Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)
Most. Shio Rano Devi And Ors vs Sri Rajendra Singh And Ors on 12 September, 2024 cites

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 (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 Patna High Court CWJC No.653 of 2016 dt.12-09-2024 7/10 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 3621 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

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 Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC 616] of Patna High Court CWJC No.653 of 2016 dt.12-09-2024 8/10 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 92 - Full Document

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 Patna High Court CWJC No.653 of 2016 dt.12-09-2024 9/10 Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675] is made in para 9 of the judgment only for the proposition that no subordinate legislation can whittle down the jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 71 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Durga Devi & Anr vs Vijay Kumar Poddar on 17 March, 2015

2. The learned counsel for the parties have pointed out, at the outset, that earlier writ petitions were being filed against the interlocutory orders (such orders which have not finally decided the suits or proceedings in favour of the parties and the suits or such proceedings have not stood disposed off), in view of the law laid down by the learned Division Bench of this Court in a judgment dated 13.05.2010, passed in C.R. no. 1067 of 2009 (Durga Devi v. Vijay Kumar Poddar & Ors.), however, subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court, by a judgment rendered in the case of Radhey Shyam and Another v. Chhabi Nath and Others, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423, has held that judicial orders of the Civil Court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Patna High Court CWJC No.653 of 2016 dt.12-09-2024 3/10 jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is distinct from the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Patna High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 10 - V Nath - Full Document
1