Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.47 seconds)
M/S.K.P.Manish Global Ingredients ... vs Customs on 13 March, 2023 cites

R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad & ... vs Settlement Commission (It & Wt) & Anr on 27 January, 1989

14. The petitioner relies on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B.Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatechand Nursing Das V. Settlement Commission (It and Wt) and ors. (176 ITR 169). This is cited to say that once an application is filed, the petitioner/assessee must be heard even at the threshold to determine the question of maintainability of the application.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 151 - S Mukharji - Full Document

M.S.Kazi vs Muslim Education Society & Ors on 22 August, 2016

24.Upon a review of decided cases and a survey of the occasions wherein the High Courts have exercised jurisdiction to command a writ of certiorari or to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in the given facts and circumstances in a variety of cases, it seems that the distinction between the two jurisdictions stands almost obliterated in practice. Probably, this is the reason why it has become customary with the lawyers labeling their petitions as one common under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, though such practice has been deprecated in some judicial pronouncement. Without entering into niceties and technicality of the subject, we venture to state the broad general difference between the two jurisdictions. Firstly, the writ of certiorari is an exercise of its original jurisdiction by the High Court; exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is not an original jurisdiction and in this sense it is akin to appellate revisional or corrective jurisdiction. Secondly, in a writ of certiorari, the record of the proceedings having been certified and sent up by the inferior court or tribunal to the High Court, the High Court if inclined to exercise its jurisdiction, may simply annul or quash the proceedings and then do no more. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the High Court may not only quash or set aside the impugned proceedings, judgment or order but it may also make such directions as the facts and circumstances of the case may warrant, may be by way of guiding the inferior court or tribunal as to the manner in which it would now proceed further or afresh as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17679 of 2020 commended to or guided by the High Court. In appropriate cases the High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, may substitute such a decision of its own in place of the impugned decision, as the inferior court or tribunal should have made. Lastly, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is capable of being exercised on a prayer made by or on behalf of the party aggrieved; the supervisory jurisdiction is capable of being exercised suo motu as well.' Venkata Sai Ram Traders (supra) '18.Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the revenue referred to the decision in M.S.Kazi v. Muslim Education Society and others reported in MANU/SC/0921/2016 : (2016) 8 SCALE 139 (SC), wherein it was held that if the Settlement Commission is deleted from the array of parties, then the writ petition against the second respondent would not be maintainable. As it has been held in the said decision that an order passed by a Tribunal is capable of being tested in exercise of power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and when such a remedy is invoked, the Tribunal is not required to step into arena of conflict for defending its order and hence, the Tribunal is not a necessary party to the proceedings. Therefore, it is submitted that the Settlement Commission should not have been impleaded as the first respondent and if the Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad is the sole respondent, the writ petition is not maintainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 52 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1