Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 383 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. vs Sukumar Mukherjee on 30 August, 1950

In Re: Annamalai Mudaliar vs Unknown on 3 September, 1952

--'Basant Lal v. Arjundas', AIR 1951 Vindh P. 4; or prevent miscarriage of justice: --'Jagannath v. Mt. Puniya', AIR 1952 Madh B 51; --'Mani Ram v. Jharmu', ; --'Mitra v. Datta Gupta',; --'Union of Workmen of R. S. N & I. G. N. & Rly Co Ltd v. R. S. N. Co Ltd', AIR 1951 Assam 96; --'Abdul Rahim v. Abdul Jabbar', 64 Cal WN 44b; Nor is Article 227 meant for correcting slight errors: -- 'Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee', (S.B.); --'State of West Bengal v. Durga Devi', AIR 1951 Cal 100, or to interfere in cases of mere failure to appreciate evidence on the part of a final tribunal.
Madras High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - 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

Arulmigu Akkaraipatti Ponkaliamman vs R.Periasamy on 2 January, 2023

10. The Chief Justice Harries in the Full Bench decision in the case of Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. vs. Sukumar Mukherjee, reported in AIR 1951 Calcutta 193 (SB) (B), stated the principles on which the High Court can exercise its power under Article 227 very succinctly which would better, quote : “Though this Court has a right to interfere with decisions of Courts and tribunals under its power of superintendence, it appears to me that that Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2036 of 2022 right must be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

Aegon Life Insurance Company Ltd vs Murti Devi on 22 December, 2023

"12. This power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries C.J., in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee [AIR 1951 Cal 193] , 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. As rightly pointed out by the Judicial Commissioner in the case before us the lower courts in refusing to make an order for ejectment acted arbitrarily. The lower courts realised the legal position but in effect declined to do what was by Section 13(2)(i) incumbent on them to do and thereby refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in them by law. It was, therefore, a case which called for an interference by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner and it acted quite properly in doing so. In our opinion there is no ground on which in an appeal by special leave under Article 136 we should interfere. The appeal, therefore, must stand dismissed with costs."
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next