Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)
Bisheshwar Singh vs The Subdivisional Magistrate And Ors. on 26 February, 1973 cites

Ramnath Prasad vs State Transport Appellate Authority ... on 7 August, 1956

7. No decision has been cited by learned counsel for the respondents. There is, however, a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ramnath Prasad v. State Transport Appellate Authority, Bihar, Patna, (AIR 1957 Pat 117) wherein the learned Judges held that it is well settled that a power of review is riot inherent in any authority and that the moment a right to decide is exercised the authority becomes functus officio, except for the matter of grave clerical error or mistake committed by the authority for which the authority is responsible. In this case the question involved was whether the Regional Transport Authority had any power to review its order passed earlier. Their Lordships held that under the statute and the rules it had no such power and apart from the statute there was no inherent power in the authority to review its order.
Patna High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 9 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Patna Electric Supply Workers Union vs A. Hassan And Anr. on 22 August, 1957

In Patna Electric Supply Workers' Union v. A. Hassan, 1957 BLJR 705 = (AIR 1958 Pat 427), another Bench decision of this Court the question for consideration was whether the Appellate Authority under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 could exercise inherent powers or like powers envisaged by Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') which have not been made applicable to the Act or to the Appellate Authority. The learned Judges held:
Patna High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 7 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

J.K. Iron And Steel Co. Ltd., Kanpur vs The Iron And Steel Mazdoor Union, ... on 23 December, 1955

It was further held that such an authority is not a court much less a civil court so as to enable them to exercise inherent powers. Reliance was placed, by the learned Judges on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of J. K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Kanpur v. The Iron and Steel Mazdoor Union, Kanpur, (AIR 1956 SC 231) where their Lordships were considering the scope and authority of an adjudicator under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 106 - V Bose - Full Document

Patel Narshi Thakershi And Ors. vs Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji on 2 March, 1970

In the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, (AIR 1970 SC 1273) their Lordships were considering the question whether the commissioner appointed as a delegate of the State Government under Section 63 of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act had the right to review an order passed by the Government. Their Lordships held in that connection as follows:--
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 565 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Inamati Mallappa Basappa vs Desai Basavaraj Ayyappa & Others on 22 April, 1958

In the case of Venkata Subbiah Chettiar, AIR 1924 Mad 797 (supra) while an election petition was pending before the District Judge under the Rules of Madras District Municipalities Act a petition had been filed purporting to be under Sections 94, 141, 151 and Order 39, Rule 2 of the Code and an order had been passed restraining the petitioner of that case from taking his seat in the Municipal Council until the disposal of the petition. One of the rules said that every election petition shall be enquired into by the Judge as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to the trial of suits. The argument before the learned Judge was that the District Judge had a residuary power which enabled him to pass the order. It was held that the District Judge had acted without jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 76 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Martin Burn Ltd vs R.N Banerjee on 20 September, 1957

In the case of Martin Burn Ltd. v. R. N. Banerjee, (AIR 1958 SC 79) one of the questions before their Lordships was whether the Labour Appellate Tribunal could review its own order. Their Lordships held that the Labour Appellate Tribunal is the creature of the statute and all its powers must be found within the four corners of the statute. Their Lordships then proceeded to examine the powers of the Tribunal given by the Act and held on that basis that the Tribunal had such power.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 162 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document
1   2 Next