Essar Bulk Terminal Limited vs Arcelormittal Nippon Steel India ... on 18 October, 2021
In case of Achutananda Baidya vs. Prafullya Kumar
Gayen and Others, reported in (1997) 5 SCC 76, Hon'ble Apex
Court has held in para 10 that:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 141 (2.92 seconds)Documents citing
Achutananda Baidya vs Prafullya Kumar Gayen And Ors on 8 April, 1997
G.Jayalakshmi vs M/S.Ramaniyam Real Estates (P) Ltd on 28 September, 2021
In Achutananda Baidya V. Prafullya Kumar Gayen (1997) 5
SCC 76 a two Judge Bench while dealing with the power of
superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 has opined that the
power of superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution is not confined to administrative superintendence only but
such power includes within its sweep the power of judicial review. The
10/19
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P. (PD) No.324 of 2019
power and duty of the High Court under Article 227 is essentially to
ensure that the courts and tribunals, inferior to the High Court, have done
what they were required to do. Law is well settled by various decisions of
this Court that the High Court can interfere under Article 227 of the
Constitution in cases of erroneous assumption or acting beyond its
jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on
record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law, arbitrary or
capricious exercise of authority or discretion, a patent error in procedure,
arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material, or
resulting in manifest injustice."
Sri H A Mukthiyar vs Sri Gopal Rao on 10 February, 2016
Looking to the principles enunciated in the said
decision also, it clearly shows that this Court can
interfere even in the writ proceedings, if the orders
passed by the Courts below are not in accordance with
law. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel
for the respondents that as there are concurrent
findings by the Courts below, hence, this Court cannot
30
interfere into the orders passed by the Courts below,
cannot be accepted at all.
Karan vs State Nct Of Delhi on 27 November, 2020
In Achutananda Baidya v. Prafullya Kumar Gayen, (1997) 5 SCC
76, the Supreme Court held that the High Court has both administrative as
well as judicial power of superintendence under Article 227 of the
Constitution. Relevant portion of the judgment is as under:
Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited vs Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd on 30 January, 2013
In Achutananda Bidaya v. Prafullya Kumar Gayen [(1997)
5 SCC 76] a two-Judge Bench while dealing with the power of
superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 has opined that
the power of superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution is not confined to administrative superintendence
only but such power includes within its sweep the power of judicial
review. The power and duty of the High Court under Article 227 is
essentially to ensure that the Courts and Tribunals, inferior to High
Court, have done what they were required to do. Law is well settled
by various decisions of this Court that the High Court can interfere
under Article 227 of the Constitution in cases of erroneous
assumption or acting beyond its jurisdiction, refusal to exercise
jurisdiction, error of law apparent on record as distinguished from a
mere mistake of law, arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or
discretion, a patent error in procedure, arriving at a finding which is
perverse or based on no material, or resulting in manifest injustice."
The Indian Medical Practitioners vs Dr.R.B.Ramamoorthy on 21 July, 2014
(viii) In (1997) 5 SCC 76 (Achutananda Baidya v. Prafullya Kumar Gayen and others), in paras-9 to 11, it was held as follows:
Nicco Corporation Ltd. vs Cethar Vessels Ltd. And Another on 4 July, 1997
48. As held in Achutananda Baidya v. Prafullya Kumar Gayen , while exercising the power under article 227 of the Constitution, if the evidence on record in respect of a question of fact is not at all taken into consideration and without reference to such evidence, the finding of fact is arrived at by an inferior court or tribunal, such finding must be held to be perverse and lacking in factual basis. In such circumstances, in exercise of the jurisdiction under article 227, the court will be competent to quash such perverse finding of fact.
Azam Baig vs M/S.Kalikambal Benefit Fund Limited on 11 February, 2011
In Achutananda Baidya v Prafullya Kumar Gayen and others (1997) 5 SCC 76, paragraph 10, which was emphasized by the learned counsel for the respondent is reproduced hereunder:
M. Viswanatham vs P.M. Prakash on 24 June, 2005
When on appreciation of the evidence the findings had been recorded such findings cannot be said to be perverse findings. On the aspect of bona fide personal requirement the main ground of attack is that the accommodation of double storied is available had been lost sight of and yet another ground of attack is that yet another building available at Baghlingampally, though standing in mother's name also had been lost sight of. On a careful scrutiny of findings recorded by both the Courts, these aspects also had been taken into consideration and findings had been recorded. Hence, the same cannot be said to be perverse findings. Hence, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Achutananda Baidya v. Prafullya Kumar Gayer, . may not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
Nagar Palika Nigam vs Safai Kamgar Sangh on 21 November, 2019
In Achutananda
Baidya v. Prafullya Kumar Gayen , it has been held
that power of superintendence under Article 227
includes within its concept the power of judicial
review. In our considered opinion when under Article
226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original
jurisdiction whether against a Tribunal or Inferior
Courts or Administrative Authorities.