C.S. Agarwal vs State & Ors. on 29 July, 2011
In Dr. Jaidev Siddha Vs. Jaiprakash Siddha (supra), the
High Court followed the said principle observing as under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 48 (1.02 seconds)Manoj Kumar vs Board Of Revenue And Ors. on 2 November, 2007
86. (18) Thus, now only two implications arise from the order of the Apex Court and it is not open to this Court to examine the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Rama and Co. or by the Full Bench in the case of Dr. Jaidev Siddha and only option for this Court is to hold that the judgment of the Apex Court will hold the field, because any number of the Apex Court which is directly on the question to hold that writ appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in a petition challenging the order of the Tribunal is maintainable. Judgment rendered by the Full Bench in the case of Dr. Jaidev Siddha (supra), is per incuriam as the same was passed after decision of the Apex Court in SLP No. 9186/2007.
Kanchhedi Lal vs Presiding Officer And Anr. on 8 August, 2007
5. Resisting the aforesaid submission, Mr. Sanjay Verma, leaned Counsel for the appellant has commended us to the Full Bench decision of this Court rendere in Dr. Jaidev Siddha and Ors. V. Jaiprakash Siddha and Ors. 2007 (3) M.P.H.T. 388 (FB) : Writ Appeal No. 699/2007, decided on 19-7-2007).
Principal vs Lilaben on 13 June, 2012
Upholding the aforesaid ratio in Dr.Jaidev
Siddha (supra),
a Special Bench of Five Hon'ble Judges in Manojkumar
v. Board of Revenue and others [AIR 2008 MP 22]
expressed the majority view that maintainability of a writ appeal
from an order of learned single Judge would depend upon many an
aspect and cannot be put into a straitjacket formula. It cannot be
stated with mathematical exactitude but would depend upon the
pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the
learned single Judge, character and the contour of the order,
directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional
perspective in the constitutional context. It cannot be said in a
hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if
there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or
subordinate Courts, has to be treated all the time for all purposes
to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is to be
borne in mind that the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution are not confined to prerogative writs inasmuch as
it can issue directions, orders, writs and can mould the relief to
meet the peculiar requirements. It is a constitutional power
conferred on the High Court to see that no man is subject to
injustice by violation of law. In exercise of powers under this
Article, the High Court is expected to erase injustice and not to
make justice a by-product.
Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia Regional ... vs Shakila on 16 December, 2015
Keeping in view the judgments delivered by
this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Vs. Board
of Revenue and others reported in 2007 (4)
MPHT 545(FB), Jaidev Siddha Vs. Jaiprakash
Siddha reported in 2007 (3) MPLJ 595 and the
decision of Apex Court in the case of Ramesh
Chandra Sankla Vs. Vikram Cement reported
in AIR 2009 SC 713, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned Single Judge
was exercising power of superintendence under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India and,
therefore, remedy of intra-court appeal is not
available
In the light of the aforesaid, as it was purely
a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, the present writ appeal filed under
Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal)
Adhiniyam, 2005, is not at all maintainable.
Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia Regional ... vs Leela Bai on 16 December, 2015
Keeping in view the judgments delivered by
this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Vs. Board
of Revenue and others reported in 2007 (4)
MPHT 545(FB), Jaidev Siddha Vs. Jaiprakash
Siddha reported in 2007 (3) MPLJ 595 and the
decision of Apex Court in the case of Ramesh
Chandra Sankla Vs. Vikram Cement reported
in AIR 2009 SC 713, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned Single Judge
was exercising power of superintendence under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India and,
therefore, remedy of intra-court appeal is not
available
In the light of the aforesaid, as it was purely
a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, the present writ appeal filed under
Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal)
Adhiniyam, 2005, is not at all maintainable.
Superintendent Rajmata Vijaya Raje ... vs Smt. Hussaini Bee on 16 December, 2015
Keeping in view the judgments delivered by
this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Vs. Board
of Revenue and others reported in 2007 (4)
MPHT 545(FB), Jaidev Siddha Vs. Jaiprakash
Siddha reported in 2007 (3) MPLJ 595 and the
decision of Apex Court in the case of Ramesh
Chandra Sankla Vs. Vikram Cement reported
in AIR 2009 SC 713, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned Single Judge
was exercising power of superintendence under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India and,
therefore, remedy of intra-court appeal is not
available
In the light of the aforesaid, as it was purely
a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, the present writ appeal filed under
Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal)
Adhiniyam, 2005, is not at all maintainable.
Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia Regional ... vs Chatar Bai on 16 December, 2015
Keeping in view the judgments delivered by
this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Vs. Board
of Revenue and others reported in 2007 (4)
MPHT 545(FB), Jaidev Siddha Vs. Jaiprakash
Siddha reported in 2007 (3) MPLJ 595 and the
decision of Apex Court in the case of Ramesh
Chandra Sankla Vs. Vikram Cement reported
in AIR 2009 SC 713, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned Single Judge
was exercising power of superintendence under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India and,
therefore, remedy of intra-court appeal is not
available
In the light of the aforesaid, as it was purely
a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, the present writ appeal filed under
Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal)
Adhiniyam, 2005, is not at all maintainable.
Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia Regional ... vs Tulsa Bai on 16 December, 2015
Keeping in view the judgments delivered by
this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Vs. Board
of Revenue and others reported in 2007 (4)
MPHT 545(FB), Jaidev Siddha Vs. Jaiprakash
Siddha reported in 2007 (3) MPLJ 595 and the
decision of Apex Court in the case of Ramesh
Chandra Sankla Vs. Vikram Cement reported
in AIR 2009 SC 713, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned Single Judge
was exercising power of superintendence under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India and,
therefore, remedy of intra-court appeal is not
available
In the light of the aforesaid, as it was purely
a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, the present writ appeal filed under
Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal)
Adhiniyam, 2005, is not at all maintainable.
Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia Regional ... vs Smt. Kanchan Bai on 16 December, 2015
Keeping in view the judgments delivered by
this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Vs. Board
of Revenue and others reported in 2007 (4)
MPHT 545(FB), Jaidev Siddha Vs. Jaiprakash
Siddha reported in 2007 (3) MPLJ 595 and the
decision of Apex Court in the case of Ramesh
Chandra Sankla Vs. Vikram Cement reported
in AIR 2009 SC 713, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned Single Judge
was exercising power of superintendence under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India and,
therefore, remedy of intra-court appeal is not
available
In the light of the aforesaid, as it was purely
a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, the present writ appeal filed under
Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal)
Adhiniyam, 2005, is not at all maintainable.