference under Article 227 of the Constitution with orders of judicial or quasi-judicial naure, are not greater than the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under Article 226 the power of interference may extend to quashing an impugned order on the ground of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. But under Article 227 of the Constitution the power of interference is limited to seeing that the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority.
Madras High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sandhi Mamad Kala vs State Of Gujarat on 14 September, 1972

19. The petitioner, however, relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Nagendra Nath v. Commissioner of Hills Division, to which we have already referred in another connection. We have set out the contention which was urged on behalf of the Commissioner before the Supreme Court in that case and we need not reiterate it once again. The Supreme Court while dealing with this contention made the following observations which are strongly relied upon on behalf of the petitioner:
Gujarat High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 270 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Superb vs Regional on 16 June, 2010

Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque 1955 (1) SCR 1104, Nagandra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals Assam 1958 SCR 1240 and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh AIR 1960 SC 1168).
Gujarat High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Thakur Prasad vs Beni Prasad (Now Deceased) & Others on 25 March, 2015

28.Learned members of the bar also submitted that as larger bench judgments, referred to above, particularly Province of Bombay Vs. Kusaldas S. Advani and others, Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and others, Shri Radeshyam Khare and another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others, Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others, Nagendra Nath Bora and another Vs. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and others, and Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. P.N. Sharma and another, have not been taken into consideration, therefore, the judgment of the Apex Court in Radhey Shyam's case is not binding.
Allahabad High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 1 - A K Mishra - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next