Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.05 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003
66. We may also observe that in some High
Courts there is a tendency of entertaining
petitions under Article 227 of the
Constitution by terming them as writ
petitions. This is sought to be justified on an
erroneous appreciation of the ratio in Surya
Dev [Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai,
(2003) 6 SCC 675] and in view of the recent
amendment to Section 115 of the Civil
Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code
Patna High Court CWJC No.8813 of 2015 dt.04-09-2024
6/9
(Amendment) Act, 1999. It is urged that as a
result of the amendment, scope of Section
115 CPC has been curtailed. In our view,
even if the scope of Section 115 CPC is
curtailed that has not resulted in expanding
the High Court's power of superintendence.
It is too well known to be reiterated that in
exercising its jurisdiction, High Court must
follow the regime of law.
Radhey Shyam & Anr vs Chhabi Nath & Ors on 15 April, 2009
27. Thus, we are of the view that judicial
orders of civil courts are not amenable to a
writ of certiorari under Article 226. We are
also in agreement with the view [Radhey
Patna High Court CWJC No.8813 of 2015 dt.04-09-2024
7/9
Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC 616] of
the referring Bench that a writ of mandamus
does not lie against a private person not
discharging any public duty. Scope of Article
227 is different from Article 226.
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Shail vs Manoj Kumar And Ors on 29 March, 2004
In
Shail [Shail v. Manoj Kumar, (2004) 4 SCC
785 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1401], though reference
has been made to Surya Dev Rai [Surya Dev
Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675] ,
the same is only for the purpose of scope of
power under Article 227 as is clear from para
3 of the said judgment. There is no discussion
on the issue of maintainability of a petition
under Article 226.
M/S Mahendra Saree Emporium vs G.V. Srinivasa Murthy on 27 August, 2004
In Mahendra Saree
Emporium (2) [Mahendra Saree Emporium (2)
v. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy, (2005) 1 SCC 481] ,
reference to Surya Dev Rai [Surya Dev Rai v.
Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675] is made
Patna High Court CWJC No.8813 of 2015 dt.04-09-2024
8/9
in para 9 of the judgment only for the
proposition that no subordinate legislation can
whittle down the jurisdiction conferred by the
Constitution.
Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil ... vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2005
Similarly, in Salem Advocate Bar
Assn. (2) [Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) v.
Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344] in para 40,
reference to Surya Dev Rai [Surya Dev Rai v.
Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675] is for
the same purpose. We are, thus, unable to
accept the submission of the learned counsel
for the respondent.
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Waryam Singh And Another vs Amarnath And Another on 19 January, 1954
Scope of
Article 227 has been explained in several
decisions including Waryam Singh v. Amarnath
[AIR 1954 SC 215 : 1954 SCR 565] , Ouseph
Mathai v. M. Abdul Khadir [(2002) 1 SCC
319] , Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra
Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329 : (2010) 3
SCC (Civ) 338] and Sameer Suresh Gupta v.
Rahul Kumar Agarwal [(2013) 9 SCC 374 :